City of Anaheim Housing Element
6thCycle: 2021-2029
DRAFT JUNE 2022
Table of Contents Page TOC-2
A.Table of Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Role of the Housing Element .........................................................................................................1-2 B. State Policy and Authorization.......................................................................................................1-3 SECTION 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics.............................................................................................................2-2 B. Employment Characteristics..........................................................................................................2-8 C. Household Characteristics ...........................................................................................................2-11 D. Housing Issues..............................................................................................................................2-16 E. Underserved, Vulnerable, and Special Needs Populations..........................................................2-20 F. Housing Stock Characteristics......................................................................................................2-36 SECTION 3: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND FAIR HOUSING A. Nongovernmental Constraints.......................................................................................................3-2 B. Governmental Constraints.............................................................................................................3-5 C. Environmental Constraints ..........................................................................................................3-52 D. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)..............................................................................3-62 E. Housing Resources.....................................................................................................................3-164 E. Financial Resources....................................................................................................................3-179 SECTION 4: HOUSING PLAN
A. Housing Policy Program.................................................................................................................4-2 B. Key Policy Considerations..............................................................................................................4-2 C. Housing Policy Strategy Areas........................................................................................................4-6
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance ………….……………………………………………………………………..………...A-1 Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis………….…………………………………………………………………………….............B-1 Appendix C: Community Outreach and Engagement …………………….……………………….……………………………C-1 Section 1
Introduction
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-2
Section1: Introduction
The Housing Element is a state mandated chapter of the Anaheim General Plan that sets forth an eightyear plan (housing cycle) to address the City’s identified housing needs. The Housing Element describes, identifies and analyzes the City’s housing needs; and addresses the maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to accommodate the households that currently live and/or are expectedto live in Anaheim in the housing cycle. Through research and analysis, the Housing Element identifies available candidate housing sites and establishes a Housing Policy Program to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, as determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and approved by the California State Department ofHousing andCommunity Development (HCD).
The Housing Element provides the following:
• Introduction to the Housing Element (Section 1: Introduction) • Overview of City’s housing and population (Section 2: Community Profile) • Analysis of opportunities and barriers that affect housing (Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Affirmatively FurtheringFairHousing)
• Policies toaddress the City’s housing needs and comply with State law (Section 4: Housing Policy Program).
• Review of the City’s implementation of the 2014-2021 Housing Element (Appendix A: Review of Past Performance of the Fifth Cycle Housing Element)
• Identification of sites to accommodate the RHNA (Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis) • Summary of the community engagement efforts that the City used to engage the public in the development of the Housing Element (AppendixC: Community Outreach and Engagement).
In February 2014, the Anaheim City Council adopted the Housing Element for the 2014-2021 planning period, referred to as the Fifth Cycle. This Housing Element will guide future decision-making related to housing for the 2021-2029 planning period, referredto asthe Sixth Cycle.
A. Role of the Housing Element
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-3
1. Background
As a State mandatedchapter of the Anaheim General Plan, the Housing Element must meet all applicable State law requirements. Consistent with State law, it is the City’s intent to implement the Housing Element’s Housing Policy Program pursuant to all identified and required timelines.
2. State Requirements
California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for updating a Housing Element. State Law requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element once every eight years.
The California Legislature has adopted an overall housing goal for the State to ensure every resident has a decent home and suitable living environment. Section 65580 of the California Government Code states:
a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
b) The early attainment ofthis goalrequires cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californiansin all economic levels.
c) The provisions of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of the government.
d) Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.
The following Table 1-1 summarizes the State Housing Element requirements and identifies the Sections in this document that addressthese requirements.
B. State Policy and Authorization
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-4
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section Reference in Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends Section 65583.a Section 2.B.1 Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income groups
Section 65583.a Section 3.D
Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing
characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay, overcrowding, and housing condition
Section 65583.a Section 2.C, D, F
An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacantsites and sites having redevelopment
potential
Section 65583.a Section 3.D
Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels
Section 65583.a Section 3.B
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental (private sector) constraints upon maintenance, improvement or
development of housing for all income levels
Section 65583.a Section 3.A
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless Section 65583.a Section 2.E.7 Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large families, farm workers, and female-headed households Section 65583.a Section 2.E Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development Section 65583.a Section 3.E.2 Identification of Publicly AssistedHousing
Developments Section 65583.a Section 3.C.7
Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to
Market Rate Housing Section 65583.a Section 3.C.7
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing Section 65583.a Section 4 Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing Section 65583.b Section 4 Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate actionwith required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels Section 65583.c(1) Appendix B
Identification of strategiesto assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderateincome households Section 65583.c(2) Section 3
Description of the Public Participation Program in the
formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs Section 65583.d Appendix C Description of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the SouthernCalifornia Association of
Governments
Section 65583.e Section 3
Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively FurtheringFair Housing Section 8899.50 Section 3
Review of the effectiveness of the past Element, including the City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period Section 65583.f Appendix A Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-5
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Section 65583 of the California Government Code sets forth the specific content requirements of a jurisdiction’s housing element. Included in these requirements are obligations on the part of local jurisdictions to accommodate their “fair share” of regional housing needs. State law requires Councils of Governments (COGs) to determine and allocate existing and future housing need to local jurisdictions within their region. The COG submits this analysis and allocation of housing need to the State (HCD) for approval, prior to its final distribution to the local jurisdictions. This process is the RegionalHousing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. Anaheim is a member agency of SCAG, the COG responsible for preparing the RHNAallocation for all jurisdictions within the SCAGregion.
HCD established that the planning period for the current RHNA is from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029. For the 2021-2029 planning period, SCAG has allocated the City a total of 17,453 housing units, including 3,767 units affordable to very low-income households, 2,397 units affordable to low-income, 2,945 units affordable to moderate-income, and 8,344 units affordable to above-moderate (market-rate) income households.
4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The Housing Element, including its Housing Policy Program, relates to, and is consistent with, the other Elements of the Anaheim General Plan, which the City Council last comprehensively updated in 2004. The General Plan is a dynamic document that the City Council amends on an ongoing basis to comply with State law requirements, reflect land use planning efforts such as individual development proposals and specific plans, and provide consistencywith other planning efforts, suchas the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.
The City Council has amended the General Plan over 75 timessince its comprehensive update in 2004.
The Housing Elementsupports and reinforces residential development policies contained in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses throughout the City, and defines these land uses build-out potential. By designating residential development, the Land Use Element identifies limits for densities and types of housing units constructed in the City. It also identifies lands designated for a range of other land uses, including employmentgenerating uses, open space, and public uses. The presence and potential for jobs can affect the current and future local demand for housing atthe various income levels in the City.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan also relates to the Housing Element. The Circulation Element establishes a transportation plan to accommodate the movement of people and goods within and through the City. Consequently, the Housing Element must include policies and incentives that consider the types of infrastructure essential for residential housing units, in addition to mitigating the effects of growth in the City.
Upon approval of the Housing Element, the City Council will initiate amendments to other elements of the General Plan to resolve any inconsistencies and to update and/or create new elements, which State law requires the City to update/create with the update of the Housing Element. These elements include, but are not limited to, the Land Use, Circulation, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-6
5. Public Participation [Updated as we proceed]
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that, "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the programshall describe this effort." Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Below is a summary of the opportunities thatthe Cityprovided for public participation.
As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City has conducted extensive public outreach activities beginning in 2021. These outreach efforts included City Council, Planning Commission and Housing and Community Development Commission Workshops; Community Workshops; Housing Element Update Committee meetings, whichwere open to the public; and e-mail and social media blasts.
Project materials, including summaries from community workshops and public meetings, notices, and draft public review documents are available on the City’s website.
Outreachfor the Sixth Cycle Housing Element to the community, includes the following actions:
• Housing Element Update webpage with all housing materials available in Englishand Spanish, located at https://www.anaheim.net/5848/2021-2029-Housing-Element-Update. • Formation of a Housing Element Update Committee (HEUC), which held monthly meetings from March 18, 2021- to September 9, 2021. In addition, HEUC held an additional meeting on ,TBD 2022. HEUC meetings were open to the public and the agenda included time for the HEUC to receive public comments.
• VirtualCommunity Workshop #1, (virtual) was held on March 24, 2021 and the recorded presentation posted to the City’swebsite.
• Online Community Survey, which was available from March24, 2021 to June 13, 2021. • Community Workshop #2, (in-person) was held on June 30, 2021 and the presentationpostedto the City’s website.
• Two Planning CommissionWorkshops, were held on August 16, 2021 and September 27, 2021. • Two Housing and Community Development Commission Workshops, were held on August 18, 2021 and September 15, 2021.
• Two CityCouncil Workshops, were held on August 24, 2021 and September 28, 2021. • Community Workshop #3, (in-person) was held on September 2, 2021. • A Public Review Draft of the Housing Element, was posted on the City’s webpage on August 26, 2021. As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council.
• City Council Meeting, at its meeting on October 5, 2021 directed to approve the Planning and Building Director submittingto submit the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element to HCD. • The revised draft of the Housing Element was posted on the City’s website and the link to the revised draft of the Housing element was emailed to all individuals and organizations that have previously provided written comments on the City’s draft Housing Element, including those that requested to be notified, seven days prior to the City’s resubmittal of the document to HCD), in compliance with Government Code Section 65585(b)(1).
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-7
• Planning Commission/City Council Public Hearings for Adoption TBD Appendix C contains a detailed summary of theall public outreach activities, along with a summary of public comments that the City received during the Housing Element update process.
Section 1: Introduction [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 1-8
6. Data Sources
The data usedfor the completion of this Housing Element comesfroma varietyofsources. These include:
• 2010 and 2020 Decennial Censuses (U.S. Census Bureau) • 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, “Connect SoCal” (Southern California Association of Governments)
• 2020-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report - 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy, “Connect SoCal” (Southern California Association of Governments)
• 2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2012-2016, 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)
• 2018-2028 Long-Term Occupational Employment Projections (California Employment Development Department)
• 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
• 2019-2020 Total Annual Expenditures and Authorized Services by Ethnicity and Race Report (Regional Center of Orange County)
• 2017 National Agriculture Statistics – Hired Farm Labor (U.S. Department of Agriculture) • 2019 Point-in-Time Final Report, “Everyone Counts” (County of Orange) • 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
• 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 One-Year American Community Surveys (U.S. Census Bureau) • 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule (Orange County Housing Authority) • 2021 State Income Limits (California Department of Housing and Community Development) • 2021 Building Valuation Data (International Code Council) • 2021 California Construction Cost Index (Department of General Services) • 2021 Housing Market Forecast (California Association of Realtors) • 2020 Disposition of Applications by Income, Race, and Ethnicity, MSA/MD Aggregate Reports (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)2020-2024 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (Orange County)
• 2010 Decennial Census data analysis by CensusScope (Social Science Data Analysis Network) • 2009-2013 and 2021 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
• 2014 Regional Opportunity Index (UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank) • 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score (California Department of Housing and Community Development)
• 2019 AllTransit Data (Center for Neighborhood Technology) • 2021 Draft CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Data (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) • 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) • 2021 Market Rate Rents (Kimley-Horn and Associates; Zumper Median Market Rent) • 2015 and 2018 Demographics (Esri)
These data sources represent the best data available at the time this Housing Element Update was prepared. The originalsource documents containthe assumptions andmethods usedto compile the data.
Section 2
Community Profile
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-2 Section 2: CommunityProfile
The Community Profile provides an overview of City’s housing and population conditions, which are the foundation for the Housing Element’s Housing Policy Program. The City of Anaheim strives to achieve a balanced housing stock that meets the varied needs of all income segments of the community. To understand the housing needs in Anaheim, the City must comprehensively evaluate the nature of the existing housing stock and the housing market. This Section of the Housing Element discusses the major components of the housing needs in Anaheim, including population, household, economic conditions, and housing stock characteristics. Each of these components is presented in a regional context, and, where relevant, in the context of other nearby communities. This assessment is an important factor in informing and determining the City’s Housing Policy Program.
Understanding the characteristics of a population is vital in the process of planning for future housing needs. Population growth, age composition, and race/ethnicity influence the type and extent of housing needed and the ability of the local population to afford housing costs. Issues such as population growth, race, ethnicity, age, and employment trends are factors that combine to influence the type of housing needed and the ability to afford housing. The following section analyzes the various population characteristics andtrendsthat affect housing need.
1. Population Growth
Table 2-1 providesthe actual population in 2010 and 2020 from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census for Anaheim and its surrounding cities. The table then compares population growth projections through 2030, as calculated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report of “Connect SoCal,” the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG forecasts that the City’s population will increase by
12.28 percent from 2020 through 2030. Population projections are critical to the planning of housing in order to meet the needs of both current and future Anaheim residents.
Table 2-1:Population Growth
Jurisdiction
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2020
Actual
2030
Projected
2010-2020
Actual
2020-2030
Projected
Buena Park 80,530 84,034 91,500 4.35% 8.88%
Cypress 47,802 50,151 51,500 4.91% 2.69%
Placentia 50,533 51,824 57,400 2.55% 10.76%
Santa Ana 324,528 310,227 362,600 -4.41% 16.88%
Stanton 38,186 37,962 43,400 -0.59% 14.32%
Fullerton 135,161 143,617 151,600 6.26% 5.56%
Orange 136,416 139,911 151,800 2.56% 8.50%
Anaheim 336,265 346,824 389,400 3.14% 12.28%
Yorba Linda 64,234 68,336 71,100 6.39% 4.04%
Garden Grove 170,883 171,949 185,200 0.62% 7.71%
Orange County 3,010,232 3,186,989 3,440,800 5.87% 7.96% Source: 2010 Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau), 2020 Decennial Census (U.S. Census Bureau, and 2020-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Connect SoCal (Southern California Association of Governments).
A. Population Characteristics
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-3
5.0%
2. Age Characteristics
The age composition of a community affects housing needs because the preferences of certainage groups often influence housing demand. As individuals andfamilies move throughdifferent stages oflife, housing is required to accommodate new or adjusted needs. To produce a well-balancedand healthy community, a community must provide appropriate housing to accommodate needs of all ages.
In 2010, those aged 5-19 years made up the largest percentage of Anaheim residents. In 2019, those between 20 and 34 of age made up the largest percent of the residential population Figure 2-1 showsthat between 2010 and2019 the general age ofthe population has been increasing. While Anaheim has a large young population with those under 34 years old being 50.8 percent of the population; the percentage of children and young adults under 19 is on the decline, from 31.3 percent in 2010 to 26.6 percent in 2019.
Persons over the age of 50 have increased from 23.8 percent in 2010 to 28.9 percent in 2019.
Figure 2-1: Age Characteristics
30.0%
25.0%
Years
2010 8.0% 23.3% 23.0% 22.0% 14.7% 9.1%
2015 7.2% 21.2% 23.6% 21.0% 16.7% 10.2%
2019 6.5% 20.1% 24.2% 20.2% 17.3% 11.6%
2010 2015 2019
Source: 2006-2010 Five-Year American Community Survey, 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey, and 2015-2019 FiveYear American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-2 compares the age distribution of residents in Anaheim, OrangeCounty, and surrounding cities.
The City’s largest population cohort is between 20 and 34 years of age (24.2 percent). The City also has a large population between 35 and 49 years of age and between 5 and 19 years of age (20.2 and 20.1 percent, respectively). 11.6 percent of the City’s population is age 65 and over, the lowest of all the surrounding Cities except Santa Ana. The data suggests age distribution estimatesforAnaheim are similar to surrounding cities.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-4 Table 2-2: Comparative Age Distribution
Jurisdiction Under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 49 50 to 64 65 or Over Buena Park 6.1% 18.4% 22.7% 20.3% 19.5% 13.0%
Cypress 4.8% 19.9% 16.7% 22.0% 21.5% 15.1%
Placentia 5.8% 20.0% 21.4% 19.2% 19.1% 14.3%
Santa Ana 7.4% 22.1% 25.3% 20.2% 15.8% 9.0%
Stanton 7.3% 20.8% 22.1% 20.8% 17.0% 12.1%
Fullerton 6.4% 18.4% 24.6% 19.1% 18.2% 13.3%
Anaheim 6.5% 20.1% 24.2% 20.2% 17.3% 11.6%
Orange (City) 6.1% 18.8% 24.8% 19.5% 18.8% 12.3%
Yorba Linda 5.1% 20.1% 14.4% 18.8% 23.9% 17.9%
Garden Grove 5.1% 18.9% 21.7% 19.8% 20.3% 14.3%
County of Orange 5.9% 18.9% 21.1% 20.1% 19.6% 14.4%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey.
3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
Racial and ethnic identity may contribute to housing needs due to varying household characteristics, income levels, andculturalpreferences, whichmay affect housing need, housing choice and housing type.
Figure 2-2 shows the percentage of residents that self-identify their racial category and whether they additionally identify with a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. According to the American Community Survey,
54.3 percent ofresidents identify as having a Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin in addition to a self-identified racial category. American Indian/Alaska Natives andNative Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders comprise the lowest percentage ofresidents. The proportion ofresidents identifying with a Hispanic or Latino ethnicity in Anaheim is 54.3 percent compared to 34.1 percent in Orange County as a whole. The proportion of residents that identify with the White-Alone racial category in Anaheim is 24.2 percent compared to 40.6 percent within Orange County as a whole. The proportion of residents that identify with the Black or African American-Alone racial category represents 2.5 percent of the City’s population compared to 1.6 percent within Orange County as a whole. Residents that identify with the Asian-Alone racial category in Anaheim is 16.6 percent compared to 20.3 percent within Orange County as a whole.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-5 Figure 2-2: Racial and Ethnic Composition
*Of any race.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey.
Table 2-3 describes racial and ethnic composition for Anaheim and nearby cities. The table shows that four of the cities adjacent to Anaheim (Buena Park, Santa Ana, Stanton and Garden Grove), and Anaheim, have a majority Hispanic or Latino population. Placentia has a population with the same majority percentage (39.2%) of their population that is Hispanic/Latino or White. The remaining four adjacent cities (Cypress, Orange, Fullerton and Yorba Linda) and Orange County have a majority White population.
Less than a quarter of Anaheim’s population identifies as White. Over half of the City’s population identify as having Hispanic or Latino origin. The City has a greater concentration of Hispanic or Latino residents (54.3 percent) than Orange County (36.4 percent) or any of the surrounding cities excluding Santa Ana (76.8 percent). American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders represent the smallest population groups with neither exceeding one percent in any of the listed cities.
Hispanic
or Latino*
White
Alone
Asian
Alone
Black or
African
American
Alone
Two or
More
Races
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
Alone
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Alone
Some
Other
Race
Alone
Anaheim 54.3% 24.2% 16.6% 2.5% 1.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1%
County of Orange 34.1% 40.6% 20.3% 1.6% 2.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-6 Table 2-3: Racial/Ethnic Composition
Jurisdiction White
Alone
Black or
African
American
Alone
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Alone
Asian
Alone
Native
Hawaiianor
Other
Pacific
Islander
Alone
Some
Other
Race
Alone
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino*
Buena Park 23.6% 2.9% 0.3% 32.0% 0.9% 0.1% 2.3% 37.9%
Cypress 36.3% 3.8% 0.2% 34.9% 0.3% 0.5% 3.9% 20.2%
Placentia 39.2% 1.9% 0.0% 16.9% 0.1% 0.2% 2.5% 39.2%
Santa Ana 9.4% 1.0% 0.1% 11.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 76.8%
Stanton 18.1% 1.1% 0.7% 29.3% 0.8% 0.2% 2.0% 47.8%
Fullerton 32.8% 2.3% 0.2% 24.1% 0.2% 0.1% 3.1% 31.5%
Anaheim 24.2% 2.5% 0.2% 16.6% 0.4% 0.1% 1.8% 54.3%
Orange (City) 44.6% 1.6% 0.2% 11.8% 0.4% 0.1% 2.4% 38.9% Yorba Linda 58.4% 1.3% 0.1% 20.6% 0.1% 0.1% 3.0% 16.5%
Garden Grove 19.5% 0.9% 0.3% 41.1% 0.3% 0.1% 1.5% 36.4% County of
Orange 40.6% 1.6% 0.2% 20.3% 0.3% 0.2% 2.8% 34.1%
* Of any race.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey.
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3 show changes to racial and ethnic composition of Anaheim residents between 2010 and 2019. The population who self-identified as White experienced the greatest population loss between2010 and2015 (2.2 percent), andthe White population decreased again between 2015 and 2019 (2.5 percent). The City’s population who identify as Hispanic or Latino increased by 2.5 percent from 2010 to 2019; this was the greatest population increase of any population group. The population identifying as Asian increased by 1.9 percent between these three survey years. Overall, majority of the different racial and ethnic populations within the City remained stable in population from 2010 to 2019.
Table 2-4: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition
Race/Ethnicity 2010 2015 2019
Percent Change Percent
Change
2010 to 2015 2015 to
2019
White Alone 28.8% 26.7% 24.2% -2.2% -2.5%
Black or African American Alone 2.4% 2.2% 2.5% -0.3% 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Asian Alone 14.7% 15.8% 16.6% 1.1% 0.8%
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander Alone 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Some Other Race Alone 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% -0.1% 0.0%
Two or More Races 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 0.2% 0.1%
Hispanic or Latino* 51.8% 53.1% 54.3% 1.3% 1.2%
*Of any race.
Source: 2006-2010 Five-Year American Community Survey, 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey, and 2015- 2019 Five- Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-7 Alaska
Hawaiian
Other
Figure 2-3: Changes in Racial and Ethnic Composition
Alone
2010 28.8% 2.6% 0.4% 14.8% 0.4% 18.7% 2.7% 51.8%
2015 26.7% 2.3% 0.3% 16.0% 0.4% 9.6% 3.2% 53.1%
2019 24.2% 2.5% 0.2% 16.6% 0.4% 0.1% 1.8% 54.3%
*Of any race.
Source: 2006-2010 Five-Year American Community Survey, 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey, and 2015-2019 FiveYear American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Hispanic
or
Latino*
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-8 Reporting and analyzing the employment characteristics of a community provides valuable information on the City’s workforce to access the housing market. Incomes associated with different types of employment, and the number of workers in a household, affect housing affordability and choice.
Therefore, to consider a healthy balance between jobs and housing, the Housing Element considers the City’s employment characteristics. The paper, “Job Creation and Housing Construction: Constraints on Metropolitan Area Employment Growth,” by Raven Saks (2005), has shown a link between local employment growth and local housing demand.
1. Employment and Wage Scale
Employment characteristics within a city can directly affect housing need and trends. Employment and income affect the ability of the population to purchase housing and may influence the types of housing they are able to purchase. Table 2-5 summarizes employment growth forecasts for Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions in Orange County from 2016 to 2045. This data is from SCAG’s Demographics andGrowth Forecast Technical Report of “Connect SoCal.” SCAG forecasts that Anaheim will experience an employment growth of 27 percent (53,300 new jobs) between 2016 and 2045. Anaheim’s employment growth rate is higher than what SCAG has forecast for Orange County, and most of the surrounding cities, and less than the growth that SCAG has forecast for Fullerton (35.1 percent).
Table 2-5: Employment Growth Trends
Jurisdiction 2016 2045
% Change Numeric Change
2016-2045 2016-2045
Buena Park 33,600 38,200 13.7% 4,600
Cypress 27,500 30,600 11.3% 3,100
Placentia 19,900 21,500 8.0% 1,600
Santa Ana 162,900 172,400 5.8% 9,500
Stanton 9,100 10,300 13.2% 1,200
Fullerton 63,200 85,400 35.1% 22,200
Anaheim 197,200 250,500 27.0% 53,300
Orange (City) 123,000 131,300 6.7% 8,300
Yorba Linda 17,400 19,300 10.9% 1,900
Garden Grove 57,800 68,200 18.0% 10,400
County of Orange 1,710,000 1,980,000 15.8% 270,000
Source: 2020-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Connect SoCal (Southern California Association ofGovernments).
Analyzing trends in employment by industry helps to understand income wages and housing needs. The 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (2019 5-year ACS) estimated that the number of employed people in Anaheim was 175,838 in 2019. Table 2-6 shows 2019 5-year ACS employment data for Anaheim by sector. The industry with the highest percentage of employment in Anaheim in 2019 was the Education Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance industry at 18.2 percent. Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services industry also employed a relatively high percentage of the City at 13.6 percent.
B. Employment Characteristics
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-9 Table 2-6: Employment by Sector in Anaheim
Industry People Employed
Percent of City
Employed Population
16 Years
and Over
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 848 0.5% Construction 13,783 7.8%
Manufacturing 22,167 12.6%
Wholesale trade 6825 3.9%
Retail trade 18,731 10.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 7,407 4.2% Information 3202 1.8%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and
leasing 11343 6.5%
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste managementservices 22,224 12.6% Educational services, and health care and social assistance 32,079 18.2% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation
and food services 23,853 13.6%
Other services, except public administration 8,613 4.9% Public administration 4,763 2.7%
Total Employed 175,838 100.0%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey.
Analyzing the unemployment rate helps the City to determine current and future housing affordability and needs. According to 2019 5-year ACS, Anaheim sharesthe secondlargest unemployment(5.2 percent) rate with the City of Buena Park, when compared to neighboring cities and Orange County, both trailing Fullerton (6.5 percent). The City of Yorba Linda has the lowest unemployment rate (3.6 percent) listed in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7: Unemployment Rate
Jurisdiction
Total
Unemployment
Rate
Buena Park 5.2%
Cypress 4.2%
Placentia 4.1%
Santa Ana 5.1%
Stanton 4.6%
Fullerton 6.5%
Anaheim 5.2%
Orange (City) 4.4%
Yorba Linda 3.6%
Garden Grove 4.5%
County of Orange 4.6%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-10 Orange County’s median income for 2021 is $106,700, according to the Housing and Community Development State Income Limits for 2021. Table 2-8 shows the occupations in Anaheim that fall below 50 percent of this amount. These occupations include Protective Service Occupations; Office and Administrative Support Occupations; Transportation and Material Moving Occupations; Production Occupations Sales and Related Occupations; Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations; Personal Care and Service Occupations; Healthcare Support Occupations; Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations; Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations. Therefore, in orderfor these employees to live in Anaheim, the City would need to facilitate housing for moderate and lower income households.
Table 2-8: Average Salary by Occupation in Anaheim
Occupation Annual Salary
Occupational Therapists $96,676
Management Occupations $ 124,158
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $92,080 Legal Occupations $111,887
Architecture and Engineering Occupations $91,796
Computer and Mathematical Occupations $ 91,533
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $82,951
Occupational Therapy Assistants $75,190
Business and Financial Operations Occupations $72,759
Education, Training, and Library Occupations $60,130
Construction and Extraction Occupations $58,307
Community and Social Service Occupations $51,921
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $52,114 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $55,157 Protective Service Occupations $38,388
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $42,964
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $31,774
Production Occupations $35,768
Sales and Related Occupations $34,774
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $31,603 Personal Care and Service Occupations $29,613
Healthcare Support Occupations $30,171
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $27,895 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $31,978
Source: 2018-2028 Long-Term Occupational Employment Projections (California Employment Development Department).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-11 This section analyzes household trends for Anaheim and provides useful information for planning the future housing needs of the City. A household consists of a house and its occupants. This could include single occupants, families, or unrelated people sharing a housing unit. The analysis in this section measures financial housing statistics such as income, affordability, and special needs groups at the household level. Special needs groups may include large families, single parent households, or low and extremely low-income households. These groups often present unique housing conditions and relate to certainpolicies within Section 4: Housing Plan.
1. Household Type and Size
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-4 displays 2019 5-year ACS data on household characteristics for Anaheim and neighboring cities. The ACS reported 101,658 households in Anaheim as of 2019.Of thesehouseholds, just over halfaremarried-couple family households (51.9percent)and 26.1 percent arenon-family households.
Non-family households include persons living alone and persons living with roommates. Female-headed households without a spouse present also represent just under 16 percent of the Anaheim households.
In comparison to nearby cities, the City of Anaheim has the second lowest percent of Married-Couple Family households (51.9 percent) behind the City of Stanton (48.0 percent). Orange County has an estimated 54.9 percent Married-Couple Family households. Anaheim’s percentage of Female headed households without a spouse present is higherthan the average of the surrounding cities at 15.6 percent.
This is approximately 1.5 percent less than Santa Ana, which has the highest at 17.1 percent and 8.2 percent more than Yorba Linda which has the lowest at 7.4 percent.
Table 2-9: Household Characteristics
Jurisdiction
MarriedCouple
Family
Households
% of Total
Households
FemaleHH,
No
Spouse
Present
% of Total
Households
Non-Family
Households
% of Total
Households
Total
Households
Buena Park 14,050 59.3% 3,818 16.1% 4,286 18.1% 23,680
Cypress 9,686 61.8% 2,392 15.3% 2,993 19.1% 15,684
Placentia 9,663 58.3% 2,014 12.1% 3,930 23.7% 16,583
Santa Ana 42,486 55.4% 13,137 17.1% 14,031 18.3% 76,624 Stanton 5,413 48.0% 1,897 16.8% 3,049 27.0% 11,282
Fullerton 23,855 52.1% 5,588 12.2% 13,818 30.2% 45,814
Anaheim 52,747 51.9% 15,889 15.6% 26,539 26.1% 101,658
Orange
(City)
24,227 56.2% 5,114 11.9% 11,555 26.8% 43,075
Yorba Linda 16,142 71.3% 1,687 7.4% 3,907 17.3% 22,649
Garden
Grove
26,255 55.0% 7,074 14.8% 10,396 21.8% 47,761
County of
Orange
569,260 54.9% 119,719 11.5% 293,481 28.3% 1,037,492
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
C. Household Characteristics
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-12 Figure 2-4: Household Characteristics
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-10 summarizes household changes from 2010 through 2019. Married-Couple Family Households experienced the only decrease (0.6 percent). All other household types increased, with Householders 65 Years and Older experiencing the largest increase (25.9 percent).
Table 2-10: Changes in Household Type
Household Type 2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2019 Percent
Percent
Change
2010-
2019
Married-Couple
Family Households 53,078 53.5% 52,902 53.1% 52,747 51.9% -0.6% Female Households,
No Spouse Present 15,717 15.8% 15,679 15.7% 15,889 15.6% 1.1% Non-Family
Households 24,251 24.4% 24,508 24.6% 26,539 26.1% 9.4%
Householders 65
Years and Older 7,049 7.1% 5,980 6.0% 8,878 8.7% 25.9%
Total Households 99,283 -- 99,670 -- 101,658 -- --
Source: 2006-2010 Five-Year American Community Survey, 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey, and 2015-2019 FiveYear American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
The SCAG Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast provides estimated household figures by jurisdiction between 2016 and 2045, as shown in Table 2-11. According tothisforecast, the City of Anaheim will have a household growth higher than that of Orange County, and larger than any surrounding cities. Yorba Linda households are estimated to increase the least at four percent, which is approximately17 percent lessthanhouseholds in Anaheim are estimatedtoincrease.
Married-Couple Householder 65
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-13 Table 2-11: Household GrowthForecast by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction 2016 2045
% Change Numeric Change
2016-2045 2016-2045
Buena Park 24,200 28,600 18.2% 4,400
Cypress 15,800 16,600 5.1% 800
Placentia 16,600 18,800 13.3% 2,200
Santa Ana 73,900 80,100 8.4% 6,200
Stanton 10,800 12,300 13.9% 1,500
Fullerton 46,400 52,900 14.0% 6,500
Anaheim 101,100 122,700 21.4% 21,600
Orange (City) 43,700 48,700 11.4% 5,000
Yorba Linda 22,400 23,300 4.0% 900
Garden Grove 46,300 49,200 6.3% 2,900
County of Orange 1,025,000 1,154,000 12.6% 129,000
Source: 2020-2045 Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Connect SoCal (Southern California Association of Governments).
Table 2-12 displays average household size for Anaheim compared to nearby cities. Anaheim has an average household size of 3.39 in 2019. Anaheim’s average household size is the fourth largest of neighboring cities. Santa Ana has the highest average household size at 4.28 persons per household. More persons per householdrequire larger housing units; additionally, there are affordability and overcrowding factorsto consider for larger households.
Table 2-12: Average Household Size by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Average Persons
per Household
Buena Park 3.45
Cypress 3.11
Placentia 3.09
Santa Ana 4.28
Stanton 3.38
Fullerton 2.97
Anaheim 3.39
Orange (City) 3.08
Yorba Linda 2.98
Garden Grove 3.58
County of Orange 3.01
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
2. Household Income
There is a direct connection between household income and housing affordability. The ability to afford a housing unit typically increases as household income increases. This may include increased access to a larger sized unit and/or the ability to move from a rental to an ownership opportunity. However, lower income households are more likely to require a disproportionate amount of their income toward housing costs. This may influence other housing challengessuchas overcrowding orsubstandardliving conditions.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-14 The California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the following income categories, based on the Median Family Income (MFI). For Anaheim, State law bases the MFI on the MFI for Orange County:
• Very Low-Income: households earning between0 and 50 percent of the MFI • Low-Income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the MFI • Moderate Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the MFI • Above Moderate Income: households earning over 120 percent of the MFI State law also defines extremely low-income as households earning 30 percent or less of the MFI and considers this income group a subset of the very low-income category. Combined, State law and this Housing Element referto the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups aslower income.
Anaheim’s household income characteristics directly inform the housing types that would be most beneficial to the City’s population. Income characteristics assist in determining to what degree affordable housing isrequired to meet the needs of a population. Further, above average income levels allow for the occupancy of larger housing units. Table 2-13 shows the lower income categories represent 57 percent of households in Anaheim and moderate to above moderate-income category represents 43 percent.
Table 2-13: Households by Income Category in Anaheim
Income Category
(Percent of County MFI) Households Percent
Extremely Low (30% MFI or less) 19,105 19.1%
Very Low (30% to 50% MFI) 16,680 16.6%
Low (50% to 80% MFI) 21,345 21.3%
Moderate or Above (Over 80% MFI) 43,145 43.0%
Total 100,280 100%
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).
The median household income in Anaheim is $71,763, which is $18,471 lower than Orange County’s median household income of $90,234. Anaheim’s median household income is $71,763, makingThis makes it the fourth lowest median household income in Orange County, when compared to its surrounding cities, with Stanton having the lowest at $57,598. Figure 2-5 illustratesthis difference with comparisons to surrounding cities and Orange County’s median income. Therefore, a significant number of households in Anaheim have a lower income and depending on housing prices in the City, may not be able to afford housing within the immediate area.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-15 Figure 2-5: Median Household Income by City
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-14 below showsthat the median household income in Anaheim ($71,763) islower than theCounty median ($90,234). Stanton has the lowestmedian income in the area, followed by Santa Ana. The cities of Cypress, Placentia, Orange, and Yorba Linda have a median income above Orange County’s median income with $93,137, $95,757, $91,793, and $129,995 respectively. Figure 2-6 illustrates that about 35 percent of Anaheim’s residents households earn an annual income over $100,000, and 17 percent earn over $150,000. On the other hand, 34 percent earn below $49,999 and less than the City’s median household income.
Table 2-14: Median Household Income
Jurisdiction Median Income Percent Above/BelowCounty
Median
Buena Park $78,932 -12.5%
Cypress $93,137 3.2%
Placentia $95,757 6.1%
Santa Ana $66,145 -26.7%
Stanton $57,598 -36.2%
Fullerton $79,978 -11.4%
Anaheim $71,763 -20.5%
Orange (City) $91,793 1.7%
Yorba Linda $129,995 44.1%
Garden Grove $69,278 -23.2%
County of Orange $90,234 --
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). $40,000
Stanton Fullerton Anaheim Orange
$95,757
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-16 Figure 2-6: Anaheim Income Ranges of Total Population
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the U.S. Census Bureau provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Anaheim. The U.S. Census Bureau published the most recent CHAS data in August 2020 and based this information on 2013-2017 5-year ACSdata (Table 2-15). The CHAS refers to the following housing issues, discussedinthis section, as housing problems:
• Units with physical defects(lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of grossincome; or • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of grossincome.
Table 2-15 shows that a greater percentage of renters have housing assistance needs than homeowners.
Approximately 67.6 percent of renters in Anaheim have at least one of the four housing issues identified by Consolidated Planning CHAS Data andabout 47.4 percent have at least one of the four severe housing issuesidentifiedby ConsolidatedPlanning CHAS Data. Conversely, 36.8 percent of homeowner households have a housing issue and about 19.6 percent have at least one severe housing issue. In total, a little over half of households in Anaheim live with at least one housing issue and 34.9 percent live with at least one severe housing issue.
D. Housing Issues
$149,999
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-17 Table 2-15: Housing Assistance Needs of LowerIncome Households Housing Issue*
Overview** Owner Percent ofOwner HH Renter Percent ofRenter HH Total Percent ofTotal HH Household has at least
1 of 4 Housing Issues* 16,590 36.8% 37,325 67.6% 53,915 53.8% Household has none of
4 Housing Issues* 28,265 62.7% 17,160 31.1% 45,425 45.3% Cost Burden not
available, no otherIssues* 195 0.4% 745 1.3% 940 0.9%
Total 45,050 100% 55,230 100% 100,280 100%
Severe Housing Issue*
Overview*** Owner Percent ofTotal HH Renter Percent ofTotal HH Total Percent ofTotal HH Household has at least1
of 4 Severe Housing
Issues* 8,810 19.6% 26,195 47.4% 35,005 34.9%
Household has none of
4 Severe HousingIssues* 36,050 80.0% 28,285 51.2% 64,335 64.2% Cost Burden not available,
no other
issues* 195 0.4% 745 1.3% 940 0.9%
Total 45,050 100% 55,230 100% 100,280 100%
* The CHAS refers to the above housing issues as housing problems. ** The four housing issues* are incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
*** The four severe housing issues* are incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).
1. Overcrowding
The U.S. Census defines overcrowded households as more than one occupant per room (excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches). Severely overcrowded households have more than 1.5 persons per room. According to HCD’s Housing Element Building Blocks, a number of factors may cause overcrowding, including a lack of affordable housing (which forces more than one household to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size.
Overcrowding in households may lead to neighborhood deterioration, due to the intensive use of individual housing units which results in excessive wear and tear, and the potential cumulative overburdening of community infrastructure and service capacity. According to the article, “Can your neighborhood make you sick?” published by the Institute for Housing Studies at DePaulUniversity (2016), overcrowding in neighborhoods may lead to an overall decline in social cohesion and environmental quality. Such decline may spread geographically and affect the quality of life, the economic value of property, and the vitality of commerce within a city. The combination of lower incomes and high housing costs may result in households living in overcrowded housing conditions.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-18 Table 2-16 shows that overcrowding disproportionately affects renters than owner occupied households.
Five percent of households are renter occupied and severely overcrowded, while approximately one percent is owner occupied and severely overcrowded. In total, about 16 percent of Anaheim households experience overcrowding conditions, with renters representingthe majority of those (13.2 percent of households) being renters.
13.2 percent of that amount.
Table 2-16: Overcrowding by Tenure, Anaheim
Tenure
Overcrowded Units(1.01
to 1.50
persons/room)
Severely Overcrowded
Units (>1.51 persons/room)
Total Overcrowded Occupied
Units
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1
Owner Occupied 2,357 2.3% 661 0.7% 3,018 3.0%
Renter Occupied 8,284 8.1% 5,086 5.0% 13,370 13.2%
Total 10,641 10.5% 5,747 5.7% 16,388 16.1%
1. Percent of total occupied housing units.
Note: The term overcrowded refers to both overcrowded (1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room) and severely overcrowded (1.51 or more occupants per room) units as defined by HCD.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
When compared to neighboring cities, the City of Anaheim has the second greatest total percentage of overcrowded units at 16.1 percent, with Santa Ana having the greatest at 29.9 percent, as shown in Table 2-17. The City has more overcrowded units at about 16.1 percent of total housing units compared with Orange County (8.8 percent). Yorba Linda has lowest percentage oftotal of overcrowded units at 1.5 percent.
Table 2-17: Total Overcrowded Housing Units by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied
Overcrowded* Units
Renter Occupied
Overcrowded* Units Total Overcrowded*
Units (>1.00 persons/room) (>1.00 persons/room)
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent2
Buena Park 844 31.8% 1,813 68.2% 2,657 11.2%
Cypress 346 42.1% 476 57.9% 822 5.2%
Placentia 270 23.3% 891 76.7% 1,161 7.0%
Santa Ana 6,103 26.6% 16,839 73.4% 22,942 29.9%
Stanton 511 30.0% 1,192 70.0% 1,703 15.1%
Fullerton 866 19.7% 3,523 80.3% 4,389 9.6%
Anaheim 3,018 18.4% 13,370 81.6% 16,388 16.1%
Orange (City) 536 16.9% 2,639 83.1% 3,175 7.4%
Yorba Linda 143 42.7% 192 57.3% 335 1.5%
Garden Grove 2,261 31.8% 4,838 68.2% 7,099 14.9%
County of Orange 21,886 23.9% 69,796 76.1% 91,682 8.8%
1. Percent of total overcrowded units.
2. Percent of total occupied units.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) in Relation to Income
State and federal standards indicate that a household paying more than 30 percent of its income for housing is overpaying. A household that allocates greater than 50 percent oftotal income towardhousing costs is subject to severe overpayment. Overpayment for housing can cause an imbalance on the Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-19 remainder of a household’s budget. Overpayment (also referred to as cost burden) provides an indicator of the ability to sustain a household budget in consideration of other factors beyond housing costs (utilities, food, maintenance, etc.). Whenever households pay an excessive amount of their income on costs directly related to housing, it decreases the amount of income available for other needs. This indicator is an important measurement of local housing market conditions as it reflects the affordability of housing in the community. Federal and state agencies utilize overpayment indicators to determine the amount of funding allocated to a community to assist withhousing opportunities.
Table 2-18 below summarizes Anaheim’s households in context of overpayment and household income.
The majority of homeowners with a cost burden greater than 30 percent are those who have a household income between 50 and 80 percent of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income (MFI). This HUD MFI is the median familyincome calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that HUD makes to these numbers. Of owner households with a cost burden over 50 percent,most have earnedbelow 30 percent ofthe MFI. As Table 2-18 shows, renters have higher percentages of overpayment than owners do. About 13.3 percent of renter households who earn below 30 percent of the MFI experience a cost burden over 30 percent and 11.8 percent of those households experience a cost burden over 50 percent. Renters with lower incomes in Anaheim experience cost burdens at greater rates than homeowners do.
Table 2-18: Summary of Housing Overpayment
Income by CostBurden1
Homeowners Renters
Cost
Burden
> 30% Percent2
Cost
Burden >
50% Percent2
Cost
Burden
> 30% Percent2
Cost
Burden
> 50% Percent2
Household Income Lessthan or equal to 30% 2,840 2.8% 2,350 2.3% 13,375 13.3% 11,830 11.8% Household Income
>30% to less-than or
equal to 50% MFI3 2,790 2.8% 1,740 1.7% 10,665 10.6% 4,000 4.0% Household Income
>50% to less-than or
equal 80% MFI3 4,395 4.4% 1,330 1.3% 5,940 5.9% 575 0.6% Household Income
>80% to less-than or
equal to 100% MFI3 1,865 1.9% 355 0.4% 1,235 1.2% 40 0.0% Household Income
>100% MFI3 2,470 2.5% 185 0.2% 575 0.6% 40 0.0%
Total 14,360 14.3% 5,960 5.9% 31,790 31.7% 16,485 16.4%
1. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes.
2. Percent of total households in Anaheim
3. MFI refers to the HUD Area Median Family Income – this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be thesame as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that HUD makes to these numbers.
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-20 Individuals and families that may require accommodations or are more vulnerable than the rest of the population to limiting conditions, may encounter added difficulty in procuring adequate and affordable housing. According to HCD, special needs populations include seniors, persons with disabilities, large households, single parent households, students, and farmworkers. Special needs groups may have lower incomes or may be homeless. Table 2-19 summarizes the existing special needs households in Anaheim.
Table 2-19: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Groups Count Percent of Total
Households
Percent of Total
Population
Total Senior Population 40,694 -- 11.6%
Senior Headed Households1 20,212 19.2% --
Seniors Living Alone2 7,660 7.3% --
Persons with Disabilities 29,688 -- 8.5%
Persons with Developmental Disabilities3 25,613 -- --
Large Households 20,995 20.7% --
Single-Parent Households 24,187 23% --
Single-Parent, Female Headed
Households with Children
(under 18 years)
16,585 15.8% --
Extremely Low Income Households (People Living in
Poverty)
15,539 -- 20.8%
Farmworkers4 1,772 -- --
Migrant Farmworkers 340 -- --
Seasonal Farmworkers 40 -- --
Permanent Farmworkers 699 --
Unpaid Workers 176 -- --
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 1,202 -- --
Students6
College, Undergraduate 25,727 -- 7.4%
Graduate, Professional School 3,764 -- 1.1%
1. Seniors age 60 or older.
2. Seniors age 65 or older.
3. Total persons who received service from the Regional Center of Orange County for FY 2019-2020.
4. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining industry. Farmworker data is of the population 16 years and over.
Data taken at the County level and provided by USDA Statistics Services.
5. Total results from County of Orange 2019 Point in Time Count Report.
6. It should be noted that while there are a significant amount of students who self-identify as Anaheim residents, a proportion of them may not live in Anaheim for the majority of the year.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau); 2019-2020 Total Annual Expenditures and Authorized Services by Ethnicity and Race Report (Regional Center of Orange County); 2017 National Agriculture Statistics – Hired Farm Labor (United States Department of Agriculture); 2019 Point-in-Time Final Report, “Everyone Counts” (County of Orange).
1. Seniors
The U.S. Census definesindividuals 65 years old or older as seniors. Seniors may have limited income tied to retirement payments and high healthcare costs. Due in part to age, seniors are also more susceptible E. Underserved, Vulnerable, and Special Needs
Populations
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-21 to mobility issues and self-care limitations. The specific housing needs of the senior population include affordable housing, supportive housing with medical and/or non-medical services, group homes, and other housing that includes a planned service component. Table 2-20 summarizes the senior population of Anaheim, and neighboring cities and the County are included for reference. Anaheim has the second lowest proportion of senior populations at 11.6 percent compared to 14.4 percent within Orange County as a whole. In the area, Yorba Linda hasthe highestsenior population with 6.4 percent more than Anaheim and Santa Ana has the lowest senior population with 2.6 percent lessthan Anaheim.
Table 2-20: Persons Age 65 and Over
Jurisdiction Population Count Percent of Population
Buena Park 10,743 13.0%
Cypress 7,393 15.1%
Placentia 7,438 14.4%
Santa Ana 29,918 9.0%
Stanton 4,649 12.1%
Fullerton 18,561 13.3%
Anaheim 40,694 11.6%
Orange (City) 17,076 12.2%
Yorba Linda 12,165 18.0%
Garden Grove 24,700 14.3%
County of Orange 455,105 14.4%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Federal housing data defines a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Table 2-21 summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Anaheim. Of elderly family households in Anaheim, 27.7 percent earn less than 30 percent of the surrounding area income, 46.7 percent earn lessthan 50 percent of the surrounding area.
Table 2-21: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure in Anaheim, 2012-2016 Income category, relative to
surrounding area
Owner Renter Total Percent of Total
Elderly Households
Extremely Low (30% MFI or less) 1,715 3,635 5,350 27.7% Very Low (30% to 50% MFI) 2,080 1,585 3,665 19.0%
Low (50% to 80% MFI) 2,520 1,180 3,700 19.2%
Moderate (80% to 100% MFI) 1,115 305 1,420 7.4%
Above (100% MFI or more) 4,370 775 5,145 26.7%
Total 11,800 7,480 19,280 100.0%
MFI refers to Median Family Income.
Source: 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-22 The senior and elderly household population maybenefit fromaffordable housing as they oftenhave fixed incomes that may not allow for the financial flexibility necessary to acquire suitable housing. Seniors may also face various disabilities. Smaller, more affordable housing units allow for a greater accommodation of seniorlifestyles.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Senior Housing Needs Seniors in Anaheim generally have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Having limited and fixed incomes;
• Disproportionately higher healthcare costs, adding monthly living costs; • Require customized housing features due to mobility and self-care limitations; • Transit dependency; and
• Limited in-home support, due to living alone
To address these challenges, the City must consider a variety of solution to address the above issues, these may include:
• More affordable housing option for Seniors;
• Supportive City programs to help sustain decent, safe, and affordable housing for dependent seniors; • Housing with included supportive services; and
• Group home option for persons with self-care limitations Resources currently available at the City include services and programs offered by the City in collaboration with service providers such as the Orange County Office of Aging. The Orange County Office of Aging offers the following resources:
• Meals for seniors offered at resource centers throughout the County as well as meal delivery for eligible homebound seniors;
• Support services for seniors and their family caretakers including service consultation, home-maker assistance, peer support, and help with transportation, rent, and respite care; • Group physical activities and classes for improved safety and healthy lifestyle choices; and • Emergency utility assistance and transportation and resource linkage.
Other services that the City of Anaheim provides for senior citizens include the following:
• A senior citizen transportation service (Senior Wheels Transportation Program) is offered to all active adults age 60 years and older. Participants are required to reside within the City of Anaheim and may use the program for local transportation needs within a 10-mile radius of their home address. This program is provided in partnership with the Orange County Transportation Authority and available for access to nonemergency medical appointments, grocery shopping, mall shopping excursions, and visits to local libraries and community centers, among others within city limits; and • Through a partnership with Meals on Wheels Orange County, a free drive through frozen meal distribution program at three locations throughout the City (Downtown Anaheim Community Center, Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-23 Brookhurst Community Center, and East Anaheim Community Center). A frozen meal bag is provided to participating seniors and contains up to seven nutritious meal trays prepared by staff.
Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues. In addition, the City will continue providing housing resources to its senior population through community partnerships and by facilitation the development of senior housing units.
2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Physical and developmental disabilities can hinder access to traditional housing units and may limit the ability to earnadequate income. Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may deprive a person from earning income, restrict one’s mobility, or make self-care difficult. Persons with disabilities often have special housing needs related to limited earning capacity, a lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with a disability. Some residents may also have disabilities that require living in a supportive or assisted-living setting.
Ambulatory difficulty, having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, is themost widespreaddisability in Anaheim. Ambulatory difficulties relate to issues with walking and movement. Approximately 56 percent of Anaheim’s disabled population has ambulatory difficulty. This represents 4.7 percent of the total population of Anaheim. Vision Difficulty, Hearing Difficulty, and Self-care Difficulty were the least common as shown in Table 2-22. Disabilities require different living conditions that inform housing needs for Anaheim. Those with ambulatory difficulties may require smaller single-story spaces due to a lack of ability to walk long distances.
Table 2-22: Disability Status
Disability Type Under 18 18 to 64 65 and Over Total
Percent of
Population
with a
Disability
Percent of
Total
Population1
Hearing Difficulty 367 2,571 5,182 8,120 27.4% 2.3%
Vision Difficulty 373 2,510 2,063 4,946 16.7% 1.4%
Cognitive Difficulty 1,311 5,934 4,424 11,669 39.3% 3.4% Ambulatory Difficulty 314 6,568 9,626 16,508 55.6% 4.7% Self-care Difficulty 558 2,985 4,574 8,117 27.3% 2.3%
Independent Living
Difficulty -- 5539 7,673 13,212 44.5% 3.8%
Total2 2,923 26,107 33,542 29,688 -- 8.5%
1. Total noninstitutionalized population.
2. This number represents the total number of disabilities and may double count persons having one or more disabilities, as people may report having more than one of the six types of disabilities defined by the U.S. Census.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Affordable and barrier-free housing may provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation assistance can target renters and homeowners with disabilities to modify and improve unit accessibility.
State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-24 • Is manifestedbefore the individual attains age 22;
• Islikely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity:
a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self- direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self-sufficiency; and • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
According to the Regional Center of Orange County Total Annual Expenditures and Authorized Services Report for 2019 to 2020, 25,163 individuals from the region1 with developmental disabilities received services. Of the 25,163 individuals, the majority37.6 percent have a cognitive disability diagnosis (37.6 percent).. The rest were diagnosed with autism (31 percent), Cerebral Palsy (2.5 percent), Epilepsy (1 percent), Category 5 (3.8 percent), and 23.6 percent with some other disability. Of those who received services, 31.1percent were White, 16 percent were Asian, 1.9 percent was Black or African American, 0.02 percent was American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.01 percent was Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 16.1 percent were Some Other Race. At 34 percent, over one third of those who received services identified as Hispanic or Latino. The largest age group who received services were age 3 years to 21 years (39.9 percent), the rest were age 22 years andolder (38.9 percent) and under the age of 2 (21.1 percent).
Over 80 percent of individuals who received serviceslived at home with a parent or guardian.
According to the California Department of Developmental Services consumer count by CACalifornia zip code, age group and residence type for the end of June 2019, Anaheim hashad 8,043 individuals with developmental disabilities.
Many people with developmental disabilities can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. Individuals with more severe developmental disabilities may require a group living environment that provides supervision. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment that provides medical attention and physical therapy. Typically, the first issue in supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities is the transitionfrom the person’s living situationas a child with development disabilities to an appropriate level of independence as an adult with developmental disabilities.
There are several housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability: rentsubsidized homes, State licensed (group home) and unlicensed single-family homes (living with family members), inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 (veterans) homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunitiesrepresentsome of the types of considerations that are important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multifamily housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities. The City should also give special consideration to the affordability of the housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income. 1 Regional count is used as it is more up to date and is an accurate reflection services provided to persons with disabilities by the County.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-25 Key Challenges and Resources to Address Persons with Physical/Developmental Disabilities Persons with physical and developmental disabilities in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for specialized housing to accommodate disabilities • Higher incidence of dependent living needs
• High incidence of unemployment and having fixed income • Need for supportive services
To address these challenges, the City should consider a variety of solutions to address the above issues, which may include the following:
• Regional coordination and support for services
• Prioritization of services for disabled persons
• Local supportive services to supplement physical housing needs • Housing regulation and or accommodation of unique housing needs • Group home housing options for persons with self-care limitations Resources to address the above needs include the County of Orange’s Disability Office, Network of Care, and Orange County Social Services Agency. All of these County wide groups offer various supportive services such as information regarding federal and state programing and linkage and referrals to regional disability resources. Additionally, the City has a reasonable accommodation procedure that is intended to grant accommodations for persons with disabilities. Lastly, Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
3. Large Households
The HCD defines large households as households of five or more individuals. Procuring resources for a large household requires a greater portion of income. This may lead households to find smaller, more affordable housing units. Such units may not be large enough to accommodate a large household and may lead toovercrowding. Itmay be more challenging for rentersto secure larger housing units as multi- family rental units are typically smaller than single-family ownership units are. Many apartment complexes do not typically have 4- or 5-bedroom units. As bedroom count increases, the affordability of a housing unit typically decreases.
In Anaheim, large householdsrepresent about 21 percent of allhouseholds asshown in Table 2-23. Ofthis amount, renters represent a higher percentage of large households at 58.8 percent. Five-person households are more common for both owners and renters. In total, 6- person households represent a larger portion of large households than 7-or-more-person households do. The provision of affordable housing may alleviate potential overcrowding burdens experienced by these households.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-26 Table 2-23: Large Households by Tenure
Household Size Owner Renter Total
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 5-Person Household 4,459 21.2% 6,715 32.0% 11,174 11.0% 6-Person Household 2,310 11.0% 3,369 16.0% 5,679 5.6%
7-or-More Person
Household 1,877 8.9% 2,265 10.8% 4,142 4.1%
Total 8,646 41.2%1 12,349 58.8%1 20,995 20.7%2
1. Percent of large households.
2. Percent of total households.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Large Person Households Large person households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Lack of affordable housing with sufficient bedroom counts • Options for larger bedroom counts in rental units
• Higher monthly cost burden
• Affordable options for large family households
• Childcare needs for working families
Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
4. Single-Parent Households
Single parent households face different challenges due to the greater need for daycare services, health care services, and other services. It may be common that femaleFemale-headed households, specifically with no spouse present, may often have a lower average income due to income inequalities present in workplaces estimates that there are more than double the amount of single-parent female households with no spouse present more than double, compared to the number of single-parent male households with no spouse present (12.9 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively). The proportion of both types of households are greater than that of Orange County. Compared to the County, the City’s single-parents female households living in poverty represent a higher proportion compared to the proportion within Orange County as a whole (10.3 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively).
Table 2-24: Single-Parent Households
Jurisdictions Single Parent-Male,
No Spouse Present
Single Parent-Male
Household Living in
Poverty
Single ParentFemale, No Spouse
Present
Single ParentFemale Household
Living in Poverty
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Anaheim 5,069 6.1% 1,672 2.0% 10,645 12.9% 8,473 10.3%
Orange County 40,404 5.8% 8,282 1.2% 78,192 11.3% 42,189 6.1%
1. Percent of total households.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-27 Key Challenges and Resources to Address Single Parent Households Single Parent Households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Affordable housing options
• Rental and for sale housing options
• Higher monthly cost burdens with single-income families • Childcare needs for working families
To address these challenges, the City must consider a variety of solutions to address the above issues.
These may include:
• Affordable housing options for single-income families • Accessibility to childcare options
• Leveraging of grants and funding opportunities
Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
5. Farmworkers
HCD defines farmworkers as persons that earn their primary income through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a generally year-round basis. Seasonalworkers may supplement the labor force when workload increases during harvest periods. Certain farms may hire migrant workers. Migrant workers have unique housing needs as their travel may prevent them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Farm workers also have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the year from one harvest location to the next.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Statistics Service provides data on hired farm labor across the United States. The USDA compiles this data at both a State and County level. Within Orange County, there were 1,772 hired farmworkers in 2017. The USDA considered 699 of these workers permanent workers (working 150 days or more per year), 40 were seasonal workers (working less than 150 days per year), 340 were migrant workers farmworkers, and 176 were unpaid workers. There is no specific data identifying the amount of residents who work exclusively in agriculture within the City, however the American Community Survey estimates that there were approximately 848 people within the agriculture, farming, fishing and hunting, and mining industry that reside in Anaheim.2 According to the California Employment Development Department, the average farm worker (Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupation) in Orange County earned a median annual income of $31,978. This annual income would place each individual or household in the very low-income bracket for Anaheim.
The farmworker’s tenuous and/or seasonal employment status may further exacerbate their limited income. These employees and their households may reside in severely overcrowded dwellings, in packing buildings, or in storage sheds. Currently, the City of Anaheim does not have any agricultural land nor is any area of land within the City planned for agriculture in its General Plan. Future housing in Anaheim may need to consider the needs of farm workers employed in and near the City., however it is unlikely that agriculture would take place within the City.
2 US Census, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2019.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-28 Key Challenges and Resources to Address Farmworker Housing Needs Farmworker households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Affordable housing options
• Higher incidents of cost burden for housing
• Rental and for sale housing options
Similar to other special needs groups, Farmworkers needs are focused on affordability of housing and access to services that support lower monthly overall costs. To address these challenges the City must consider a variety of solution to address the above issues. There may include:
• Affordable housing options for farmworkers
• Leveraging grants and funding opportunities
Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
6. Extremely Low-Income Households and Poverty Status
The 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data indicates there were approximately 34,850 households with very low-income living in Anaheim. Households with very-low income earn 50 percent or less of the median family income (MFI) for Orange County. Households with extremely low income earn less than 30 percent of the MFI. There are approximately 18,170 households with extremely low income in Anaheim (renters and owners). Table 2-25 below includes data on the number of households experiencing housing issues basedon family income.
In Anaheim, there are 2,870 households with extremely low-income that live in owner-occupied housing units with at least one of the four housing problems. The housing problems identified by CHAS include the following:
• Units with physical defects(lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of grossincome; or • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of grossincome.
Moderate-income households alsooccupy the smallest amount of owner households withat least one of the four housing problems. For owner occupied units, households with low-income levels occupy themost housing units with at least one housing problem (10,810 households). In contrast, renters earning an extremely low income have the most housing units with at least one housing problem (13,640). As the income goes up for renters, the number of housing units with a housing problem goes down.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-29 Table 2-25: Housing Problems for all Households by Tenure Income by Housing Problem
Owner
Household has at
least 1 of 4 Housing
Problems
Household has none
of 4 HousingProblems
Cost Burden not
available, no other
Housing Problem
Less-than or = 30% 2,870 610 195
>30% to less-than or = 50% MFI 3,015 1,680 0
>50% to less-than or = 80% MFI 4,925 3,495 0
>80% to less-than or = 100% MFI 2,350 3,035 0
>100% MFI 3,435 19,450 0
Total 16,595 28,270 195
Income by Housing Problem
Renter
Household has at least
1 of 4 Housing
Problems
Household has noneof
4 Housing
Problems
Cost Burden not
available, no other
Housing Problem
Less-than or = 30% 13,640 1,050 745
>30% to less-than or = 50% MFI 11,325 660 0
>50% to less-than or = 80% MFI 8,590 4,335 0
>80% to less-than or = 100% MFI 1,910 3,530 0
>100% MFI 1,855 7,585 0
Total 37,320 17,160 745
* The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
** The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.
Note: MFI = HUD Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.
Source: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).
Table 2-26 illustrates the number and percent of Anaheim’s population thatlive below the poverty level, across several demographic characteristics. Of Anaheim’s population, 14.8 percent of persons are below the poverty level and more than half of those persons are female (27,864).Persons that are between 35 and 64 years of age have the highest count of persons below poverty level for all age groups identified (14,912). Additionally, renter occupied households make up a larger percentage ofhouseholds below the poverty level than owner-occupied households do (18.9 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively). Similarly, Female householders without a spouse present represent the largest household type below the poverty level at 25.9 percent of households, which is 16.7 percent greaterthan married-couple households, which are the least representedhouseholdtype below the poverty level (9.2 percent).
To calculate extremely-low income RHNA housing needs, the City assumed 50 percent of its very lowincome regional housing need to determine extremely low-income households, consistent with the State guidelines. Calculating from the very low-income need of 3,767 units, the City has an estimated need of 1,883 housing units for extremely low-income households.
Extremely low-income household needs will likely be focused to rental housing and more likely to experience overpayment, overcrowding or substandard housing conditions and more likely to include transitional and supportive housing.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-30 According to 2019 5-Year ACS data, despite representing only 2.7 percent of the City’s population, the Blackor African Americanpopulation has one of the highestrates ofpoverty in Anaheim in 2019 (15.7 percent). The case is the same for those identifying as “American Indian and Alaska Native Alone” and “Some Other Race Alone.” Conversely, the White population represents one quarter ofthe City’s residents yet has a poverty level of 10.5 percent. The values shown in Figure 2-7 outline potential differences in housing needs based on poverty status for different racial and ethnic groups within the City.
Table 2-26: Statistics for Anaheim Population Below Poverty Level Gender Below Poverty Level
Count Percent
Male 23,358 13.7%
Female 27,864 15.9%
Age Group Count Percent
18-34 years of age 12,731 13.7%
35-64 years of age 14,912 11.4%
66 and over years of age 5,224 13.2%
Household Characteristics Count* Percent*
Owner NA 3.0%
Renter NA 18.9%
Family Households1 NA 13.5%
Married-Couple Households1 NA 9.2%
Female householder, no
Spouse Present1 NA
25.9%
Other Living Arrangements1 NA 24.5%
*of Households.
1. Determined at less than 100% of the poverty level.
Note: The percentages are based on the total population for whom poverty status could be determined, not the total population of the City.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-31 Figure 2-7: Percent of Population Living below the Poverty Line, by Race and Ethnicity *Of any race.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-27 shows that there are 20,188 persons in Anaheim with incomes less than 30% of the Area Median Income. Hispanic and Black, Non-Hispanic Households experience the highest rates of extremely low income, each representing approximately 25% of the total Extremely Low-Income Population.
Renters have a disproportionately higher incidents of Extremely Low Income in Anaheim.
Table 2-27: Extremely Low-Income Household Needs
Number of Households
<30% MFI Percent Share <30% MFI
White, Non-Hispanic 5,410 14.9%
Black, Non-Hispanic 670 24.9%
Asian and Other NonHispanic 3,744 19.3%
Hispanic 10,364 25.0%
TOTAL 20,188 20.2%
Renter Occupied 16,200 29.6%
Owner Occupied 3,995 8.8%
Source: HUD CHAS, 2012-2016.
White
Alone
Black or
African
American
alone
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
alone
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
alone
Some
other race
alone
Two or
more
races
Hispanic
or Latino
origin (of
any race)
Below Poverty Level 10.5% 15.7% 11.9% 10.1% 5.8% 19.2% 10.1% 18.4% Race/Ethnicity 24.1% 2.7% 0.5% 16.8% 0.4% 9.9% 3.3% 54.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Below Poverty Level Race/Ethnicity
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-32 Key Challenges and Resources to Address Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs Extremely Low-Income Households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for increased affordable housing options
• Markedly higher incidents of cost burden for housing
• Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s
• Rental assistance
• Higher incidents of homelessness
• Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing Extremely Low-Income household needs are focused on affordability of housing and access to subsidies and services that support lower monthly overall costs. To address these challenges, Anaheim must consider a variety of solutions to address the above issues, which may include:
• Affordable housing options for Extremely low-income households • Preservation of subsidized housing units
• Creation of additional subsidized housing units
• Housing with a service component
• Transitional, Supportive and Homeless housing options Resources to address the needs of Extremely Low-Income households include a variety of federal, state and regional programs, such as Section 8, HUD, LIHTC, USDA, CalHFA and other public and private funding sources. Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness is an important issue within California. Several factors contribute to the rise in homelessness including increased unemployment and underemployment, a lack of housing affordable to people with lower and moderate-incomes (especially extremely low-incomes), reductions in public subsidies to the poor, a lack of assistance for those struggling with addiction, and the deinstitutionalizationof the mentally ill.
Federal and State law mandates that jurisdictions quantify and address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)defines “homelessness” asthe following:
• Literally Homeless: Individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttimeresidence, meaning:
o Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation;
o Isliving in a publicly or privately operated shelter designatedto provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters,transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state andlocal government programs); or Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-33 o Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution.
• Imminent Risk of Homelessness: Individual or family who will imminently lose their primarynighttime residence, provided that:
o Residencewill be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance; o No subsequent residence has been identified; and
o The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing.
• Homeless under other Federal Statutes: Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or familieswith children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless underthis definition, but who:
o Are defined as homeless under the other listedfederal statutes; o Have not had a lease, ownershipinterest, or occupancy agreement inpermanent housingduring the 60 days prior to the homeless assistance application; o Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two moves or more during in the preceding 60 days; and
o Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time due to specialneeds or barriers
• Fleeing/Attempting to Flee Domestic Violence: Any individual or family who:
o Isfleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence; o Has no other residence; and
o Lacksthe resources orsupport networksto obtain other permanent housing This definition does not include persons living insubstandardor overcrowded housing units, persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the personwas homeless whenentering and is considered to be homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at-risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends).
The Point in Time Count is an effort to track the number and location (sheltered or unsheltered) of individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness. TheOrange CountyContinuumof Care (CoC) conducts this count in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines. In January 2019, 1,167 volunteers across Orange County counted 6,860 individuals experiencing homelessness; of those, 2,899 were sheltered and 3,961 were unsheltered. Table 2-28:
People Experiencing Homelessness Count by Jurisdiction - 2019 Data shows the individual city results for cities surrounding and including Anaheim and the County of Orange. Anaheim reported a total of 1,202 individuals experiencing homelessness; this represents 17.5 percent of the total homeless population for Orange County. This percentage is the second largest population of individuals experiencing homelessness. Santa Ana reported the largest population of people experiencing homelessness, as a quarter of the total number of people experiencing homelessness in Orange County, reside in Santa Ana (8.3 percentmore than Anaheim).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-34 Table 2-28: People Experiencing Homelessness Count by Jurisdiction - 2019 Data Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total % of County
Buena Park 142 145 287 4.2%
Cypress 39 0 39 0.6%
Placentia 55 108 163 2.4%
Santa Ana 830 939 1,769 25.8%
Stanton 71 45 116 1.7%
Fullerton 308 165 473 6.9%
Anaheim 694 508 1,202 17.5%
Orange (City) 193 148 341 5.0%
Yorba Linda 1 0 1 0.01%
Garden Grove 163 62 225 3.3%
County of Orange 2,899 3,961 6,860 100.0%
Source: 2019 Point-in-Time Final Report, “Everyone Counts” (County of Orange).
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Persons Experiencing Homelessness Anaheim has a comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness with a focus on daily outreach, shelter beds, permanent housing and enforcement when necessary. In late 2018 and early 2019, Anaheim opened three homeless shelters, including one interim facility that has since closed, to transition people off city streets and restore neighborhoods and other public spaces. Anaheim now oversees two temporary emergency shelters with 427 beds and supportive services. Anaheim is home to more than 500 shelter beds at the City’s shelters, the County of Orange’s Bridges at Kraemer Place and nonprofit partners including Grandma’s House of Hope, Pathways of Hope and Streetlight Ministries. Anaheim is partnering with the Salvation Army on a comprehensive homeless care center of 325 beds and some 300 supportive housing units known as Center of Hope. The center is proposed for an industrial area away from homes, schools and parks on Lewis Street. The site now hosts the 325-bed Anaheim Emergency Shelter and a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center for 175 people. Both would become part of Center of Hope.
Since 2013, Anaheim Police Department (APD) has partnered directly with regional law enforcement agencies, Orange County Health Care Agency, and several non-profit organizations in a multi-disciplinary approach to ending short-term chronic homelessness. This collaborative approach has proven successful in reducing the recurrence of homelessness among those who receive and participate in wrap-around services. Most recently, Anaheim expanded and enhanced our outreach efforts by forming the Community Care Response Team (CCRT) in partnership with City Net.
Residents experiencing homelessness in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for increased affordable housing options
• Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s
• Rental assistance
• Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing • Need for emergency shelters
• Need for stable health care
People experiencing homelessness’ needs are focused on affordability of housing and access to resources Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-35 and services that support lower monthly overall costs. To address these challenges, Anaheim must consider a variety of solutions to address the above issues, which may include:
• Affordable housing options for Extremely low-income households • Creation of additional subsidized housing units
• Housing with a service component
• Transitional, Supportive and Homeless housing options • Medical assistance
Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
8. Students
Student housing is another need affecting housing demand. Student housing often only produces a temporary housing need based on the duration of the educational institution enrolled in. The impact on housing demand often increases in areas surrounding universities and colleges. According to the 2019 5- Year ACS data, there are approximately 29,491 Anaheim residents enrolled in college or graduate school.
Students may seek shared housing situations to decrease expenses and assistance through roommate referral services offered on and off campus. College graduates provide a specialized pool of skilled labor that is vital to the economy. However, a lack of affordable housing may lead to their departure postgraduation.Typically, students are low-income and are, therefore, affected by a lack of affordable housing.
It is important for the City to consider and accommodate the student population within the community especially when available housing is not within an easy commuting distance from campus. Students often seek shared housing situation to decrease expenses and can be assisted through roommate referral services on and off campus. A lack of affordable housing also influences choices students make after graduating. The City is dedicated to providing fair housing for low-income households, including students.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Student Housing Needs Students in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for increased affordable housing options
• Markedly higher incidents of cost burden for housing
• Rental assistance
Student needs are focused on affordability of housing and access to subsidies and services that support lower monthly overall costs. To address these challenges, Anaheim must consider a variety of solutions to address the above issues, which may include:
• Affordable housing options for Extremely low-income households • Preservation of subsidized housing units
• Creation of additional subsidized housing units
• Housing with a service component
Section 3 of this Housing Element further explores the strategies committed to by the City to address these issues.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-36 Anaheim’s housing stock includes all housing units located within its jurisdiction. Housing stock growth, type, age and condition, tenure, vacancy rates, costs, and affordability are all important factors in determining the housing needs of the community. This sectiondetailsthe housing stock characteristics of Anaheim to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents of the City.
1. Housing Growth
Table 2-29: Housing Unit Growth Trends shows growth trends for housing units in Anaheim and surrounding cities. The data shown in the table reflects 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (5-Year ACS) estimates, not the actual number of units reported by the local jurisdiction. Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH, evaluates the City’s existing housing development and future development opportunities. The number of housing units that the ACS estimated for Anaheim slightly decreased between 2010 and 2015 but increased 1.8 percent from 2015 to 2019. The net gain from 2015 to 2019 is
1.6 percent lower thanthe regional average of 3.4 percent.
Table 2-29: Housing Unit Growth Trends
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2019
Percent
Change 2010
to 2015
Percent
Change
2015 to
2019
Buena Park 23,895 24,007 24,578 0.5% 2.4%
Cypress 16,335 16,109 16,256 -1.4% 0.9%
Placentia 16,679 16,553 16,964 -0.8% 2.5%
Santa Ana 77,796 77,192 79,024 -0.8% 2.4%
Stanton 12,111 11,972 11,640 -1.1% -2.8%
Fullerton 47,956 47,319 48,120 -1.3% 1.7%
Anaheim 105,050 104,812 106,708 -0.2% 1.8%
Orange (City) 44,217 44,229 44,664 0.0% 1.0%
Yorba Linda 21,665 22,592 23,452 4.3% 3.8%
Garden Grove 47,454 48,385 49,061 2.0% 1.4%
County of Orange 1,042,254 1,064,642 1,100,449 2.1% 3.4% Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
2. Housing Unit Types
Table 2-30: Total Housing Units by Type summarizes the available housing units in Anaheim and Orange County by housing type. As of 2019, multi-unit homes made up the majority of the housing stock in Anaheim (48.3 percent). Single-unit detached homes made up 41.4 percent. Single-unit attached homes, which include townhomes and condominiums, made up 8.5 percent of the housing stock and 3.3 percent were mobile homes. In comparison to the rest of the County, Anaheim has a higher percentage of Multiunit homes and a lower percentage ofsingle-unit attachedanddetached homes.
F. Housing Stock Characteristics
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-37 Table 2-30: Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction
Single-Unit
Detached
Single-Unit
Attached Multi-Unit Mobile Homes TotalUnits
Count % Count % Count % Count %
Anaheim 43,483 41.4% 8,901 8.5% 50,763 48.3% 3,498 3.3% 106,708 Orange
County 556,681 53.4% 134,920 12.9% 378,043 36.3% 30,189 2.9% 1,100,449 Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
3. Housing Availability and Tenure
Household size differs betweenrenter andowner-occupied housing units. Larger households typically live in owner-occupied units in comparison to renter-occupied units. Homeowners typically have a greater income than those that rent. In addition, family households generally occupy larger housing units such as single-unit homes. The City’s housing stock includes 45,616 owner occupied housing units and 56,042 renter occupied housing units, as shown in Table 2-31: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure. The large majority of owner-occupied homes are single-unit detached structures, while for renters the majority of the housing units aremulti-unit developments.
Table 2-31: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure
Tenure Single-Unit
Detached
Single-Unit
Attached Multi-Unit Mobile Homes
Total
Occupied
Units
Owner Occupied 34,441 6349 2697 2,094 45,616
Renter Occupied 7,929 2318 44,551 1,216 56,042
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
As Table 2-32: Average Household Size by Tenure shows, the City trends towards larger household size when compared to neighboring cities, having the fourth largest average household size (3.39). An average household size of 3.39, typically points towards a need for large housing units. The average household size for owner and renter households in Anaheim are similar (3.38 and 3.41, respectively). The City of Santa Ana has the highest average household size at 4.28 and a renter occupied household size of 4.32. Orange County’s overall household size of 3.01 reflects a moderate difference in household size compared to Anaheim.
Table 2-32: Average Household Size by Tenure
Jurisdiction Owner Occupied
Household Size
Renter Occupied
Household Size
Average Household
Size
Buena Park 3.45 3.44 3.45
Cypress 3.06 3.20 3.11
Placentia 3.05 3.18 3.09
Santa Ana 4.25 4.32 4.28
Stanton 3.24 3.52 3.38
Fullerton 2.93 3.02 2.97
Anaheim 3.38 3.41 3.39
Orange (City) 3.00 3.18 3.08
Yorba Linda 3.02 2.78 2.98
Garden Grove 3.57 3.60 3.58
County of Orange 2.98 3.05 3.01
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-38 Anaheim has one of the highest vacancy rates of the neighboring cities ( Figure 2-8). At 4.7 percent, Anaheim’s vacancy rate is about 0.1 percent below Fullerton. Placentia has the lowest vacancy rate at 2.5 percent below Anaheim’s (2.2 percent). Of the City’s vacant units, the majority are rental units, followed by units that are vacant for unknown reasons according to ACS data (51.3 and 17 percent, respectively). This couldbe due to the number of apartment developmentsrecently constructed in Anaheim, which may not have completed the initial lease-up of units. Table 2-33: Vacant Housing Units by Type in 2019 showsthatjust under 11 percent of vacant units are rentedbut unoccupied and
9.2 percent are for seasonal, recreational, or occasionaluse.
Figure 2-8: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 2-33: Vacant Housing Units by Type in 2019
Type of Housing Estimate Percentage
For rent 2,590 51.3%
Rented, not occupied 532 10.5%
Forsale only 402 8.0%
Sold, not occupied 205 4.1%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 465 9.2%
For migrant workers 0 0.0%
Other vacant 856 17.0%
Total 5,050 100%
Source: 2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Buena
Park Cypress Placentia SantaAna
Stanton Fullerton Anaheim Orange
(City)
Yorba
Linda
Garden
Grove
County
of
Orange
Vacancy Rate 3.7% 3.5% 2.2% 3.0% 3.1% 4.8% 4.7% 3.6% 3.4% 2.6% 5.7%
0.0%
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-39
4. Housing Age and Condition
Housing age may affect the structural integrity of a house and can be an indicator of overall housing quality within a community. Housing that is over 30 years old is typically in need of some major rehabilitation, such as a new roof, foundation, plumbing, etc. Many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as one factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs. A large proportion of older housing stockwould typically indicate that most of the City’s housing stock could require major rehabilitation. This does not include historicalproperties within historic districts, which are generally well preservedmaintained.
Typical issues in Anaheim include structural deterioration (e.g. holes on the wall/ceiling), lack of maintenance (e.g. broken windows/doors, damaged flooring), and health and safety problems (e.g. mold, no hot water, no heater, insects/rat).
The City of Anaheim Code Enforcement Division receives substandard housing complaints from residents, which include many of the issues listed above. Substandard housing complaints can give the City an estimate of how many housing units are in need of rehabilitation or replacement in Anaheim. The City has received 1,069 substandard housing complaints from 2014-2021 so far. Totals for individual years can be found below:
Table 2-34:Code Enforcement- Substandard
Housing Complaints, City of Anaheim
Year Number of Complaints
2014 122
2015 165
2016 107
2017 156
2018 95
2019 191
2020 98
2021 135
Source: City of Anaheim, 2021
Figure 2-9 describes the age of the City’s housing stock. The figure reflects ACS survey data, which is based on estimates and not recorded true figures. The data shows that the majority of the City’s housing stock is the result of housing construction that occurred between 1950 and 1979 (approximately 40-70 years ago). Housing units that are over 30 years old typically benefit from upgrades or renovations, which is whymaking it is important to check forevaluate the age of the housing stock.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-40 Figure 2-9: Housing Stock Age
Source:2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Figure 2-10 below illustrates housing tenure by year of construction. This shows whether homeowner or renters occupy newer or older housing units. In Anaheim’s case, renters occupy more unitsthat are newer than the units homeowners occupy. Given the higher percentage ofrentersinmulti-family units, this may point towards the addition of new multi-family rental developments versus older, single-unit homes occupied by more homeowners.
.
Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Percent of Units 2.4% 1.9% 23.2% 17.4% 25.4% 11.5% 9.3% 5.6% 1.4% 1.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-41 Figure 2-10: Tenure by Year Housing Unit Built
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau) Figure 2-11 displays 2019 5-Year ACS data for housing units by the year they were built and who occupies them – homeowners (left) and renters (right). The figure shows that 12.6 percent of homeowners occupy housing units built between 1950 and 1959 and are moreconcentratedin older housing units, while renters are broadly spreadout throughout the housing stock.
Figure 2-11: Housing Units by Year Built and Tenure
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Renter 1.2% 1.0% 10.8% 10.6% 14.7% 7.0% 4.4% 3.4% 1.0% 1.0% Owner 1.2% 0.9% 12.6% 7.0% 10.5% 4.6% 5.1% 2.1% 0.4% 0.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
1.2%
0.9%
12.6%
7.0%
10.5%
4.6%
5.1%
2.1%
0.4%
0.4%
Built 1939 or earlier
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 2000 to 2009
Built 2010 to 2013
Built 2014 or later
Owners
1.2%
1.0%
10.8%
10.6%
14.7%
7.0%
4.4%
3.4%
1.0%
1.0%
Built 1939 or earlier
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 2000 to 2009
Built 2010 to 2013
Built 2014 or later
Renters
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-42
5. Housing Costs and Availability
The ACS estimates that the median home value in Anaheim, for the 2015-2019 U.S. Census Bureau’s survey period, is $575,600. As Table 2-35: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction shows, this is the fourth lowest value compared to nearby cities. Anaheim’s median home value is approximately $282,700 less than Yorba Linda, which has the highest value. Larger homes with higher prices are generally affordable to persons or households withmoderate or above moderate incomes.
Table 2-35: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Buena Park $579,100
Cypress $632,900
Placentia $630,500
Santa Ana $491,300
Stanton $386,400
Fullerton $650,000
Anaheim $575,600
Orange (City) $656,100
Yorba Linda $858,300
Garden Grove $554,400
County of Orange $679,300
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
The median home prices in Anaheim in January 2022 was $846,355, an approximately 32 percent increase from 20193. All other jurisdictions have seen sizeable increases in median home prices as well. Housing prices have increased by 33 percent on average in the last three years. Although Anaheim’s housing price increase falls below the 33 percent average, housing in the City has increased by approximately $270,755 on average.
In communities like Stanton, prices have increased by almost 50 percent. Table 2-36 below shows the current median home values in surrounding jurisdictions and in the County as of January 2022. Overall, the increase in the cost of housing in these jurisdictions and the County has increased by $294,701.
Table 2-36: Median Home Values, 2022
Jurisdiction Median Home Value Percent Change from 2019 Buena Park $840,133 31%
Cypress $951,466 33%
Placentia $971,673 35%
Santa Ana $763,925 36%
Stanton $698,792 45%
Fullerton $903,270 28%
Anaheim $846,355 32%
Orange (City) $958,341 32%
Yorba Linda $1,183,274 27%
Garden Grove $868,377 36%
County of Orange1 $950,000 28%
Source: Zillow Home Prices and Home Values, 2022.
Notes:
1. County of Orange Source: Realtor.com. (2022). Orange County, CA Housing Market. Available at https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Orange-County_CA/overview. Accessed on February 15, 2022. 3 Zillow. Anaheim Home Values. Available at https://www.zillow.com/anaheim-ca/home-values/. Accessed on February 15, 2022.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-43 As shown in Table 2-37: Median Gross Rent by Bedroom Size, the monthly rent for a one bedroom in Anaheim increased from $1,154 to $1,517 (28.08 percent) between 2015 and 2019; experiencing the second largest price increase of unit types, based on the number of bedrooms. Studios saw the largest price increase in monthly rent during the same period, at 29.77 percent. In general, all rental units saw anincrease inprices over these five years, withthe mediangross rent increasing by 24.5 percent from$1,392 to $1,733.
Table 2-37: Median Gross Rent by Bedroom Size
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Percent
Change
2015 -2019
Studio $1,169 $1,219 $1,387 $1,469 $1,517 29.77%
1 Bedroom $1,154 $1,282 $1,291 $1,383 $1,478 28.08%
2 Bedrooms $1,452 $1,578 $1,654 $1,705 $1,770 21.90%
3 Bedrooms $1,909 $1,967 $1,948 $2,109 $2,215 16.03%
4 Bedrooms $2,131 $2,116 $2,417 $2,371 $2,523 18.40%
5 or More Bedrooms $2,324 $3,054 $2,418 $2,013 $2,809 20.87% Median Gross Rent $1,392 $1,489 $1,578 $1,643 $1,733 24.50% Source: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 One-Year American Community Surveys (U.S. Census Bureau).
Housing affordability analysis includes comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the City with themaximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. The analysis informs the affordability of different housing sizes and types and indicates the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment.
The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed income limits, based on the Median Family Income (MFI), which local jurisdictions can use to determine the maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category. Households in the lower end of each category can afford less expensive housing than those at the upper end. Table 2-38: Affordable Housing Costs in Orange County shows the maximum affordable home prices without overpayment for residents in Orange County. Table 2-35: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction shows the median asking price for homes in each jurisdiction for comparison. Table 2-39: Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters in Orange County (2020) shows the maximum affordable monthly rental amount that a household can pay for each month without overpayment.
Extremely Low-Income
Household(s) with extremely low-income, earning less than 30 percent of the County MFI, the maximum affordable home price for ownership is up to $93,900 for a one-person household and up to $104,400 for a five-person household in 2020. Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Anaheim without a substantial cost burden.
Very Low-Income
The very low-income limits are the basis for all other income limits. Household(s) with Very low-income, earning between 31 percent and 50 percent of the County MFI, the maximum affordable home price for ownership is up to $181,800 for a one-person household and up to $239,700 for a five-person household in 2020. Very low-income households cannot afford market-rate rentalor ownership housing in Anaheim without a substantial cost burden.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-44 Low-Income
Household(s) with Low-income, earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the County’s MFI, the maximum affordable home price for ownership is up to $313,200 for a one-person household and up to $442,600 for a five-person household in 2020. Given the cost of housing in Anaheim, low-income households could afford market-rate rental units. Low-income households would not be able to afford to own a home.
Moderate Income
Household(s) with moderate-income earn between 81 percent and 120 percent of the County’s MFI. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $380,000 for a one-person household and $545,800 for a five-person family. Moderate-income households can generally find affordable marketrate rental units in the City. Ownership housingHome ownership in Anaheim is generally affordable to 5- person households but remain generally unattainable to smaller household sizes.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-45 Table 2-38: Affordable Housing Costs in Orange County
Annual Income Mortgage Utilities1 Tax and
Insurance
Total
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Cost
Affordable
Purchase Price
Extremely Low-income (30% of MFI)
1-Person $28,250 $428 $172 $106 $706 $93,900
2-Person $32,300 $453 $233 $121 $808 $99,400
3-Person $36,350 $469 $303 $136 $909 $102,800
4-Person $40,350 $482 $375 $151 $1,009 $105,700
5-Person $43,600 $476 $451 $164 $1,090 $104,400
Very Low-Income (50% of MFI)
1-Person $47,100 $829 $172 $177 $1,178 $181,800
2-Person $53,800 $910 $233 $202 $1,345 $199,600
3-Person $60,550 $984 $303 $227 $1,514 $215,800
4-Person $67,250 $1,054 $375 $252 $1,681 $231,200
5-Person $72,650 $1,093 $451 $272 $1,816 $239,700
Low-income (80% MFI)
1-Person $75,300 $1,428 $172 $282 $1,883 $313,200
2-Person $86,050 $1,596 $233 $323 $2,151 $350,000
3-Person $96,800 $1,754 $303 $363 $2,420 $384,700
4-Person $107,550 $1,910 $375 $403 $2,689 $419,000
5-Person $116,200 $2,018 $451 $436 $2,905 $442,600
Moderate Income (120% MFI)
1-Person $89,650 $1,733 $172 $336 $2,241 $380,000
2-Person $102,450 $1,944 $233 $384 $2,561 $426,300
3-Person $115,250 $2,146 $303 $432 $2,881 $470,600
4-Person $128,050 $2,346 $375 $480 $3,201 $514,500
5-Person $138,300 $2,488 $451 $519 $3,458 $545,600
1. Utilities includes electric cooking, heating, water heating; basic electric; water; trash; air conditioning; refrigerator.
Source: 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule (Orange County Housing Authority) and 2021 State Income Limits(California Department of Housing and Community Development).
Notes: Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2021 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a30- year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Housing Authority of the County of Orange Utility Allowance.
Section 2: Community Profile [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 2-46 Table 2-39: Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters in Orange County (2020) Annual Income Rent Utilities1
Total Affordable
Monthly Housing
Cost
Extremely Low-income (30% of AMFI)
1-Person $28,250 $534 $172 $706
2-Person $32,300 $575 $233 $808
3-Person $36,350 $606 $303 $909
4-Person $40,350 $634 $375 $1,009
5-Person $43,600 $639 $451 $1,090
Very Low-income (50% of AMFI)
1-Person $47,100 $1,006 $172 $1,178
2-Person $53,800 $1,112 $233 $1,345
3-Person $60,550 $1,211 $303 $1,514
4-Person $67,250 $1,306 $375 $1,681
5-Person $72,650 $1,365 $451 $1,816
Low-income (80% AMFI)
1-Person $75,300 $1,711 $172 $1,883
2-Person $86,050 $1,918 $233 $2,151
3-Person $96,800 $2,117 $303 $2,420
4-Person $107,550 $2,314 $375 $2,689
5-Person $116,200 $2,454 $451 $2,905
Moderate Income (120% AMFI)
1-Person $89,650 $2,069 $172 $2,241
2-Person $102,450 $2,328 $233 $2,561
3-Person $115,250 $2,578 $303 $2,881
4-Person $128,050 $2,826 $375 $3,201
5-Person $138,300 $3,007 $451 $3,458
1. Utilities includes electric cooking, heating, water heating; basic electric; water; trash; air conditioning; refrigerator.
Source: 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule (Orange County Housing Authority) and 2021 State Income Limits (California Department of Housing and Community Development).
Notes: Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2021 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a30- year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Housing Authority of the County of Orange Utility Allowance.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-1
Section 3
Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-2 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
As common in many communities, a variety of constraints can affect the provisions and opportunities for adequate housing in the City of Anaheim. Housing constraints consist of both governmental constraints, including but not limited to development standards and building codes, land use controls, and permitting processes; as well as, nongovernmental or market constraints, including but not limited to land costs, construction costs, and availability of finances. Combined, these factors create barriers to availability and affordability of new housing, especially for lower and moderate-income households.
A. Nongovernmental Constraints
Nongovernmental constraints largely affect the cost of housing in Anaheim and can produce barriers to housing production and affordability. These constraints include the availability and cost of land for residential development, the demand for housing, the availability of financing and lending, construction costs and labor, which can make it expensive for developers to build any housing, and especially affordable housing. The following discussion highlights the primary market factors that affect the production of housing in Anaheim.
1. Land Costs and Construction Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes on a square-foot and per unit basis. However, there is variation within each construction type, depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC established itself in 1994 with the goal of developing a single set of national model construction codes, known as the International Codes, or I-Codes. The ICC updates the estimated cost of construction at six-month intervals and provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type VA wood-frame housing. The ICC bases these estimates on “good-quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In February 2021, the ICC estimated that the average per square-foot cost for good-quality housing was approximately $125.18 for multi-family housing, $138.79 for single-family homes, and $156.95 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenities run even higher. Construction costs are also dependent upon materials used and building height, as well as regulations set by the City’s adopted Development Code, Building Code and Fire Code.
Home modifications and additional renovations may increase the overall resale cost of a home. For example, a homeowner may take advantage of garage conversion or accessory dwelling unit incentives to create a unit on an existing single-family lot. According to the ICC, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or converting a garage using a Type VB wood framed unit would cost about $130.58 per square foot, a cost which is often passed on to a renter or in the sale process to the next homeowner.
The California Construction Cost index, as reported by the Department of General Services, is developed based upon Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices average for San Francisco and Los Angeles. According to Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-3 the data, construction costs increaseincreased by 3.6 percent in 2019, an additional 2.8 percent in 2020 and from December 2020 to May 2021 an estimated 8 percent. It is important to take the cost increase from 2020 into 2021 into consideration when determining construction cost constraints. Although construction costs are a significant portion of the overall development cost, according to ICC construction cost data, they are generally consistent throughout the region and, especially when considering land costs, not a major constraint to housing production in Anaheim.
However, land costs can pose a significant constraint to the development of affordable and middleincome housing and represent a significant cost component in residential development. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that the property owner/developer must remove prior to construction. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental issues (e.g. soil stability, seismic hazards, flooding), also factor into the cost of land. According to Orange County Real Estate Inc., in July 2021, only two vacant lots sold or were for salesold in Anaheim within the last 3 years.
One lot was 0.24 acres and sold for $490,000, the other lot was 0.54 acres and sold for $801,000. Based on the sale prices of the vacant lots, the estimated average cost of land per square in the City is about $40.46 per square foot, on average.
2. Available Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including the type of lending institutions active in a community, lending practices, rates and fees charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to such loans. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to all residents of a community. The data presented in this section includes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing in the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine Metropolitan Statistical Area/Metropolitan Division (MSA/MD).
Table 3-1: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity – Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA/MD below displays the disposition of loan applications for the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA/MD per the 2020 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act report. Included in the table is information on loan applications that met the following criteria:
• Approved and originated
• Denied
• Other (includes withdrawn by the applicant or incomplete).
The information shows that applicants with an income of less than 50 percent of the County median income saw lower loan approval rates overall, specifically applicants who identified as American Indian and Alaska Native (37.9 percent approval rate), Hispanic or Latino (46.3 percent approval rates) and Black or African American (51.6 percent approval rates). Overall, approval rates for applicants in the lowest income category averaged around 52 percent. Applicants who earned 100 percent of the County median income had higher rates of loan approval, specifically those who identified as White and Asian. Overall, persons who identified as White had higher rates of loan applications and application approvals.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-4 Table 3-1: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity – Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA/MD Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied Percent Other Total (Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska
Native 37.9% 38.9% 23.2% 95
Asian 59.6% 22.7% 17.8% 3651
Black or African American 51.6% 23.8% 24.6% 122
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 68.9% 18.9% 12.2% 90
White 50.0% 24.9% 25.1% 7923
Hispanic or Latino 46.3% 28.8% 24.9% 2317
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska
Native 46.2% 26.9% 26.9% 119
Asian 65.5% 13.6% 20.9% 7365
Black or African American 51.5% 24.3% 24.3% 268
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 64.4% 19.5% 16.1% 87
White 65.9% 13.3% 20.8% 16661
Hispanic or Latino 60.2% 17.7% 22.1% 5354
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska
Native 62.0% 22.0% 16.0% 50
Asian 69.4% 10.0% 20.6% 3335
Black or African American 63.4% 13.4% 23.2% 112
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 66.7% 15.7% 17.6% 51
White 70.2% 10.7% 19.1% 7289
Hispanic or Latino 65.7% 12.6% 21.8% 1981
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska
Native 59.9% 16.9% 23.2% 142
Asian 70.8% 9.1% 20.2% 10984
Black or African American 65.7% 13.2% 21.1% 341
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 67.8% 15.1% 17.1% 146
White 72.8% 8.6% 18.6% 25106
Hispanic or Latino 66.5% 10.9% 22.6% 5527
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska
Native 55.8% 15.5% 28.7% 317
Asian 68.5% 8.9% 22.6% 33015
Black or African American 64.1% 10.5% 25.4% 913
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 68.1% 10.2% 21.7% 373
White 72.0% 8.0% 20.0% 80404
Hispanic or Latino 67.7% 9.7% 22.5% 9180
Source: 2020 Disposition of Applications by Income, Race, and Ethnicity, MSA/MD Aggregate Reports (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-5
3. Economic Constraints
Market forces on the economy and changes in the construction industry can act as a barrier to housing development and especially to affordable housing construction. Data from the California Association of Realtors (CAR) estimates that housing price growth will continue in the City and the region for the near future. Moving into 2020, the economy was growing, California was seeing a 1.6 percent growth in jobs from 2019 and experiencing all-time lows for unemployment rates. The COVID-19 pandemic created rippling effects on the market as well as the construction industry as stay-at-home orders affected the global working industries. Although, the City cannot predict the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on housing, the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley predicts that there may be both a long-term effect on development and housing needs.1 A 2021 California Association of Realtors (CAR) report found that homes on the market in Orange County experience experienced a 31.8 percent year-to-year increase and cost an average of $1,100,000 in May 2021, which is roughly $281,740 higher than the State median home price in the same month ($818,260).
According to CAR First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index the median value of a home in Orange County was $850,000 with monthly payments (including taxes and insurance) of $4,150, requiring an average qualifying income of $124,500. The CAR First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index reported that homes and the cost of living in Anaheim are higher than the State median housing and living costs.
According to July 2021 data from Redfin, the median selling cost of a home on the market in Anaheim is $750,000. Home values in the city have gone up about 19% over the past year. The same report found that in July 2021 the median list price per square foot in Anaheim is $517, which is equal to the County of Orange average of $517.
The cost of housing and market conditions in Orange County, specifically Anaheim, are high and may be considered a constraint to the development and access of housing, specifically affordable housing. The City does not have control over the conditions and status of the housing market; however, it uses and will continue to use local, state, and federal funding to provide programs to support affordable housing development and access for community members.
B. Governmental Constraints
In addition to market constraints, local policies and regulations also affect the price and availability of housing and the provision of affordable housing. For example, State and Federal regulations affect the availability of land for housing and the cost of housing production, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in a region. Regulations related to environmental protection, building codes, and other topics have significant, often adverse, impacts on housing cost and availability.
While the City of Anaheim has no control over State and Federal Laws that affect housing, local laws including land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, permit processing procedures, and other factors can constrain the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing by creating barriers to housing.
1 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. 2021., Estimating COVID-19’s Near-Term Impact on Renters.
Accessed online August 2021.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-6
1. Land Use Controls
In the State of California, cities are required to prepare a comprehensive, long term General Plan to guide future development. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes land uses and density of development within the City of Anaheim. The Land Use Element sets policies and regulations for guiding local development. These policies, together with existing zoning regulations, establish the amount and distribution of land that the General Plan allocates for different uses within the City.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the following residential land use designations, and the Zoning Code identifies their existing allowed densities:
• Estate Density (0-1.5 dwelling units per acre) - The Estate Density Residential designation provides for the development of large-lot single-family residences with a custom character. Typical development consists of single-family lots of 22,000 to 43,560 square feet. This land use designation is limited to the Hill and Canyon Area.
• Low Density (0-6.5 dwelling units per acre) - The Low Density Residential designation provides for the development of conventional single-family detached houses. Typical development consists of single-family lots of 5,000 to 10,000 square-feet. The City designates over half of all residential land in Anaheim as Low Density Residential.
• Low-Medium Hillside (0-6.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Low-Medium Hillside Density Residential designation provides for the development of both attached and detached singlefamily homes in hillside areas. Although the maximum density is similar to the Low Density Residential designation, the character of development can vary significantly. Lot sizes in these areas are typically smaller and have typical minimum lot sizes of less than 5,000 square-feet, due to the sloping topography and associated reduction in developable area. Development within this designation is often “clustered” in order to reduce site grading while maximizing the preservation of open space.
• Low-Medium Density (0-18.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Low-Medium Density Residential designation provides for a wide range of residential uses, including detached, small-lot singlefamily homes, attached single-family homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, townhouses, and mobile home parks.
• Mid Density (0-27.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Mid Density Residential designation provides for a wide range of residential uses, including detached, small-lot single-family homes, attached single-family homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, and townhouses. • Medium Density (0-36.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Medium Density Residential designation is intended to provide a quality multiple-family living environment with design amenities, such as private open space or recreation areas, business services, swimming pools, etc. Typical development includes apartment complexes.
• Corridor Residential (0-13.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Corridor Residential designation is intended to provide for single-family attached housing fronting on arterial highways and incorporating a rear access drive or service alley. For projects with sufficient depth, this designation may also incorporate single-family detached housing located behind the attached product. The City’s intent for this designation is to provide for housing opportunities along the City’s arterial corridors.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-7 • Mixed-Use Mid (0-27.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Mixed-Use Mid designation is intended to allow flexibility for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and office development. They allow residential in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration at a density of up to 27 dwelling units per acre and could include livework units, duplexes, and townhouses in a horizontal or vertical mixed-use pattern. Residential development in these areas emphasizes quality and offers a variety of amenities. • Mixed-Use Medium (0-36.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Mixed-Use Medium designation is intended to allow flexibility for parcels that could transition from strip commercial uses to residential or a mix of residential, commercial, and office development. They allow residential in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration. Residential development in these areas emphasizes quality and offers a variety of amenities.
• Mixed-Use High (0-60.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Mixed-Use High designation is intended to allow a mix of uses including residential, commercial, services, hotel, and professional office uses in a high-quality environment. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, including increased connectivity and community gathering spaces. The design of the uses and activities are integrated to create a dynamic urban environment. Continuous commercial street frontage on the first and, perhaps, second floors, supported by residential and/or office uses above, is the typical pattern of vertically mixed land use. Uses are mixed in a horizontal or multi-use pattern. Stand-alone uses within a multi-use project need to be integrated into an overall project design and connected to other adjoining uses by plazas, promenades, and landscaped corridors, and should include common architectural themes and signage. Typical residential uses could include stacked flats, live-work units, townhouses, and artist-style lofts.
Residential development in these areas emphasizes quality and offers a variety of amenities. • Mixed-Use Urban Core (0-100.0 dwelling units per acre) - The Mixed-Use Urban Core designation is intended to allow a mix of uses including residential, commercial, services, hotel, and professional office uses in a high-quality environment. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian-friendly environment, including increased connectivity and community gathering spaces. Uses and activities are designed together in an integrated fashion to create a dynamic urban environment. Continuous commercial street frontage on the first and, perhaps, second floors, supported by residential and/or office uses above, is the typical pattern of vertically mixed land use. Uses may also be mixed in a horizontal or multi-use pattern. Stand-alone uses within a multi-use project need to be integrated into an overall project design and connected to other adjoining uses by plazas, promenades, and landscaped corridors, and should include common architectural themes and signage. Typical residential uses could include stacked flats, live-work units, and artist-style lofts. Residential development in these areas emphasizes quality and offers a variety of amenities.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-8
2. Overlay Zones
An overlay zoneszone is a regulatory tool where the City creates and places a special zoning district over an existing or “base” zone. The overlay zone may identify special provisions in addition to or instead of the provisions of the underlying zone. The City uses overlay zones for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to increasing environmental resource protection, permit housing in specific areas, or create transit-oriented areas for development. The section below summarizes the overlay zones effective in the City of Anaheim.
• Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone (PTMU) - The intent of this overlay zone is to provide opportunities for well-designed development projects that combine residential with nonresidential uses, including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities within the portions of the Platinum Triangle designated with the Mixed-Use, Office High and Office Low land use designations in the City of Anaheim General Plan, and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan. • Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay Zone (BCC) – The intent of this overlay zone is to provide a mechanism for the orderly development of property within the Brookhurst Sub-Area of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area so as to assist in the elimination of blight and blighting influences. It is further intended to encourage suitable residential development at mid-block and other appropriate locations in the Brookhurst Sub-Area. • South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone (SABC) – The intent of this overlay zone is to encourage Boulevard and Neighborhood Residential uses north of Ball Road, with neighborhood commercial development at intersections and to ensure that new development relates well to existing residential neighborhoods.
• Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone (MHP) - The intent of this zone is to provide for the orderly growth and development of sites for mobile home parks, consistent with the City's goal of accommodating alternative housing types and to balance the interests of mobile home park owners and mobile homeowners. It is also intended to mitigate the herein identified relocation challenges and adverse effects of displacement upon the displaced mobile homeowners when a park is converted to another land use.
• The Floodplain Overlay Zone (FP) - The Floodplain Overlay Zone is combined with existing zones in those areas within the City of Anaheim, which, under present conditions, are subject to periodic flooding and accompanying hazards. The zoning designation for the property shall constitute the base or underlying zone and the designation (FP) shall constitute an overlay zone. In the event of conflicting provisions between the underlying zone and the (FP) Overlay Zone regulations, the more restrictive regulations shall apply.
• Downtown Mixed Use Overlay Zone (DMU) – The intent of this overlay zone is to encourage superior, designed, mixed use development projects that combine residential with nonresidential uses, including office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities as a means to continue downtown revitalization. • Mixed Use Overlay Zone (MU) - The intent of this overlay zone is to implement the Mixed Use Mid Density, Mixed Use Medium Density, and Mixed Use High Density General Plan Land Use Designations; in order to produce healthy, safe, and attractive neighborhoods within the City of Anaheim, consistent with the policy direction in the Anaheim General Plan.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-9 • Residential Opportunity (RO) - This overlay zone is intended to be applied to properties that are currently zoned and/or developed with non-residential uses but designated for multiple-family residential uses by the City’s General Plan. Examples of non-residential zones to which the Overlay Zone may be applied include, but are not limited to, the General Commercial (C-G), Transitional (T), and Industrial (I) zones. The overlay zone is further intended to serve as an implementation tool of the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan by facilitating residential development on identified “housing opportunity sites.”
• Scenic Corridor (SC) – This overlay zone provides for and promotes orderly growth in certain areas of the City designated as being of distinctive, scenic importance, while implementing local governmental agency actions for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the unique and natural scenic assets of these areas as a valuable resource to the community. This area has been designated as an area of distinctive natural and rural beauty, characterized, and exemplified by the interrelationship between such primary natural features as the rolling terrain, winding river, Specimen Trees, and the profusion of natural vegetation. The area of the City designated as being within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone is defined as that area lying easterly of the intersection of the State Route 55/Costa Mesa and State Route 91/Riverside Freeways, westerly of the Orange County line, southerly of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, and northerly of the present or any future south city limits of the City of Anaheim, with the exception of those properties within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-01 (SP2015-01) Zone.
3. Residential Zones
Zones are a form of land use control that permit specific development uses and type on land. For example, a commercial zone will generally permit retail or business office uses, included in the zoning code are also development standards, which regulate the size and type of use permitted in different zones. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code establishes residential zoning districts that permit a variety of developments and land uses in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Element. The section below outlines each zone, which permits residential developments.
• Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone (RH-1) - The intent of the “RH-1” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semirural character, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet. This zone implements the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
• Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone (RH-2) - The intent of the “RH-2” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment of a spacious and semirural character, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet. This zone implements the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
• Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone (RH-3) - The intent of the “RH-3” Single-Family Hillside Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment in keeping with the natural amenities and scenic resources of the area, with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low-Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-10 • Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-1) - The intent of the “RS-1” Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low-Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
• Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-2) - The intent of the “RS-2” Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. This zone implements the Low-Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. • Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-3) - The intent of the “RS-3” Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with single-family dwelling units on a minimum lot size of five thousand (5,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Hillside Density Residential land use designations in the General Plan.
• Single-Family Residential Zone (RS-4) - The intent of the “RS-4” Single-Family Residential Zone is to provide for and encourage the development of high-quality residential units on small lots, in order to provide additional housing choices and use land efficiently. This zone implements the Low-Medium Density Residential and Low-Medium Hillside Density land use designations in the General Plan.
• Multiple-Family Residential Zone (RM-1) - The intent of the "RM-1" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy residential corridor environment along arterial highways, and facilitate the conversion of underutilized strip commercial areas into housing. This zone also encourages planned residential development for attached single-family townhouses with strong street-facing orientation, incorporating a rear access drive or service alley, with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of three thousand three hundred fifty (3,350) square feet. This zone implements the Corridor Residential land use designation in the General Plan. • Multiple-Family Residential Zone (RM-2) - The intent of the "RM-2" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment, with townhouses and other low-rise, attached, singlefamily units with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of three thousand (3,000) square feet. This zone implements the Low-Medium Density Residential and Low-Medium Hillside Density Residential land use designations in the General Plan. • Multiple-Family Residential Zone (RM-3) - The intent of the "RM-3" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with multiple-family units with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of two thousand four hundred (2,400) square feet. This zone implements the Low-Medium Density Residential, Mid Density Residential, and Medium Density land use designations in the General Plan.
• Multiple-Family Residential Zone (RM-3.5) - The intent of the "RM-3.5" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with multiple-family units with a minimum building site area per dwelling unit of one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet. This zone implements the Mid Density Residential and Medium Density land use designations in the General Plan. • Multiple-Family Residential Zone (RM-4) - The intent of the "RM-4" Zone is to provide an attractive, safe, and healthy environment with multiple-family units with a minimum building site Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-11 area per dwelling unit of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet. This zone implements the Medium Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan.
4. Residential Development Standards
Development standards are crucial for implementing consistency in development as well as ensuring appropriateness and compatibility among developments. Housing development standards often regulate size, height, setbacks, and lot coverage, which encourage community friendly and safe environments.
While development standards are beneficial, if too strict or lacking flexibility they can be considered a constraint to the development of housing, lack of flexibility may decrease feasibility of certain housing types or increase cost of development which in turn is often passed on to the purchaser or renter.
The section below outlines the development standards for zones, which permit residential as a primary use in Anaheim. Table 3-2 provides the development standards established for each zoning district to guide appropriate development.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-12 Table 3-2: Residential Development Standards
Zoning
District Density Min. Lot Area (sq. ft)
Width
(ft)
Setbacks (ft.)
Max Height (ft/stories) Max. Lot
Coverage Front (ft) Rear (ft) Side (ft)
RH-1 1 DU/Acre 43,560 125 20 20 15 25 ft/2 stories NA
RH-2 1 DU/Acre 22,000 85 25 252 10 25 ft2 stories
NA
RH-3 4 DU/Acre 10,000 50 20 15 6 25 ft/2 stories 40%
RS-1 4 DU/Acre 10,000 90 302 252 5 35 ft/2.5 stories 40% RS-2 6 DU/Acre 7,200 70 252 253 5 35 ft/2.5 stories 40% RS-3 8 DU/Acre 5,000 50 15 15 54 30 ft/2 stories 40%
RS-4 * * * 10 106 55 35 ft/2 stories1
50%*
RM-1 13 DU/Acre 3,350 * ** ** ** 40 ft* 50%
RM-2 14 DU/Acre 3,000 707 ** ** ** 40 ft8 40%
RM-3 18 DU/Acre 2,400 707 ** ** ** 40 ft8 45%
RM-3.5 27 DU/Acre 1,600 707 ** ** ** 40 ft8 50%
RM-4 36 DU/Acre 1,200 707 ** ** ** 40 ft8 55%
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code
Notes:
* Subject to 18.04.160 of Zoning Code
** Subject to 18.06.090 of Zoning Code
1. 35 feet/3 stories if the structure is located 55 feet or more from the property line of any detached single-family residential use or zone.
2. Or 25% of lot depth.
3. Except that the depth may be reduced to 10 feet, provided that dwellings or accessory structures shall not occupy more than 35% of the required rear setback.
4. For development of an entire tract, zero feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side, provided a minimum of 10 feet is maintained between structures on adjacent lots (the latter requirement provides for zero side yards).
5. 5 feet from structures to the property line or zero feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other side, provided a minimum of 10 feet is maintained between structures on adjacent lots (the latter requirement provides for zero side yards); 20 feet from three-story structures to the property line adjacent to a non-single family residential use or zone.
6. 10 feet for single-story structures; 15 feet for two and three-story structures; 55 feet for three-story structure within One Hundred Fifty (150) feet of Single- Family Residential Zones. 20 feet from three-story structures to the property line adjacent to a non-single family residential use or zone
7. 70 feet, except that a building permit may be approved for development on any City-approved, existing lot of record, having a lesser width, subject to compliance with all other provisions of this title.
8. 40 feet; provided, however, that buildings exceeding 40 feet or 3 stories in height may be increased to 4 stories by conditional use permit.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-13 Yard Requirements
Yards allow for open space, landscaping and greenery, emergency access, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation on a site. Requirements are set in order to ensure there is adequate available space designated to these elements on a property when considering new development or improvements. Included in these requirements are setbacks areas that are located between a setback line and the property line and must remain unobstructed. Setbacks provide the following:
• Visibility and traffic safety
• Access to and around structures
• Access to natural light and ventilation
• Separation of incompatible land uses
• Space for privacy, landscaping, and recreation
• Protection of natural resources
• Safety from fire and geologic hazard
Lot Coverage and FAR
Lot coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) standards control bulk, mass, and intensity of a use. Lot coverage limits a building’s footprint and is the percentage between the ground floor area of building(s) and the net area of a lot. FAR limits the total usable floor area; it is a ratio between the bulk floor area of building(s) and gross lot area. Floor area ratio is a supplementary device that under some conditions improves upon (but does not necessarily replace) the traditional means of relating bulk of building to land, to other buildings in the vicinity, and to public facilities. It permits variable dimensions within an over-all volume limit and it offers a way of predicting the ratio of persons to a unit of land in office building districts of high land use intensity.
Maximum Building Height
Maximum building heights are set and defined in the City’s Zoning Code to maintain symmetry and compatibility between existing and proposed developments. The height is defined by the City’s Zoning code as the vertical measurement from the highest point of the structure (excluding any projections which this title expressly authorizes above the maximum height) to the closest finished grade. The closest finished grade is measured at a point five feet from the outer edge of the closest portion of the building.
For properties with a sloping grade, the maximum allowable height shall be measured as the vertical measurement from the closest sloping finished grade measured at a point five feet from the outer edge of the closest portion of the building to an imaginary plane located at the allowed number of feet above and parallel to the finished grade. If the finished pad results in a slope of one elevation only, a minimum five-foot offset is required for an elevation to be considered a different plane.
Usable Open Space
The City’s Zoning Code defines Usable Open Space as any usable area designed and/or to be used for outdoor living, recreation or landscaping which shall be unobstructed and unoccupied from the ground upward to the sky except for landscape materials. In addition, outdoor living space may include an unenclosed balcony, roof deck, patio, swimming pool and open cabana in single-family zones as long as one side of the structure remains entirely open. Usable open space encourages healthy environments for Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-14 residents and creates access to open space and recreation; usable open space requirements are not considered a constraint to the development of housing.
Parking Standards
The City’s requirements for sufficient off-street parking are to avoid street overcrowding. These parking requirements are dependent on the land use/housing type and the number of bedrooms. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 provide the parking requirements specific to the City of Anaheim.
Table 3-3: Single-Family Parking Requirements
Number of Bedrooms Parking Spaces Required
Five or fewer Bedrooms 4 (2 in the Garage)
Six or more Bedrooms 4 (2 in the Garage), plus 1 additional space per bedroom over 5 bedrooms
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code Section 18.42.030
The City’s multi-family parking standards are not a constraint, as the City continues to receive and approve multi-family projects that meet the City’s minimum parking requirements. Among 14 recently approved housing projects, ten projects comply with the City’s minimum parking requirements, and four projects comply with the State Bonus Density law. Notably, these four projects provide more parking than the minimum required by the State Bonus Density law. Therefore, the parking requirementsin the City do not create a constraint.
The City has no indication that the City’s current development standards or any other land use controls currently impact the cost or supply of housing in the City since the City continues to receive and approve housing projects. As such, individually and cumulatively, the City’s requirements do not create a constraint to the development of housing.
5. Variety of Housing Types Allowed
California Housing Element Law mandates jurisdictions must make sites available through zoning and development standards to promote the development of a variety of housing types for all socioeconomic levels of the populations. Housing types include single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory dwelling units, factory-built homes, mobile-homes, employee and agricultural work housing, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SROs), and housing for persons with disabilities. Table 3- 5 shows the various housing types permitted by Right (P), conditionally permitted (C), or not permitted (N) throughout the City of Anaheim.
Table 3-4: Multi-Family Parking Requirements
Number of Bedrooms Parking Spaces Required
Studio Unit 1.25 for each unit
One Bedroom 2 for each unit
Two Bedroom 2.25 for each unit
Three or more Bedrooms 3 for each unit (plus 0.5 space for each bedroom over 3 bedrooms) Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code Section 18.42.030
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-15 Table 3-5: Various Housing Types Permitted in Residential Zones Housing-related Types of Uses Zones Mixed-Use Overlays
RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-3.5 RM-4 MU DMU PTMU Single-Family Dwellings –
Detached P P P P P P C C P P P P N N N
Single-Family Dwellings –
Attached N N N N N N N C P C C C C P P
Multi-Family Dwellings N N N N N N N C P P P P P/C P P/C Mobile Home Parks N N N N N C N N C C C C N N N
Boardinghouses N N N N N N N C C C C C C C C
Senior Living Facilities P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P P P P P C P C Senior Citizen Housing N N N N N N N C C C C C P P P
Planned Residential Unit
Developments N N N N N N N C N C C C N NA NA
SRO (efficiency units) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Supportive/ Transitional Housing P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C C P P P P C P P Accessory Dwelling Unit(s) P P P P P P P P P P P P N NA NA Emergency Shelters (up to 50
occupants within the City) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Emergency Shelters (more than
50 occupants within the City) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Alcoholism or Drug Abuse
Recovery or Treatment Facilities P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C C P P/C Sober Living Homes P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C C C P/C Community Care Facilities
(Licensed and Unlicensed) P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C C P/N P/N Convalescent & Rest Homes N N N C C C N N N N N C C C P/C Family Day Care (Accessory) P P P P P P P P P P P P P NA NA Low Barrier Navigation Centers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code
P= Permitted by Right
C = Conditional Use Permit
N= Prohibited
NA= No information
Note: Types of Uses are defined in 18.36 of Zoning Code Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-16 Accessory Dwelling Unit
The Anaheim Municipal Code defines an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot zoned for residential use with a proposed or existing main dwelling unit. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation independent from the main dwelling unit. An Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit attaches to the main dwelling unit and has at least one common wall and a common roof with the main dwelling unit. A Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit is detached from the main dwelling unit.
Single-Family Dwellings (Detached and Attached)
The Anaheim Municipal Code defines a Single-Family Dwelling (Detached) as a dwelling unit with open space on all four sides. The dwelling unit often possesses an attached garage. An Attached Single-Family Dwelling is a dwelling unit attached to another dwelling unit by a common wall, commonly referred to as a townhouse, half-plex, or row house. The shared wall or walls extend from the foundation to the roof with adjoining dwelling units to form a property. Each dwelling unit has individual heating and plumbing systems.
Multiple-Family Dwellings
The Anaheim Municipal Code defines a Multi-Family Dwelling as two or more dwelling units within the same structure, located on a single lot, each with its own kitchen and bathroom facilities.
Mobile Home Parks
The Anaheim Municipal Code defines a Mobile Home Park as a site that is planned and improved to accommodate two or more Mobile Homes or Manufactured Homes used for residential purposes, or on which two or more Mobile Home or Manufactured Home spaces or lots each accommodate a Mobile Home or Manufactured Home for residential purposes.
Community Care Facility (Licensed and Unlicensed)
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code has the following definitions for Community Care Facilities:
• Community Care Facility–Licensed (Small). A building or portion thereof, designed or used for a residential facility licensed and/or certified by the State that provides non-medical care, services, counseling, or supervision to six (6) or fewer children or adults, including, but not limited to, persons who are physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children. Such facilities include community care facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 1502, and other similar State licensed care facilities. This use class shall not include Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, Day Care Centers, or any other uses otherwise defined in this Chapter.
• Community Care Facility–Unlicensed (Small). A building or portion thereof, designed or used for a residential care facility, not licensed by the State, that provides supportive living environment for six (6) or fewer adults who are considered handicapped under State or Federal Law (commonly referred to as a "group home"). This use class shall not include any Community Care Facility– Unlicensed that operates as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-17 Treatment Facilities, Boarding Houses, Community Care Facilities - Licensed, or any other uses otherwise defined in this Chapter.
• Community Care Facility–Licensed (Large). A building or portion thereof, designed or used for a residential facility licensed and/or certified by the State that provides non-medical care, services, counseling or supervision to seven (7) or more children or adults, including, but not limited to, persons who are physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children. Such facilities include community care facilities as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 1502, and other similar State licensed care facilities. This use class shall not include Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, Day Care Centers, or any other uses otherwise defined in this Chapter.
• Community Care Facility–Unlicensed (Large). A building or portion thereof, designed or used for a residential care facility, not licensed by the State, that provides supportive living environment for seven (7) or more adults who are considered handicapped under State or Federal Law (commonly referred to as a "group home"). This use class shall not include any Community Care Facility – Unlicensed that operates as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Boarding Houses, Community Care Facilities–Licensed, or any other uses otherwise defined in this Chapter.
Boarding House
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code has the following definition for Boardinghouse: A building, or portion thereof, where lodging is provided for persons, with or without meals for monetary or non-monetary compensation, on a commercial basis, for typical stays of more than seven (7) consecutive nights with no cooking facilities in the guest rooms. The total number of people living at the property, including permanent residents, live-in operators, and guests, shall not exceed fifteen (15) people. This use class shall not include a Hotel, Motel, Bed and Breakfast Inn, Convalescent & Rest Homes, Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Community Care Facilities– Licensed, Community Care Facilities - Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, or any other uses defined in this Section.
Senior Living Facility
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code has the following definition for Senior Living Facility:
• Senior Living Facility (Small). A State licensed facility that meets the definition of Residential Care Facility for Elderly, as specified in Section 1569.2 of California Health and Safety Code, subject to regulations of Chapter 3.2 of California Health and Safety Code. Such facility provides care and services on a monthly basis or longer to six (6) or fewer persons 60 years of age or older, where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility. Senior Living Facilities may include the following:
o Independent living: Facilities intended for individuals who are presently able to manage an independent lifestyle but foresee a future where more support will be necessary.
Residents of an independent living facility are provided with assistance in the Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-18 instrumental activities of daily living, such as dining, housekeeping, security, transportation, and recreation. Independent living dwelling units may have separate kitchens and garages.
o Assisted living: Facilities intended for residents that require some assistance with the activities of daily living, but do not need the 24-hour care of a nursing home. Assisted living services are regulated by Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8 of California Code of Regulations. These services include assistance with dressing, bathing, walking, eating and toileting, in addition to dining, housekeeping, security, transportation and recreation. o Memory living care: facilities intended for residents who require specialized care for dementia, Alzheimer’s, or other memory related illnesses. Memory living care services may be provided by a stand-alone facility, or by a facility offering a broader range of services, and includes dining, housekeeping, security, transportation, and recreation. o Skilled nursing: facilities intended for residents who require nursing care or supervision, either on a short-term or long-term basis, as regulated by Title 22, Division 5, Chapter 3 of California Code of Regulations.
o Continuing care retirement community: Facilities intended to serve the long-term residential, social, and health care needs of elderly residents by providing a continuum of care, minimizing transfer trauma, and allowing the following services to be provided in an appropriately licensed setting: dining, housekeeping, security, transportation, and recreation. Such facilities are regulated by Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8 of California Code of Regulations and Division 2, Chapter 10 of Health and Safety Code. Continuing care retirement community may include more than one, or all four, of the types of senior living facilities listed above.
• Senior Living Facilities (Large). A State licensed facility that meets the definition of Residential Care Facility for Elderly, as specified in Section 1569.2 of California Health and Safety Code, subject to regulations of Chapter 3.2 of California Health and Safety Code. Such facility provides care and services on a monthly basis or longer to seven (7) or more persons 60 years of age or older, where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility. This use class may include Independent Living, Assisted Living, Memory Living Care, Skilled Nursing, and Continuing Care Retirement Community, which are further defined under Senior Living Facilities (Small) in this chapter.
Senior Citizen Housing
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines Senior Citizen Housing as Senior Citizen Apartment Projects and Senior Citizen Housing Developments as described below:
• “Senior Citizens' Apartment Project." An apartment project approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.50 (Senior Citizens' Apartment Projects), with the occupancy of each dwelling unit being limited to at least one (1) resident of each such unit being a senior citizen, with the exception of not more than one (1) dwelling unit thereof, identified as the "resident manager's dwelling unit" in covenants recorded against the property, which unit may be occupied by a resident manager and his or her family, regardless of their ages.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-19 • "Senior Citizens' Apartment Project – Congregate Care." A senior citizens' apartment project, as the term is defined in this section, which also provides nursing, dietary and other personal services to residents.
• "Senior Citizens' Dwelling Unit." Each dwelling unit within a senior citizens' apartment project, with the exception of the resident manager's dwelling unit, if any. • "Senior Citizen Housing Development." A residential development developed, substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated, for senior citizens that has at least thirty-five (35) dwelling units, as defined in California Civil Code Section 51.3.
Supportive and Transitional Housing
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines Supportive and Transitional Housing as follows:
• Supportive Housing. This use class consists of housing that has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 65582 of the Government Code. • Transitional Housing. This use class consists of housing that has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 65582 of the Government Code.
As defined by HCD, transitional housing is a type of supportive housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing. A person experiencing homelessness may live in a transitional apartment for a predetermined period of time, however not less than six months while receiving supportive services that enable independent living. Supportive housing is permanent rental housing linked to a range of support services designed to enable residents to maintain stable housing and lead fuller lives. California Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires transitional and supportive housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65582, to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
A program is included in Section 4: Housing Policy Program in response to HCD’s Notice of Violation to the City of Anaheim dated December 14, 2021, and implements State law requirements pertaining to Transitional and Supportive Housing.
Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Recovery Facilities and Sober Living Homes Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Recovery Facilities, and Sober Living Homes as follows:
• Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facility (Small). A State licensed and/or certified facility, as defined in Section 11834.02 of the California Health & Safety Code, which includes any premises, place, or building that provides residential nonmedical services to six (6) or fewer adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-20 • Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities (Large). A State licensed and/or certified facility, as defined in Section 11834.02 of the California Health & Safety Code, which includes any premises, place, or building that provides residential nonmedical services to seven (7) or more adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services.
• Sober Living Home (Small). A residential care facility not licensed by the State, providing supportive living environment that is an alcohol and drug-free for six (6) or fewer adults recovering from alcoholism and/or drug abuse, who are considered handicapped under State or Federal law. Such facility shall not provide the services that are provided by the Community Care Facilities–Licensed or Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities. This use class shall not include any Sober Living Home operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Alcoholism or Drug Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Boarding Houses, Community Care Facilities–Licensed, or any other uses otherwise defined in this Chapter.
• Sober Living Home (Large). A residential care facility not licensed by the State, providing supportive living environment that is an alcohol and drug-free for seven (7) or more adults recovering from alcoholism and/or drug abuse and considered handicapped under State or Federal law. Such facility shall not provide the services that are provided by the Community Care Facilities–Licensed or Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities. This use class shall not include any Sober Living Home operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit, Alcoholism or Drug Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Boarding Houses, Community Care Facilities–Licensed, or any other uses otherwise defined in this Chapter.
Convalescent and Rest Homes
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines convalescent and rest homes as facilities providing nursing, dietary and/or other personal services on a twenty-four (24) hour basis for convalescents, invalids and/or aged persons who are unable to care for themselves, requiring regular medical attention (commonly referred to as a "nursing home" or "hospice"). This use excludes cases of alcohol and/or drug addictions, contagious or communicable diseases, and excluding surgery or primary treatments such as are customarily provided in hospitals.
Emergency Shelter
Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines Emergency Shelter as described in Health and Safety Code § 50801(e), as such sections may be amended from time to time, and which presently define the term “Emergency Shelter" to mean housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. Emergency Shelters with 50 or fewer occupants that can demonstrate compliance with the development standards of the Zoning Code may locate on any parcel designated by the General Plan for Industrial land use and has a zoning designation of Industrial or Development Areas 1 and 2 of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan as a by-right use. A CUP is required if a shelter requests modification of the development standards, along with Emergency Shelters with more the 50 occupants. Parking requirements for emergency shelters are currently in noncompliance with Emergency Shelter State law and a program is included in Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-21 Section 4: Housing Policy Program to ensure compliance with applicable State law. As shown in Figure 3-1, the majority of land designated as Industrial (I) by the General Plan is dispersed throughout the central portion of the City along the 5- and 91-Freeways as well as in in District 3 of the City.
Figure 3-1: Anaheim Land Use Map
Source: City of Anaheim, 2004, Available at http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/9522/E-Land-UseElement?bidId=.
While the majority of hazardous waste generators exist in the area located west of the 55 Freeway, much of the land that has a designated Industrial land use is not compromised by them. Table 3-6 shows the eight active and five inactive hazardous waste generators within the City of Anaheim, and Figure 3-2 shows locations of hazardous waste generators in the City. All generators listed are within Industrial Land Use areas and are either zoned as industrial or are within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. In order to avoid unnecessary exposure to toxic pollutants, these areas would not be used for emergency shelter activities and would reduce the available acreage for such activities to 1,188 acres. After the removal of these parcels, 970 sites (average size of 2 acres) would still be available for emergency shelter uses, which would still allow for an acceptable amount of space in the City for emergency shelters if needed.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-22 Table 3-6: CalEnviroScreen- Hazardous Waste Generators In Anaheim Facility Name APN Address Facility Type Facility
Status Zoning Land Use DesignationAcreageCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score L-3 Interstate Electronics Corporation03723002707 E Vermont Ave (B) Historical - NonOperating Protective
Filer Industrial (I) Industrial 4.14 71-75%
Delphi Corporation 07078103 1201 N Magnolia Ave Historical - NonOperating Closed Industrial (I) Industrial 21.23 46-50% Richards W C Of California 03502031 1116 N Olive St Historical - NonOperating Protective
Filer Industrial (I) Industrial
0.55 91-95%
General Electric International Inc 34517403 3601 E La Palma Ave Permitted - Operating
Operating
Permit
SP 2015-1 Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 6.46 76-80%
The Sherwin Williams Company 346141013818 East Coronado St Historical - NonOperating Protective
Filer
SP 2015-1 Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 4.42 Na
General Ceramics 34440104 2770 Coronado St Historical - NonOperating Protective
Filer
SP 2015-1 Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 2.21 76-80%
Multiwire West 34614129 3901 E. La Palma Ave. Historical - NonOperating Protective
Filer
SP 2015-1 Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 1.18 Na
Kinsbursky Brothers Supply Inc 03501204 1314 N Anaheim Blvd Permitted - Operating
Operating
Permit Industrial (I) Industrial 2.4 81-85%
Calprotech Inc 34513111 1166 N Grove St Historical - NonOperating Protective
Filer
SP 2015-1 Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 0.58 76-80%
American Diversified Silver 26705107 1004 E Orangefair Ln Historical - NonOperating Closed Industrial (I) Industrial 0.25 86-90% America Diversifiers Silver Inc 26705107 1004 E Orangefair Ln Historical - NonOperating Closed Industrial (I) Industrial 0.25 86-90% Remedy Environmental Services, LLC 36007130 3200 Frontera St Historical - NonOperating Closed SP 2015-1 Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 0.81 96-100% (Highest Scores) Engelhard West Inc 34645128 5510 E La Palma Ave Historical - NonOperating Closed SP 2015-1 Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Industrial 2.41 NA
Total Acreage: 46.89
Source:
1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report, October 2021
2. City Of Anaheim Property Information Search, Available At Https://Gis.Anaheim.Net/Propertyinfo/, Accessed On April 1, 2022 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-23 Figure 3-2: Hazardous Waste Generators in the City of Anaheim Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Note: Not all hazardous waste generators are shown based on the scale of the map.
Additionally, Industrial land uses are typically located near existing commercial and retail resources, as well as existing public transportation routes. Figure 3-3 shows the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) stops located near Industrial land uses and the transit routes and stops running through the area. As the figure shows, Industrial land use areas and potential emergency shelter occupants are located within a short distance to public transportation with destinations throughout the City.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-24 Figure 3-3: OCTA Routes Near Industrial Land Uses
Source: Orange County Transit Authority, 2022
Agricultural Workers Quarters
The Anaheim Municipal Code defines Agricultural Workers Quarters as dwellings occupied by employees primarily engaged in commercial agricultural operations and located on land owned or rented by the agricultural operator. Family members of the agricultural employees may also live in the same unit.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
AB 101 states: “The Legislature finds and declares that Low Barrier Navigation Center developments are essential tools for alleviating the homelessness crisis in this state and are a matter of statewide concern.” Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The Anaheim Municipal Code does not address Low Barrier Navigations Centers by definition. A program is included in Section 4: Housing Policy Program to ensure the City’s complies with all State law requirements to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by right in all zones that permit mixed uses and non-residential uses.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-25 Single Room Occupancy Units
A Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit is a form of housing typically aimed at residents with low or minimal incomes. SRO units serve as permanent residence or primary residence to such individuals, within a multitenant building where tenants may share a kitchen, toilets and/or bathrooms, along with common area amenities. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code currently does not define SRO Units; however, the City as specified in the AMC Section 18.38.215, allows conversion of existing motels and other commercial and office structures in general commercial zone into a housing development with efficiency units, which constitute as typical SRO units. A program is included in Section 4: Housing Policy Program for the City to review and potentially amend the existing Zoning Code Section 18.38.215 to further encourage creation of SRO units in the City.
6. Residential Planned Unit Development
The Anaheim Municipal Code defines a Planned Unit Development as, “a large scale development of a parcel, or of a combination of related parcels, to be developed by a single owner or group of owners acting jointly, involving a related group of uses, planned as an entity, and having a predominant developmental feature which serves to unify or organize development and is, therefore, susceptible to development and regulation as one unified land unit, rather than as a mere aggregation of individual buildings and structures located on separate lots.”
Residential Planned Unit development applications require a conditional use permit to review and ensure the following:
• All uses within the project are compatible
• All development is compatible in scale, bulk, mass, and orientation • There is adequate mobility, access, and circulation
• The project is compatible with design guidelines established by the City • The project area is adequate in both size and shape to allow the full development without creating or having detriment on surrounding uses
• The traffic generated by the project will not create an increased burden on the surrounding uses • The project is compliant with the general plan and applicable zoning regulations All development in the RM-1 Zone and any development in the RM-3, RM-3.5, or RM-4 Zones that includes single-family attached and detached dwellings shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission of an application for a conditional use permit. The maximum density of residential units approved pursuant to this section may not exceed the density as identified in the General Plan. All new residential development in the RM-1 Zone must have a project size of at least ten dwelling units.
7. Local Ordinances and Regulations
An ordinance is a law passed by a municipal government. Local ordinances are enacted to maintain or improve public safety, health, and general welfare. Locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances may directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Impacts may create governmental constraints to the development of housing and may Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-26 hinder the City from meeting its share of the regional housing need and the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.
Short-Term Rental Ordinance
Short-term rentals are commonly defined as an accessory use of a primary residence for the purposes of providing temporary lodging for compensation for up to 30 days or less. The purpose of Short-Term Rental Ordinances is to establish regulations, standards, and a permitting process governing the renting or leasing of privately owned, visitor-serving dwelling units on a short-term basis. Short-Term Rental Ordinances are often established to safeguard residents by ensuring that short-term rental activities do not threaten the character of neighborhoods and that such short-term rental activities do not become a nuisance, or threaten the public health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties. Because short-term rental units do not provide permanent housing, allowing such units may negatively impact housing supply.
The City of Anaheim has a Short-Term Rental Ordinance that prohibits any new short-term rental units in the City; therefore, the City’s Short-Term Rental Ordinance is not a hindrance to housing production.
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is a local zoning ordinance that either mandates or encourages housing developers to include a specified percentage of units affordable to lower and moderate-income households in the housing project. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance are intended to encourage integration of affordable housing units into a market-rate housing developments and increases types of housing available to different income levels.
The City of Anaheim currently does not have an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. However, programs are included in Section 4: Housing Policy Program to create an Affordable Housing Development Fee, which will be used to implement an Affordable Housing Production Program that will augment city staffing, leverage local resources for State and Federal funding, construct supporting infrastructure, and other actions as identified, to facilitate affordable housing.
Unlicensed Community Care Facilities and Sober Living Homes Regulations The City’s Zoning Code provides definitions for a variety types of housing, as described under Subsection B.3 of this Chapter, which includes both State licensed and non-State licensed residential facilities. NonState Licensed Residential Care Facilities are commonly known as group homes and sober living homes, and the City’s Zoning Code classifies them as either Community Care Facilities – Unlicensed or Sober Living Homes. The City recognizes that these non-State licensed residential facilities provide a societal benefit by providing the disabled the opportunity to live in a typical residential neighborhood, as well as providing needed support for disabled individuals. The City’s current Zoning Code provides reasonable standards and regulations for such facilities, and provides for a quality living environment for the residents of such facilities. The City’s current regulations furthers the purpose of the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (“FHAA”), the California Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”) and California’s Lanterman Act by allowing these facilities to be located in residential neighborhoods, providing the disabled with the opportunity to enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to that enjoyed by the non-disabled. As such, the City’s current regulations and standards applicable to non-State licensed residential facilities are not discriminatory towards persons with disabilities, nor act as a hindrance to housing production.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-27 Growth Management Measures
Growth management measures are techniques used by a government to regulate the rate, amount, and type of development. Local jurisdictions typically adopt growth management measures a through voter initiatives to regulate development and density throughout the City. Growth management measures allow cities to grow responsibly and orderly, however, if overly restricted can produce constraints to the development of housing, including accessible and affordable housing. The City of Anaheim does not have any growth management measures that would affect or hinder the development of housing in the City, with the exception of The Anaheim Resort. The General Plan and the specific plans within The Anaheim Resort limit residential development to the Anaheim Resort Residential (ARR) Overlay and the Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone.Within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, the General Plan, Specific Plan, and the Zoning Code generally prohibit residential development without environmental and economic analyses, City Council approval, and the City voter approval at a city election. This requirement is a result of a voter initiative measure, which was adopted by the City Council in 2008 without amendment (Ordinance No. 6098).
7.8. Specific Plans
The purpose of a Specific Plan is to implement the goals and objectives of a city’s General Plan in a more focused and detailed manner that is area and project specific. The Specific Plan promotes consistent and enhanced aesthetic levels throughout the project community. Specific Plans contain their own development standards and requirements that may be more restrictive than those defined for the city as a whole. The following sections provide brief descriptions of the City of Anaheim’s adopted Specific Plans, which affect the development of housing.
The Highlands at Anaheim Hills
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the orderly development of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Community while preserving and enhancing open space and recreational values. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the Specific Plan shall be two thousand one hundred sixty-eight (2,168).
Sycamore Canyon
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the arrangement, development and use of a variety of residential housing types, supporting commercial facilities, and open space, consistent with the intent, purpose and goals of the City of Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the Specific Plan shall be one thousand two hundred four (1,204).
The Summit of Anaheim Hills
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the arrangement, development and use of a variety of residential housing types and open space consistent with the intent, purpose and goals of the City of Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-28 Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the Specific Plan shall be two thousand one hundred thirty-nine (2,139).
The Anaheim Hills Festival
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to create a regional shopping center which will provide for a wide variety of retailers and a range of services, offices, and commercial recreation facilities. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide and to ensure the most appropriate use of the Specific Plan Area, to create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
East Center Street
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the arrangement, development and use of various parcels within the Specific Plan Area, which will provide for the creation of a new retail activity center as a central development spine for the Project Alpha Redevelopment Area, the intensification of residential development adjacent to the retail center to provide market support for the retail services, and the provision of on-site infrastructure and open-space development of the Specific Plan Area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide and to ensure the most appropriate use of the Specific Plan Area, to create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Mountain Park
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the arrangement, development and use of a variety of residential housing types recreation facilities and open space consistent with the intent, purpose and goals of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide for the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted by this Specific Plan is two thousand five hundred (2,500). However, in 2014, the Irvine Company, the property owner/developer for the Mountain Park Specific Plan donated the land to the County of Orange to preserve as Open Space. In conjunction with amendment to the General Plan Element associated with the Housing Element UpdateAs such, properties located within the Specific Plan were not included as housing sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligation in the City’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element, nor are included in the City’s Sixth Cycle housing sites. In addition, the City will be rescinding this specific plan and amending the General Plan and Zoning Map to reflect the Open Space use of the property in conjunction with amendment to the General Plan Element associated with the Housing Element Update.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-29 The Disneyland Resort
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the development of an urban destination resort that features theme park attractions, hotel/motels, restaurants, shopping opportunities and parking facilities directly related to entertaining, lodging and supplying services to tourists and visitors consistent with the intent, purpose, and goals of the City's General Plan. This Zone is further intended to enhance community appearance; to protect public investment in, and the character of, public thoroughfares; and to aid in the attraction of tourists and other visitors important to the economy of the City. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide for the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
The Anaheim Resort
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for and encourage the development of integrated facilities in attractive settings for retail businesses directly related to entertaining, lodging and supplying services to tourists and visitors. This Zone is further intended to preserve locally recognized values of community appearance; to safeguard and enhance property values in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone; to protect public investment in, and the character of, public thoroughfares; and, to aid in the attraction of tourists and other visitors important to the economy of the city. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide for the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Hotel Circle
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for, and encourage the development of, integrated facilities in attractive settings for retail businesses directly related to entertaining, lodging and supplying services to tourists and visitors. This zone is further intended to enhance community appearance; to protect public investment in, and the character of, public thoroughfares; and to aid in the attraction of tourists and other visitors important to the economy of the city. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide the most appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors in the City of Anaheim.
Anaheim Canyon
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the arrangement, development and use of various “development areas” within the Specific Plan Area, to create a regional employment center, which will provide for a wide variety of industrial and related uses, a range of services and commercial support facilities, and a limited amount of mixed-use transit oriented development. Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide for and to ensure the most appropriate use of the Specific Plan Area, to create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Beach Boulevard
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide for the arrangement, development and use of various "development areas" within the Specific Plan Area to promote its revitalization by encouraging market- Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-30 driven land use changes and the infill development of currently vacant or underutilized properties.
Application of these regulations is specifically intended to provide for and to ensure the most appropriate use of the Specific Plan Area, to create a harmonious relationship among land uses, and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Center City Corridors
The City is currently preparing the Center City Corridors Specific Plan (C3SP), which will provide a vision for the future of the Center City Corridors area and contain guiding principles and themes to inform the evolution of the Study Area over time. The C3SP study area is comprised of approximately 2,600 acres and is centrally located within the City of Anaheim. The C3SP area boundaries are the SR-91 Freeway to the north, Interstate 5, and Platinum Triangle to the south, East Street and the Metrolink Railroad to the east, and Interstate 5 and West Street to the west. The C3SP process began in 2019 with a grant from the Southern California Association of Governments to prepare a Vision Plan. The Vision Plan incorporated substantial community engagement and input. The, and the City finalized the Vision Plan in April 2020.
Preparation of the Specific Plan is funded by Caltrans and will be used to establish detailed policies and guidance for future land use, placemaking, mobility, community services and amenities, and infrastructure decisions. The City developed the C3SP through community engagement, stakeholder involvement and technical analyses. The C3SP identifies supporting and enhancing existing residential neighborhoods and providing a wider range of new housing options as one of its main guiding principles and vision, and will include changes in the General Plan and Zoning designations to realize such goal. The City anticipates that the City Council will review the C3 Specific Plan in Fall 2022/Winter/Spring of 2022 2023.
8.9. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both the federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
Land Use Controls
Under State law, the City is required to treat small licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts.
Definition of Family
A restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together is inconsistent with the right of privacy established by the California Constitution.
The City’s definition of “family” is an individual or a collective body of persons, living together as a single housekeeping unit, in a domestic relationship based upon birth, marriage or other domestic bond of social, economic and psychological commitments to each other, as distinguished from a group occupying Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-31 a Boarding House, club, fraternity, sorority, Hotel, Motel, or any Community Care Facilities–Licensed, Community Care Facilities–Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, Alcoholism or Drug Recovery or Treatment Facilities or Senior Living Homes that require a regulatory permit or a conditional use permit.
In addition, in order to provide further clarification, the City’s Zoning Code provides a definition for “SingleHousekeeping Unit,” which is defined as a non-transient group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the use of common areas, for the purpose of sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores and expenses. If the dwelling is rented, each adult resident is named on and is a party to a single written lease that gives each resident joint use and responsibility for the premises. The membership of the household is determined by the residents, not by a landlord, property manager or other third party. Other typical factors that indicate a household operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit may include, but not limited to, the following: the residents do not have separate and private entrances from other residents; the residents do not have a separate secured food facilities such as separate refrigerators or food-prep areas; the household is strictly resident-run; there is no care or supervision provided by a third-party or a paid resident/house manager at the dwelling unit or on the property.
The City’s current definitions for “Family” and “Single-Housekeeping Unit” are in compliance with the State and federal fair housing laws as it does not distinguish between related and unrelated persons or between disabled and not-disabled persons, nor impose numerical limitations on the number of persons that may constitute as a family or a single-housekeeping unit.
Reasonable Accommodation
Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) to their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.
Purpose and Intent
Chapter 18.62 of Title 18 Zoning of the Anaheim Municipal Code states that the purpose of the chapter is to set forth the procedures to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Acts (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures.
Any person may request a modification or exception to eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice. A person with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment or anyone who has a record of such impairment.
Reasonable Accommodation applies only to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-32 Application Requirements
Chapter 18.62.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code identifies the following application requirements for a reasonable accommodation request to be considered:
• Requests for reasonable accommodation, in a form approved by the zoning administrator, with the appropriate fee, and other required information, are filed with the planning division. • If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is made requires some other discretionary permit or approval, then the applicant shall submit the request for reasonable accommodation together with the application for the other discretionary permit or approval. The processing procedure of the discretionary permit shall govern the joint processing of both the reasonable accommodation and the discretionary permit.
Approval Process
Section 18.62.090 outlines the following review process and designated approval authority for each step of the reasonable accommodation requests process in the City:
• Administrative Review: The Planning Director or designee has the authority to review and decide upon requests for reasonable accommodation, including whether the applicant is a disabled person within the meaning of this chapter. The Planning Director or appointed designee may refer the matter to the planning commission, as appropriate.
• Decision. The Planning Director or an appointed designee holds final decision and will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the findings outlined below.
Findings and Decision
Section 18.62.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code outline the following conditions of approval for reasonable accommodation requests:
• That the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by a person with a disability as defined in subsection 18.62.090.010, above.
• That the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a person with a disability as defined in subsection 18.62.090.010, above. • That the requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city.
• That the requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning.
Appeal to Findings
The decision of the Planning Director is final, unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days after the date the Planning Director makes said decision.
The Anaheim Municipal Code outlines the review and decision process for requests for reasonable accommodation with clear requirements. The requirements for approval are objective and do not allow for subjective comments or design requirements as a condition of approval. Therefore, the City’s Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-33 Reasonable Accommodation procedures do not create challenges or barriers to the development of housing accessible for persons with disabilities.
The City’s reasonable accommodations procedures follow state regulations and are in place to increase the feasibility of development of accessible housing. The findings procedures are not subjective; in the last five years, the city has received seven reasonable accommodations requests, approved six of the requests with one request pending.
9.10. Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of permitting, development, and impact fees in order to access services and facilities as allowed by State law. The additional cost to develop, maintain, and improve housing due to development fees, may result in increased housing unit cost; and therefore, the State may consider this a constraint to housing development. However, fees are necessary to provide planning and public services in the City of Anaheim.
The location of projects and housing type result in varying degrees of development fees. The presumed total cost of development is also contingent on the project meeting city policies and regulations and the circumstances involved in a particular development project application. Table 3-6Table 3-7 summarizes the most common planning and development impactapplication fees for the City of Anaheim.
Table 3-6: Applications and Permits-7: Planning Development Application Fees Administrative Cases Discretionary Cases
Application/Permit Fee Application/Permit Fee
Address Processing Fee $105/ea. each Annexation $195/hr Accessory Dwelling Unit $195/hourhr
Appeal to City Council: Applicant
shallbe responsible for all fees,
except $450 fee paid to City Clerk
if appealed
Appeal filed by an applicant:
o Flat Fee Cases
o All Other Cases
Appeal filed by a nonapplicant appellant.
$4,900⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
$195/hr
$450 each
Administrative Adjustment—
Administrative Review $966/ea. each Conceptual Development Review $195/hr Appeals of Regulatory and
Administrative Permit Determination. Same as permit Conceptual Development Review—Single Family Residence $195/hr
Large Family Day Care Home Permit—
Administrative Review $268/ea. each Code Amendment and SpecificPlanAdjustment $195/hr Legal Non-Conforming Use Expansion
Review $580/ea. each Conditional Use Permit—NewConstruction $195/hr Multiple-family Affordable Housing
Project Administrative Review $195/hr.
Conditional Use Permit —
Amendment,Minor by Planning
Commission
$7,216⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Density
Bonus Tier
II
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-34 Table 3-6: Applications and Permits-7: Planning Development Application Fees Administrative Cases Discretionary Cases
Application/Permit Fee Application/Permit Fee
Planning Plan Review—Parking Lot
Modifications (re-striping, vehicle to
bicycle parking, compact to standard);
Minor Amendment of Permit by
Planning Director (Administrative
Substantial Conformance Review)
$364/ea. each
Conditional Use Permit—No New
Construction Amendmentfor
Large Projects
$8,79011,9
12⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Public Convenience or Necessity
Determination– Administrative $966/ea. each
Conditional Use Permit —
Amendment,Minor by Planning
Commission
$7,216⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Recycling Permit $376/ea. each Density Bonus Tier II
Conditional
Use Permit
Amendmen
tfor Large
Projects$19
5/hr
Reasonable Accommodation Request —
Administrative Review Note1
/ea. Development Agreement $195/hr
Regulatory Permit/Regulatory Permit
Major Amendment—Entertainment
Permit, Massage Operator’s Permit,
Wholesale Automotive Sales Agency
Office
$1,856/ea. each Development Agreement -
Amendment $195/hr
Regulatory Permit—Minor Amendment $161/ea. each Development Agreement -Annual Review $195/hr
Shared Parking Permit $853/ea. each Environmental Impact Report $195/hr Specimen Tree Removal Permit
(Administrative)
1-2 Trees
3-5 Trees
6+ Trees ($302 plus $25 each
additional)
$107 each
$302 each
$302+$ + $25/ea.
each additional
Final Site Plan Review $195/hr
Zoning Plan Check (Major/New
Construction) Commercial, Industrial,
Multiple Family Residential, Institutional
not affiliated with public hearing items
$195/hr. General Plan Amendment $195/hr
Zoning Plan Check (Minor/Tenant
Improvements) Commercial, Industrial,
Multiple Family Residential, Institutional
$364/ea. each Minor Conditional Use Permit
(MCUP) $6,057⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Zoning Plan Check (Over the counter,
Minor Reviews) - Commercial,
Industrial, Multiple-Family Residential,
Institutional, Signs
$195/ea. each
Public Convenience or
Necessity Determination by
Planning Commission
$4,889⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-35 Table 3-6: Applications and Permits-7: Planning Development Application Fees Administrative Cases Discretionary Cases
Application/Permit Fee Application/Permit Fee
Zoning Plan Check– Single Family
Residential not associated with zoning
entitlement
$323/ea. each Reclassification $6,616⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Zoning Plan Check—no building permit
required (including signs) $46/ea. each Resubmittal Flat Fee $2,000 Zoning Plan Check—Water Efficiency
Ordinance Review (for plan reviews
associated with a flat fee project)
$195/hr. Sex-oriented Business Permit $195/hr
Zoning Verification Letter $285/ea. each Specific Plan — Major Amendment $195/hr
Cases not listed $195/hr. Specific Plan Amendment - Minor $195/hr Source: City of Anaheim Planning and Zoning Fee Schedule, Effective October 2020.
General Notes: Additional $5,000 deposit required for cases accompanied by Mitigated Negative Declaration. Additional deposit required equal to 20% of each secondary case if multiple cases filed or processed concurrently.
Notes:
(1) No fee collected to be in compliance with Fair Housing laws; requests associated with an
entitlement shall be reviewed concurrently.
(2) May be subject to Resubmittal Flat Fee for multiple revisions.
(3) Subject to an additional 20% flat fee for each secondary case, if multiple cases filed or processed concurrently.
Specimen Tree Removal Review
by Planning Commission $4,891⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Substantial Conformance Review
by Planning Commission $195/hr
Time Extension to Comply with
Conditions of Approval $195/hr
Time Extension to comply with
Conditions of Approval Singlefamily Residential Use$195/hr Tentative Parcel Map $195/hr
Tentative Tract Map $195/hr
Variance $8,007⁽²⁾⁽³⁾
Conditional Use Permits Fees
The purpose and intent of conditional use permit (CUP) and minor CUP, as identified by the Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 16.66, is to provide a process to accommodate certain uses which, because of their characteristics, size of the area required for full development of such uses, traffic problems incidental to their operation, or potential effects of such uses on adjoining land uses and on the growth and development of the area, and to ensure compatibility with the General Plan. Typical single-family and multi-family residential developments are permitted by-right uses in respective zones; however, some residential projects may require an approval of a CUP. Examples of such projects include single-family residential development in multi-family zones, multi-family residential developments that request modification of development standards, and mixed-use developments. The review authority for CUPs is the Planning Commission, while the Planning & Building Department Director reviews the minor CUPs.
The fees for various CUPs are as follows:
• Conditional Use Permit (New Construction) - $195/hour • Conditional Use Permit (No New Construction) - $8,790 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-36 • Conditional Use Permit (Amendment, Minor by Planning Commission) - $7,216 • Conditional Use Permit (Amendment for Large Projects) - $11,912 • Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) - $6,057
The City’s CUP fees are not a constraint, as the City continues to receive and approve projects that request CUPs, indicating that in the City do not create a constraint. In addition, the City’s fees for CUPs and minor CUPs are comparable to the fees of surrounding jurisdictions. As such, the City has no indication that fees for CUPs impact the development and supply of housing in Anaheim.
Impact Fees 2
PARK AND RECREATION
Payable on any new residential construction within the Anaheim City limits and based ontype of construction and in some instances number of units.
Table 3-6a:-8: Park and Recreation Impact Fees
Project Type Unit Type
Single Family/ Condo Detached Attached
$6,936.46 $5,388.14
Apartments
2-4 units 5 or more units
$6,998.39 $5,408.78
Platinum Triangle – All units $8,114.01
2 City of Anaheim, Development Application Fees, Effective July 2021. City of Anaheim, Impact Fees, Effective June 2020.available at the City’s website https://www.anaheim.net/6062/Fees Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-37
SANITATION DISTRICT FEES
• Payable on any new residential construction within the Anaheim City limits and based on type of construction and number of bedrooms.
Table 3-6b:-9: Sanitation District Impact Fees - Residential Single Family/Condo Number of Bedrooms Fee Amount
1 bedroom $3,083314.00
2 bedroom $4,029331.00
3 bedroom $4,9735,346.00
4 bedroom $5,9186,362.00
5+ bedroom $6,9127,430.00
Apartments Number of Bedrooms Fee Amount(Per Unit)
Studio $1,591710.00
1 bedroom $2,486672.00
2 bedroom $3,482743.00
3 bedroom $4,426758.00
4+ bedroom $5,371774.00
Note: Although the City collects this fee, Orange County Sanitation District sets this fee https://www.ocsan.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30850/637608109221830000 • Payable on any commercial and industrial construction within the Anaheim City limits and based on usage level for construction.
Table 3-10: Sanitation District Impact Fees – Non-Residential Level of
Demand Types of Occupancies Fee Amount
Low Demand
Parking Structures; Nurseries; Warehouses; Churches; Truck Terminals; RV Parks; RV Storage Yards; Lumber/Construction Yards; Lobbies; Post Offices; Public Storage Buildings and other facilities whose wastewater discharge is similar to these listed categories.
**Parking Structures not connected to the sewer will not be charged. $336.00
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Average
Demand
Specifics
All Other Occupancies including: Fire Stations; Club Houses; Church Offices and Schools; Hotels; Shopping Centers/Strip Malls without food/Beverage Service Establishments; Music Halls without Food Facilities; Office Buildings; Senior Housing with Individual living units without kitchens but with a common kitchen; Work/Hobby shop connected to the sewer.
$2,088.00
per 1,000 sq. ft.
High Demand
Food/Beverage Service Establishments; Restaurant (including patios used for additional seating), Supermarkets (with bakery, meat counter, and/or food service); Car Washes; Coin Laundries; Amusement Parks; Food Courts; Shopping Centers with Restaurants: Food processing facilities; Textile Manufactures, Brewery, and other facilities whose wastewater discharge is similar to these listed categories.
$4,962.00
per 1,000 sq. ft.
Note: Although the City collects this fee, Orange County Sanitation District sets this fee https://www.ocsan.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/30850/637608109221830000 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-38
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
• Payable on any new residential construction east of the 55 freeway and based on established zones.
Table 3-11: Eastern Transportation Corridor Impact Fees - Residential Zone Single Family
Dwelling Fee
Multi Family
Dwelling Fee
East of Gypsum Canyon, Zone A $6,190 $3,614
West of Gypsum Canyon, Zone B $4,405 $2,568
Note: Although the City collects this fee, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) sets this fee https://thetollroads.com/sites/default/files/TCA_DIF_Rate_FY22.pdf • Payable on any commercial or industrial construction east of the 55 freeway and based on established zones.
Table 3-12: Eastern Transportation Corridor Impact Fees – Non-Residential Zone Fee Amount
East of Gypsum Canyon, Zone A $8.61 per sq. ft.
West of Gypsum Canyon, Zone B $4.99 per sq. ft.
Note: Although the City collects this fee, Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) sets this fee https://thetollroads.com/sites/default/files/TCA_DIF_Rate_FY22.pdf
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT AND IMPROVEMENT FEE
• Payable on any new residential construction within theAnaheim City limits and based on type of construction.
Table 3-13: Transportation Impact Fees - Residential
Type of Construction Fee Amount
Single Family Dwellings or Condos (up to 2units) $2,029.00 Multi-Family Dwelling $1,297.00
Hotel/Motel $1,474.00
Projects that allocate 100 percent of housing units as affordable and have entered into an affordable housing agreement can request a waiver of the Transportation and Impact Fee per §17.32.040.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
• Payable on any commercial and industrial construction within the Anaheim City limits and based on type of use.
Table 3-14: Transportation Impact Fees – Non-Residential Type of Use Fee Amount
General Office $3.67 per gsf
Retail Sales $5.50 per gsf
Industrial $1.42 per gsf
Peak Hour Trip End $1,285 per trip
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-39 Fees paid by developer are directly linked to the cost of processing and production as well as mitigating the effects of new development of infrastructure, for this reason they are not considered constraints to the development of housing in Anaheim.
Cost to Develop a Residential Project
Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical single-unit residential project, assuming it is not part of a subdivision and is consistent with existing city policies and regulations, can range from $30,527 to $32,887. Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical multi-unit residential project with ten units, assuming it is consistent with existing City policies and regulations, range from $137,356 to $138,886.
These estimates are illustrative in nature and that actual costs are contingent upon unique circumstance inherent in individual development project applications. Considering the cost of land in Anaheim, and the International Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of permits and fees range from approximately 4.0 percent to 4.4 percent of the direct cost of development for a single-unit residential project and 2.8 percent to 3.0 percent for a multi-unit residential project. Direct costs do not include, landscaping, connection fees, on/off-site improvements, shell construction or amenities, therefore the percentage of development and impact fees charged by the City may be smaller if all direct and indirect costs are included.
The City has no indication that current fees assessed on development projects impact the development or supply of housing in the City. As such, individually and cumulatively, the City’s fees do not create a constraint to the development of housing.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-40
10.11. State Density Bonus Law
Density bonuses are another way to increase the number of dwelling units otherwise allowed in a residentially zoned area. The City codifies State Density Bonus Law and other Housing Incentives in Chapter 18.52 (Housing Incentives) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The purpose of this chapter is to provide Incentives to facilitate the development of rental and for-sale housing in accordance with Section 65915 et seq. of the California Government Code, as the same may be amended from time to time, and to achieve the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan. Housing Incentives, including density bonuses are available to five categories of housing developments. • Very low income units: Five percent of the total units of the housing development as target units affordable to very low-income households; or
• Low Income Units: Ten percent of the total units of the housing development as target units affordable to low-income households; or
• Moderate Income Units: Ten percent of the total units of a newly constructed condominium project or planned development as target units affordable to moderate-income households, provided all the units are offered for purchase; or
• Senior Units: A senior citizen housing development of 20 percent of the number of senior housing units provided
• Specialized Housing: A Housing Development for Transitional Foster Youth, Disabled Veterans, or Homeless Persons, in which at least ten percent of the total units are provided at the same affordability level as very low-income units shall be eligible for a twenty percent Density Bonus; or
• Student Housing: Twenty percent of the total units are for Lower Income Students.
The following density bonus calculations in Table 3-15: Density Bonus for Very Low-Income Householdsthrough Table 3-18: Density Bonus for Land Donationapply to housing developments that meet the above criteria. The table below identifies the density bonus applied for units provided at the very lowincome level.
Table 3-15: Density Bonus for Very Low-Income Households Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-41 The table below identifies the density bonus applied for units provided at the low- income level.
Table 3-16: Density Bonus for Low-Income Households
Percentage Lower Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
16 29
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code
The table below identifies the density bonus applied for units provided at the moderate-income level.
Table 3-17: Density Bonus for Moderate Income Households Percentage Moderate Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-42 The table below identifies the density bonus applied for land donations.
Table 3-18: Density Bonus for Land Donation
Percentage Very Low-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
Source: City of Anaheim Zoning Code
Until 2021, under Government Code Section 65915, known as the Density Bonus Law, the maximum bonus was 35%. California state law AB 2345 states that all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50% additional density as long as those projects provide the additional Below Market Rate units (BMR) in the “base” portion of the project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%. The bill also lowered the BMR thresholds for concessions and incentives for projects with low income BPRs. As of 2021, Government Code Section 65915 authorizes an applicant to receive two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17% of the total units for lower income households, at least 10% of the total units for very low-income households, or at least 20% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development. It also allows an applicant to receive three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24% of the total units for lower income households, at least 15% of the total units for very low-income households, or at least 30% for persons or families of moderate income in a common interest development.
The City’s Density Bonus program allows a maximum of 35% density increase; however, AB 2345 requires an allowance of up to 50% density bonus when the base BMR is proposed. The City has included a program in Section 4: Housing Policy Plan to update the City’s Development Code in compliance with state legislation.
The City occasionally receives requests to develop housing at densities below the assumed density in Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis. Appendix B assumes that candidate sites will develop at 80 percent of the max density in their respective zones. Proposed densities are often driven by developers and the City encourages developers to develop at maximum densities allowed. While some developers may request to develop below the assumed density of 80 percent, on average, projects develop at or above Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-43 the assumed maximum density. Of the 14 residential housing projects approved from 2019 to 2021, six projects have a density utilization below 80 percent. The remaining 8 residential housing projects approved from 2019 to 2021 developed at densities well above the assumed density. The average density utilization of the residential housing projects approved from 2019 to 2021 is 81 percent, slightly above the density assumed in Appendix B.
11.12. On/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off-site improvements caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water). Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. Majority of cost associated with on and off-site improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.
Building Codes and Compliance
The basis for the City of Anaheim’s construction codes are the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 that includes the California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and California Referenced Standards Code. The California Building Standards Commission considers these requirements to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. In compliance with State law, ICC revises and updates the California Building Standards Code every three years. The newest edition of the California Building Standards Code is the 2019 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2020.
The City adopted the California Building Code pursuant to Section 50022 of the California Government Code. The City amended the adopted building code to provide need clarification and to improve existing codes. These adopted building code amendments expand on the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare; however, they are not significantly different from the existing California Building Standards Code and therefore do not have any impact on housing production.
Amendments to the building codes can be found in Section 15.03.020 through 15.03.120 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The City conducts Code compliance with systemic enforcement in areas of concern and on a complaint basis throughout the City. The mission of the Code Enforcement Division is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of community members by obtaining compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. The Division also seeks to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods and business districts to prevent blight, protect property values and enhance economic conditions. Their goal is to obtain voluntary compliance, whenever possible, by communication and education, while operating in a business-like manner.
12.13. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing. Depending on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include the completeness of the development Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-44 application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information.
Approval times are substantially lengthened for projects that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), require rezoning or general plan amendments, or encounter community opposition. The City recommends that applicants for all permits or reviews request a preapplication meeting with the respective department to: confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; review the City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions;, and identify information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project. Alternatively, perspective applicants may go through a Conceptual Development Review process, which is a formal pre-development application review process where the perspective applicants would be provided with a comprehensive written comments from various City departments.
City Staff reviews all permit applications for completeness, and discretionary applications must then receive a recommendation through a staff report prior to a review by the appropriate authority. Various applications may also require public noticing and a public hearing.
Permit Processing
The Zoning Code states that requests for permits, licenses, appeals, amendments, approvals, and other discretionary actions required or allowed require that a permit application form be filled out in its entirety and be submitted to the Planning Department. In addition, other materials, reports, dimensioned plans, or other information required to take an action on the application must be submitted with the application.
At a minimum, all development applications, regardless of type, must include an application form, a project/site description, paid fees, general conditions sheet, and a site plan.
City Staff reviews all permit applications for completeness, and discretionary applications must then receive a recommendation through a staff report prior to a review by the appropriate approval authority.
Various applications may also require public noticing and a public hearing. The City allows Single-family and Multi-family projects that complies with the applicable development standards by right in respective zones; as such, no discretionary planning entitlement is required. Also, the City does not require a separate design review. However, discretionary planning entitlements, such as conditional use permits and/or variances, are required for residential projects that requests modification of applicable development standards. The review process is provided below:
• By-right residential projects:
1. Submittal of building permit application, plans, and fees for permit plan check;
2. City review of the submitted application by all applicable departments and agencies; Timeline and number of reviews can vary; and
3. Permit issued once all comments are satisfied.
• Residential projects that require planning entitlements (many also require General Plan Amendment and zoning reclassification, and therefore a California Environmental Quality Act review):
1. Submittal of formal entitlement application(s), plans and fees; Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-45
2. City staff review of the application for completeness;
3. Public Hearing with the appropriate approval authority once the application is deemed complete;
4. Submittal of building permit application, plans, and fees for permit plan check;
5. City review of the submitted application by all applicable departments and agencies; Timeline and number of reviews can vary; and
6. Permit issued once all comments are satisfied.
Processing Timelines
Processing times for residential projects vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of a project, type of City approval required, construction, funding and financing considerations, seasonal factors, engineering, design, and architectural considerations. The timeline can be a matter of a few days to a few weeks if the project is small and uncomplicated (i.e. single-family home, ADU/JADU), to months for large-scale construction (i.e. mixed-use developments). The average approval times for single- and multi-family developments are provided below:
• For by-right residential projects:
o Average time between building permit application received and building permit issued:
393 days (13.1 months)
• For residential projects that requires planning entitlements:
o Average planning entitlement processing time: 383 days (12.8 months) o Average time between building permit application received and building permit issued:
393 days (13.1 months)
Longer processing time is common and unavoidable for larger, more complicated projects because developers of such projects typically request modification to the required development standards, thus requiring review and approval of a discretionary planning entitlement(s). However, the City does not see this as hindering the construction of housing or introducing unnecessary delays because such time is necessary to ensure compliance with all applicable development standards and to sufficiently analyze potential impact of such projects. In addition, many aspects of the processing times are not controlled by the City as they are solely dictated by the responsiveness of the applicant (i.e. turnaround time for addressing City comments). In addition, the City’s permit review and processing timeline is consistent with the processing timeline of nearby cities such as Buena Park, Santa Ana, Fullerton and Yorba Linda.
Therefore, the City of Anaheim’s processing timeline does not pose as a constraint to the development of housing in the City.
In order to ensure orderly processing of building permit applications, the City currently operates a Business Assistance Program, which is a program that provides resources and concierge service to developers throughout the building permit process, including all necessary coordination with various City departments and outside agencies. This program is essential in reducing overall processing time during the building permit review. In addition, the City expedites building permit reviews for affordable housing projects.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-46 Senate Bill 35
The State enacted California Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) codified at Government Code Section 65913.4, on September 29, 2017 and became effective January 1, 2018. SB 35 will automatically sunset on January 1, 2026 (Section 65913.4(m)). The intent of SB 35 is to expedite and facilitate construction of affordable housing. SB 35 applies to cities and counties that have not made sufficient progress toward meeting their affordable housing goals for above moderate- and lower-income levels as mandated by the State. In an effort to meet the affordable housing goals, SB 35 requires cities and counties to streamline the review and approval of certain qualifying affordable housing projects through a ministerial process.
When a jurisdiction has made insufficient progress toward its Low Income RHNA and/or has not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report (2018), it is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50 percent affordability. As of August 2021, all projects that propose at least 50 percent affordable units within Anaheim are eligible for ministerial approval under SB 35 as determined by the SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary. To be eligible for SB 35 approval, sites must meet a long list of criteria as detailed in California Government Code §65913.4, including:
• A multifamily housing development (at least two residential units) in an urbanized area; • Located where 75% of the perimeter of the site is developed; • Zoned or designated by the general plan for residential or mixed use residential; • In a location where the locality’s share of regional housing needs have not be satisfied by building permits previously issued;
• One that includes affordable housing in accordance with SB 35 requirements; • Consistent with the local government’s objective zoning and design review standards; and • Willing to pay construction workers the state-determined “prevailing wage.” A project does not qualify for SB 35 streamline processing if:
• A coastal zone, conservation lands, or habitat for protected species; • Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance;
• Wetlands or lands under conservation easement;
• A very high fire hazard severity zone;
• Hazardous waste site;
• Earthquake fault zone;
• Flood plain or floodway;
• A site with existing multi-family housing that has been occupied by tenants in the last ten years or is subject to rent control; or
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-47 • A site with existing affordable housing.3
According to HCD’s latest SB 35 Statewide Determination Summary (based on APR data received as ofdated June 25, 2019),18, 2021, the City of Anaheim has not made sufficient progress towards its 5th Cycle Lower Income RHNA and is therefore subject to SB 35. The City is subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process for proposed developments with at least 50% percent affordability. ( per SB 35). Section 4: Housing Policy Program includes policy and program updates to create review processes for proposed projects using SB 35 streamlining.
13.14. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor that could constrain new residential construction is the requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (major and localneeded to serve new residential development (i.e.streets;, water and sewer lines; and,street lighting) needed to serve new residential development.). In most cases, where new infrastructure is required, the developer funds and/or constructs the infrastructure, and then dedicates it to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the cost of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” in as part of home rental or sales rates.
The City of Anaheim Municipal Code outlines infrastructure requirements within Title 10 Public Service and Utilities, and Title 12 Streets and Sidewalks. Additionally, Anaheim has a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) aimed at enhancing the quality of life for local residents and businesses. The CIP is a multiyear plan that identifies future public infrastructure and facility improvements within the city and provides information concerning needs, timing, costs, and funding sources. Due to the City’s CIP, partnered with improvements required of developers, infrastructure improvements and requirements are regularoccur regularly and are not be considered an unnecessary burden on the development of housing.
14.15. Dry Utilities
Dry utilities include electric, telephone, TV, internet, and gas service in a community.
Electricity
The City of Anaheim created the Anaheim Public Utilities department to provide electricity to the City.
Anaheim Public Utilities operates the only municipal electric utility in Orange County. Anaheim Public Utilities is a city‐owned, not‐for‐profit electric and water utility that offers quality electric and water services to residents and businesses in Anaheim at rates among the lowest in California. According to the California Energy Commission, Anaheim Public Utilities consumed approximately 2,237 million kilowatts per hour (kWh) of electricity in 2019. Anaheim Public Utilities continues to provide energy to the City of Anaheim through a series of methods including oil and natural gas, renewable energy resources and alternative diverse supplies. Anaheim Public Utilities is responsible for providing service to all existing and future development in Anaheim.
3 JD Supra Knowledge Center, How California’s SB 35 Can Be Used to Streamline Real Estate Development Projects. Accessed March 26, 2021.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-48 Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service to Anaheim and is the nation’s largest natural gas utility provider with more than to 21.8 million consumers across 24,000 square miles throughout Central and Southern California. As public utilities, SCGC is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which regulates natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over the utilities’ transmission and distribution pipelines system, storage, procurement, metering, and billing. Most of California’s natural gas supply comes from out of the state.
SCGC is responsible for providing service to residential, industrial, and commercial customers in Anaheim.
Telephone, Television, and Internet Services
Telephone, television, and internet services are provided to the City’s residents by a variety of companies.
Television and internet providers include, but not limited to, Spectrum, DirectTV + AT&T, and Frontier.
Telephone and landline service providers include Spectrum, Community Phone, Cox, and Verizon FiOS among others.
15.16. Wet Utilities
Wet utilities include water, sewer (also referred to as wastewater), and stormdrain infrastructure in a community.
Water Supply
The City relies on a combination of imported water, local groundwater, and a small amount of recycled water to meet its water needs. The City works together with two primary agencies, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and OCWD to ensure a safe and reliable water supply that will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage.
The City’s main source of water supply is groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin). The City has historically relied on approximately 70 percent groundwater (previous 10-year average) and 30 percent imported water from Metropolitan to supply its customers.
Metropolitan’s principal sources of water are the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the Lake Oroville watershed in northern California through the State Water Project (SWP). Storage is also a major component of Metropolitan’s dry year resource management strategy. Metropolitan’s likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands is highly dependent on its storage resources.
The combination of projects and programs implemented by Metropolitan, OCWD, and the City, provide for reliable water supplies that are projected to meet full-service demands through the year 2045 under normal, dry, and multiple dry year conditions.
Water Demand
Water use and production records, combined with projections of population, employment, and urban development, provide the basis for estimating future water demands in the Anaheim. The City has Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-49 prepared its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).)
4 in compliancewith the California Water
Code (CWC). According to the UWMP, the City’s water system facilities consist of the following:
• Eight imported water service connections to Metropolitan • 18 active wells
• One 920-million-gallon (MG) reservoir of untreaded water • One 20 million gallons per day (MGD) water treatment plant • 13 treated water reservoirs (38.75 MG of total storage) • Permanent chlorination facilities at various sites
• Nine booster pump stations
• About 758 miles of water mains
The UWMP indicates that in 2020, the City serveserved single-family residential accounts at a total volume of 20,098-acre feet (AF) and multifamily residential accounts at a total volume of 11,374 AF. Project water deliveries through 2045 are in Table 3-19 below.
Table 3-19: Anaheim Water Deliveries Projection
Water Use Sector 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family Residential 20,374 20,012 19,664 19,303 19,229 Multifamily Residential 12,523 12,545 12,963 13,437 14,051 Commercial/Governmental,
Landscape, and Other Combined 25,861 30,023 31,431 32,911 32,937 Total 58,758 62,580 64,058 65,651 66,217
Source: City of Anaheim 2020 Urban Water Management Plan The UMWP acknowledges and plans for the lower income households projected in the RHNA. According to the UWMP, lower income households are projected to demand up to 19,502 in 2045. The data also shows that more than half of water demand would be from lower income households, most likely due to a lack of water saving appliances and other resources. Table 3-20 shows the projected water need for these households.
Table 3-20: Anaheim Water Deliveries Projection
Water Use Sector 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Residential Demand 32,897 32,557 32,627 32,740 33,280 Lower income Household
Demand
19,278 19,078 19,119 19,186 19,502
Source: City of Anaheim 2020 Urban Water Management Plan As required by state law the City of Anaheim will continue to monitor water supply and demand in the updated urban water management plan at least once every five years. and, as of 2022, annually through 4 City of Anaheim. (2020). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved from https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/37199/Anaheim-2020-UWMP?bidId=. Accessed on February 15, 2022.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-50 the Annual Assessment. Through its monitoring and regular update schedule, the City can account for and plan for future water demands to all sectors of the community.
Water Quality
On March 15, 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued an order to a number of community water systems throughout California to test for a group of chemicals known as PFAS over the course of four quarters (12 months). The testing reporting standards have been changing and newly enacted Assembly Bill 756 will require on and after January 1, 2020 that when the detection of these chemicals occurs at or above the notification level, the water system must notify its customers of the detection or take the source out of use.
5 Anaheim operates 18 active groundwater wells to meet approximately 77 percent of the City’s water demand. The City serves its remaining 23 percent with imported water from Metropolitan. However, due to the new State guidelines, the City has taken 14 wells out of service that exceed the response level set by the Division of Drinking Water. The City is temporarily replacing this reduction in groundwater supply with imported water.
The City is implementing a new Groundwater Treatment Program that will allow the City to remove PFAS to acceptable State mandated levels. This program will keep long-term costs low for customers while also providing high quality drinking water and maintaining a high degree of water supply reliability. The Groundwater Treatment Program is expected to be delivered in multiple phases over four years. The first phase will include localized wellhead treatment systems and centralized groundwater treatment systems, associated pipelines, pumps, and other modifications at four groundwater producing well sites within Anaheim. Future phases will include additional treatment systems at groundwater producing sites.
Currently, with the wells out of service, approximately 25 percent of the City’s supply is from groundwater, as opposed to 77 percent under normal conditions.
Wastewater
The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of sewer and storm drain lines within the City and delivery to the trunk sewer mains of Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The City is responsible for wastewater collection and conveyance to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Plant No. 1 and No. 2 located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach, respectively. OCSD also treats wastewater from several other municipalities. The City treats a small amount of wastewater at the City’s water recycling demonstration facility, but the City discharges the resulting waste back into the sewer system. No wastewater is disposed in the City’s service area as OCSD treats and disposes all of the City's wastewater.
The City of Anaheim sewer system consists of 578 miles of sewer. OCSD is responsible for all regional trunk sewer lines and sewage treatment, while the City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of sewer mains and lift stations within the City limits and all capital improvements. The City identifies funding and strategies for infrastructure updates in the Capital Improvement Plan which is updated every 5 years.
The City also maintains a Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers against which development projects are reviewed through project-specific sewer studies or similar analysis. Development projects are required to pay sewer 5 City of Anaheim, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2020.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-51 impact and improvement fees or construct identified improvements to continue to provide for adequate wastewater infrastructure as established by Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 Sanitation Charges.
Stormwater Management
The Orange County Flood Control District coordinates with the City’s storm drainage system to accommodate stormwater runoff and prevent flooding. Due to the built-out nature of the City infrastructure connectivity is not considered a constraint to the development of housing, the City identifies funding and strategies for infrastructure updates in the Capital Improvement Plan which is updated every 5 years. Additionally, the City imposes development impact fees, which fund infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development supported by an ongoing storm drainage master planning program for the eight primary storm drain tributary areas in the City.
Development projects are reviewed through project-specific preliminary drainage as well as hydrology and hydraulic calculations addressing the location and quantity of flows to the storm drainage system.
Individual development projects also require the preparation of water quality management plans which regulate the contents of any storm water flows as established by Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.09 in furtherance of State and Federal requirements. Additionally, development impact fees are collected pursuant to identified Mater Plans. These efforts ensure that the City will continue to address stormwater flows in coordination with OC Flood.
16.17. Fire and Emergency Services
Anaheim Fire and Rescue provide first response within Anaheim in the event of disasters and emergencies.
Anaheim Fire and Rescue has 11 fire stations and serves approximately 348,000 residents and over 20 million visitors annually according the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan. Anaheim Fire and Rescue has approximately 276 full time employees.
Emergency Management and Preparedness is responsible for the management and oversight of the City of Anaheim’s Emergency Operations Center, Disaster Preparedness, Grants, Homeland Security, Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center and Hazard Mitigation Plan as well as the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Volunteer Program and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES) Volunteer Program. This section ensures that city employees and residents are as prepared as possible for disasters.
This City accomplishes this by:
• Maintaining the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Maintaining the City's Emergency Operations Plan
• Providing employee and citizen education in preparedness • Training employees in disaster response, management, and recovery • Emergency Management and Preparedness is a division within Anaheim Fire & Rescue.
17.18. Police Services
The Anaheim Police Department acts as the City’s enforcement agency to provide general law enforcement. The Anaheim Police Department has two stations serving approximately 348,000 residents and over 20 million visitors annually.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-52
19. Transparency Requirements
The City is in compliance with all transparency requirements, as all zoning, development standards and fees are available on the City’s website (www.anaheim.net) and at the Planning Department Counter. The City will continue to make available the required information on both the City’s website and at the Planning Department Counter.
C. Environmental Constraints
Like most Southern California cities, Anaheim faces a diverse array of potential natural hazards such as earthquakes, fire hazards, and flooding hazards. The City of Anaheim plans and engages mitigation techniques through the City’s Safety Element. The following environmental Hazards may pose a constraint to the development of housing in Anaheim.
1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Anaheim is located in an area that USGS considers to be seismically active, similar to most Southern California cities. Active and potentially active faults are located adjacent to Anaheim; however, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City limits.
Seismic Hazards
Anaheim lies within a region with several active faults; therefore, Anaheim is subject to risks and hazards associated with earthquakes. Most significantly, Anaheim is located between two major active fault zones:
the Newport-Inglewood fault zone located to the southwest and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone located to the northeast.
Faults
The City is susceptible to fault rupture and ground shaking caused by multiple nearby earthquake fault zones. The following are the most significant faults affecting Anaheim, although damage is possible from earthquakes along other faults, including faults not previously identified.
Both the Newport-Inglewood and the Whittier-Elsinore faults are zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone passes within approximately seven miles of the western limits of the City. Although no onshore surface fault rupture has taken place since 1769, the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is considered capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 on the Richter Scale.6
The Whittier-Elsinore fault zone is the closest major fault system to the City and one of the largest in Southern California. The Whittier-Elsinore fault zone does not extend inside the City boundaries but approaches within less than one mile of the northeastern corner of the City. The Whittier-Elsinore fault is 6 City of Anaheim, 2004 Safety Element.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-53 currently active and is capable of generating an earthquake of up to a magnitude of 6.8 on the Richter Scale, which could result in surface rupture along one or more of its fault traces.
The potential for ground rupture due to fault movement is commonly related to the seismic activity of known fault zones. Recognized active fault zones are located outside of the City of Anaheim. Potentially active faults in close proximity to the City are the El Modeno, Peralta Hills, and Norwalk faults, which have a low possibility of ground rupture within the City. The majority of the El Modeno and Peralta Hills faults are located south of the Peralta Hills area and outside the boundaries of the City of Anaheim. The El Modeno fault zone is a concealed fault, and the exact location of the fault is, therefore, uncertain. The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has determined that the El Modeno, Peralta Hills and Norwalk faults are not “sufficiently active” or “well defined” enough to be subject to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Compared with the more active and recognized fault zones, the CDMG considers the potential for ground rupture due to seismic activity low.
While Figure 3-4 shows that there are no Alquist-Priolo zones within the City, the majority of Anaheim is at risk of a 0.75g to 1.05g shake potential. Some areas in the City experience lower risk such as land south of West Katella Avenue, south of Nohl Ranch Road, and land in the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Area near the Oak Canyon Nature Center and Walnut Canyon Reservoir as shown in Figure 3-5.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-54 Figure 3-4: Alquist-Priolo Zones, City of Anaheim
Source: City of Anaheim, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 3-2: Faults in Anaheim and Surrounding Area, available at https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/43389/Draft-hazard-mitigation-plan-03312022?bidId Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-55 Figure 3-5: Seismic Hazard Zones, City of Anaheim
Source: City of Anaheim, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 3-3: Seismic Hazard Zones, available at https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/43389/Draft-hazardmitigation-plan-03312022?bidId Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-56 Liquefaction
Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Liquefaction, a geologic process that causes ground failure, typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition. Figure 3-6 shows the areas of Anaheim that are located in liquefaction zones. There are two main areas where liquefaction risk is the highest. Land bordered by State Route 57 (SR-57) to the west and SR-91 to the east is one of these main areas while the other area most at risk of liquefaction is just west of Brookhurst.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-57 Figure 3-6: Liquefaction Zones, City of Anaheim
Source: City of Anaheim, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 3-4: Liquefaction Susceptibility Zones in Anaheim Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-58
2. Flooding
Potential flooding in the Anaheim area is attributable to two sources: natural flooding and local dam failure. Flooding becomes particularly hazardous when development encroaches onto floodplains, modifying the landscape and altering natural patterns of conveying excess water during floods. Since Anaheim is partially located in an alluvial plain, drainage stemming from the mountains to the north and east must cross Anaheim to reach the coast. The Santa Ana River flows through the eastern part of the City entering from Riverside County and the Prado Flood Control Basin. Drainage through the City is controlled and directed via storm drains, channels, and the Santa Ana River. 100-Year Floods
One-hundred-year floods are those that have a 1/100 or one percent chance of occurring in any given year. The 100-year flood is a regulatory standard used by Federal agencies and most states to administer floodplain management programs. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) uses this standard as the basis for flood insurance requirements nationwide. NFIP bases its flood insurance rates on FEMA designations of flood zones. Standard practice is to avoid or restrict construction within 100-year flood zones, or to engage in flood-proofing techniques such as elevating building pads or constructing walls, dams, and levees. Portions of the City of Anaheim are located within a 100-year flood plain, primarily along rivers, channels, and storm drains in the City. More than half of the City is located within the 100- Year to 500-Year Flood Zone.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-59 Figure 3-7: Flood Zones, City of Anaheim
Source: City of Anaheim, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 3-10: FEMA Flood Hazards Zone Map, Available at https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/43389/Draft-hazard-mitigation-plan-03312022?bidId Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-60
3. Fire Hazards
Fires can occur in urban environments and in unpopulated areas that may contain brush or grasslands.
The central and western portions of Anaheim are highly urbanized and relatively built out, and the Hill and Canyon Area is approaching its buildout potential. As a result, the City must continue to address the growing need to defend both persons and property from urban and wildland fires.
Wildland Fires
A wildland fire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels that may expose or consume structures. The wildland fire threat is high in the area surrounding Anaheim because of the region's weather, topography, and native vegetation. Mild and wet winters result in an annual growth of grasses and plants that dry out during the hot summer months and provide fuel for wildfires in the autumn, when the Santa Ana winds blow through the area. The Santa Ana winds are hot, dry winds that blow across the region in the late fall and often fan and help spread wildfires. The areas with the highest threat are generally the undeveloped, and hilly sections of the Hills. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones include the ridgeline areas and undeveloped wildland areas located east of the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway and south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway. In addition, there is a significant amount of undeveloped land east of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241) to the Riverside County line. The Anaheim Fire Department has also classified this area as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
One of the last major wildland fires in the Hill and Canyon Area was the Canyon II Fire in 2017, which burned 9,217 acres. Prior to that, the Freeway Complex Fire occurred in 2008 and burned 30,305 acres.
In 2007, the Windy Ridge Fire burned through portions of Anaheim Hills, burning a total of 2,036 acres. In 2006, the Sierra Fire burned approximately 1,800 acres and was about half a mile away from homes in Anaheim Hills.
Other notable fires in the City include the Stagecoach Fire in 1993, which burned 700 acres. Prior to that, the Gypsum Canyon fire occurred in 1982 and burned 16,800 acres. In 1967, the Paseo Grande Fire, which began in Corona, burned through portions of this area, and also burned into the Cities of Irvine, Orange, and Villa Park. Many homes were lost in that fire and approximately 48,639 acres were burned. In 1948, the Green River fire burned 47,000 acres. This fire history indicates that wildland fires continue to pose a threat to the Hill and Canyon Area.
Urban Fires
Structural and automobile fires are the most common types of urban fires, and caused by a variety of human, mechanical, and natural factors. Urban fires can spread to other structures or areas, particularly if not extinguished promptly. Proactive efforts, such as fire sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire resistant roofing and construction methods, can help reduce the frequency and severity of urban fires. In newer structures, these safety requirements help confine structural fires to the building or property of origin. In the older areas of Anaheim, where building materials may not be fire rated and structures are not fitted with fire sprinklers, the probability of structural fires spreading to adjacent buildings is much higher.
Structural fires are of particular concern in high-density areas, where the potential for fire to spread from one building to the next is greater.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-61 Figure 3-8: Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), City of Anaheim Source: City of Anaheim Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 3-1: Areas of Responsibility within Fire Hazard Severity Zones, available at https://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/43389/Draft-hazard-mitigation-plan-03312022?bidId.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-62 The Potential Impacts of Environmental Constraints
Some of the candidate housing sites are located in areas identified to have one or more environmental risks explained in this section. Specifically, candidate housing sites east of SR-91 have a higher predisposition to fire, land bordered by State Route 57 (SR-57) to the west and SR-91 to the east as well as west of Brookhurst have higher risk of liquefaction, and the majority of the City has a high shake potential risk. However, all future developments, including developments on the candidate housing sites, are required to undergo appropriate environmental review per AMC §18.52.110 Application Review.
Housing development would not take place unless the proper planning, building, and environmental reviews are performed and approved. Additionally, many of the candidate housing sites in high risk areas are located in urban areas where infrastructure and preventative building practices are practiced to combat natural disasters and other environmental constraints; as such, the identified environmental constraints would not hinder housing production.
D. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
The Fair Housing Act prohibits, among other things, discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing related transactions because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. It also extended beyond this non-discrimination mandate, requiring the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer its programs and activities related to housing and urban development in a manner that affirmatively furthers the purposes of the Fair Housing Act.
Grantees of federal entitlement funds, like the City of Anaheim, must regularly certify compliance with the Fair Housing Act’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirement. Prior to 2015, HUD implemented the AFFH mandate by requiring each grantee to complete an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice (AI).
In 2015 a new AFFH Rule was put forth establishing a process by which grantees had to conduct a more extensive analysis of local fair housing concerns, called an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), commit to specific steps to remedy them and submit their AFH to HUD for review. It also created a regulatory definition of the AFFH requirement to clarify the substantive expectations HUD had for grantees. In 2018, HUD Secretary Ben Carson suspended the 2015 AFFH regulations, which President Biden reinstated in 2021.
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015. In July of 2019, the City of Anaheim, on behalf of all jurisdictions in Orange County, contracted with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law to complete a Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for FY 2020-24. During this time, the 2015 AFFH Rule was suspended, yet AB 686 had passed requiring California jurisdictions to submit an AFH in accordance to the 2015 AFFH Rule when submitting Housing Elements after January 1, 2021. Based on this information, the Orange County jurisdictions decided to complete its plan in accordance with the 2015 AFFH Rule, but title the plan an AI.
On May 5, 2020, the Orange County Jurisdictions and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-63 finalized the Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for FY 2020-24 in full accordance with the 2015 AFFH Rule.
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor. Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. These characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability.
On May 5, 2020, the Orange County Jurisdictions and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law finalized the Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice for FY 2020-24. The Fair Housing Council of Orange County works under the direction of a volunteer board of directors and staff to fulfill a mission of protecting the quality of life in Orange County by ensuring equal access to housing opportunities, fostering diversity, and preserving dignity and human rights. The agency is a HUD Approved Housing Counseling Agency and provides one-on-one education, mediation, and counseling for individuals and families throughout the Orange County region.
The AI identifies impediments that may prevent equal housing access and develops solutions to mitigate or remove such impediments. Anaheim’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element references analysis from the regional FY 2020-2024 AI in order to identify potential impediments to housing that are specific to the cityCity. The City also completed its FY 2020-24 Consolidated Plan, as an entitlement city for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which identifies housing problems within the community, specifically among low and very-low-income households. Fair housing is identified as a priority within the Consolidated Plan.
1. Needs Assessment
1. Summary of Local Data
Analysis of Impediments (AI)
The AI contains a countywideCountywide analysis of demographic, housing, and specifically fair housing issues infor all the cities in Orange County, including the City of Anaheim. The Housing Element discusses the City's demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations in the previouswere previously discussed in Section 2:
Community Profile.
In an ongoing effort to promote and encourage fair housing, the City contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC). The Fair Housing Council of Orange County works under the direction of a volunteer board of directors and staff to fulfill a mission of protecting the quality of life in Orange County by ensuring equal access to housing opportunities, fostering diversity, and preserving dignity and human rights. The agency is a HUD Approved Housing Counseling Agency and provides one-on-one education, mediation, and counseling for individuals and families throughout the Orange County region.
FHCOC provides public outreach, educational workshops, and distributes educational materials related to fair housing. Inquiries regarding fair housing matters are generally referred to the AHA.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-64 Regulatory Compliance with State and Local Fair Housing Laws Table 3-21: Compliance with State and Local Fair Housing Laws Law Compliance
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
establishes protections for employees against
discrimination, retaliation and harassment in
employment. All employment provisions of the FEHA
anti-discrimination provisions apply to all employers
with five or more full-time or part-time employees. In
addition, the FEHA's anti-harassment provisions apply
to all employers with only one or more employees.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim has adopted
Administrative Regulation 240 – Non-Discrimination
Program that states, among other things how the City
will comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as the FEHA. This includes establishing protections for employees against discrimination, retaliation and
harassment in employment. In addition, the City of
Anaheim has included Affordable Housing Opportunity
Strategy 5E: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in this Housing Element to update the current code to ensure
compliance with the Housing Accountability Act.
Government Code section 65008 covers actions of a
city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the
action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or
other land use in the state because of membership in a
protected class, the method of financing, and/or the
intended occupancy.
Compliant. The City works to ensure that individuals of all special groups would not be discriminated
Additionally, the City contracts with the Housing Rights Center to provide resources and workshops to increase
fair housing resource awareness within the City.
Government Code section 8899.50 requires all public
agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to
affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently updating
the City’s Housing Element in order to maintain
compliance with State law requirements regarding
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Government Code section 11135 et seq. requires full
and equal access to all programs and activities
operated, administered, or funded with financial
assistance from the state, regardless of one’s
membership or perceived membership in a protected
class.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim contracts with the Fair
Housing Council of Orange County to provide resources
and workshops to increase fair housing resource
awareness within the City.
Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915.) Compliant. The City of Anaheim has a process for approving and implementing the Density Bonus Law,
and has included a program in this Housing Element to
update the current code to ensure compliance with the
State Density Bonus Law.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-65 Table 3-21: Compliance with State and Local Fair Housing Laws Law Compliance
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5.)
establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or
farmworker housing that are consistent with objective
local development standards and contribute to
meeting housing need.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently updating
the City’s Housing Element in order to maintain
compliance with the Housing Accountability Act that
requires jurisdictions in the State to have an adopted
housing element that successfully reaches their
allocated housing goal. The City currently has adopted
the 5th Cycle Housing Element.
In addition, the City of Anaheim has included
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5E:
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in this Housing
Element to update the current code to ensure
compliance with the Housing Accountability Act.
No-Net-Loss (Gov. Code § 65863) ensures
development opportunities remain available
throughout the planning period to accommodate a
jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate- income
households.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently updating
the City’s Housing Element to maintain compliance
with the No-Net-Loss (Gov. Code § 65863). The Element
ensures the City would create positive net units. See
Appendix B for more information.
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code § 65913.1)
requires local agencies to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with "appropriate
standards" to meet the housing needs of all segments
of the population, including low and moderate income
housing, as identified in the housing element.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently updating
the City’s Housing Element to maintain compliance
with the Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code § 65913.1).
The City of Anaheim does not have a sufficient amount
of vacant land that meets the “appropriate standards”
for residential use. In order to address this, the City has identified five site strategies (detailed in Appendix B) that would achieve and surpass the City’s RHNA
obligation during the planning period.
Excessive Subdivision Standards (Gov. Code § 65913.2) Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently in compliance with the Excessive Subdivision Standard
(Gov. Code § 65913.2), as the City does not exercise any laws and regulations that impose excessive standards
on housing developments and utilities.
Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code § 65302.8.)
ensures that if a county or city, including a charter city, adopts or amends a mandatory general plan element
which operates to limit the number of housing units
which may be constructed on an annual basis, such
adoption or amendment shall contain findings which
justify reducing the housing opportunities of the
region.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently in
compliance with the Limits on Growth Controls Law
Gov. Code § 65302.8.), as the City has not adopted any
growth controls that limit the number of housing units
that may be constructed on an annual basis.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-66 Table 3-21: Compliance with State and Local Fair Housing Laws Law Compliance
Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583, esp. subds.
(c)(5), (c)(10).) promotes and affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all
persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or
disability, and other characteristics protected by the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title
2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
Compliant. The City of Anaheim is currently updating
the City’s Housing Element to identify constraints to
Fair Housing and Programs to affirmatively further Fair Housing opportunities.
Outreach and Community Input
Outreach for AI
As a part of the development of the FY 2020-25 AI and in order to ensure that the analysis accurately reflected the conditions in the community, extensive outreach and testing was done, including interviews, community meetings, focus groups and workshops and public hearings. In order to gather input and participation, all jurisdictions within the County 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.
Public hearings and City Council meetings were held throughout the County during the Spring. Due to the prohibition of gatherings because of COVID-19, hearings and meetings were held remotely. All community meetings had translation services available if requested in 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.
Additionally, asOutreach for 2021-2029 Housing Element Update As a part of the Housing Element Update, the City hosted the following public engagement opportunities:
• A virtual Community Workshop #1
• An online community survey
• An in-person Community Workshop #2
• Monthly Housing Element Update Committee meetings
• Technical Focus Group InterviewsGroups Meetings
• Briefings with Elected Officials
• Workshops with Planning Commissions, Housing and Community Development Commission and the City Council
• An in-person Community Workshop #3
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-67 Additional details and information about the City’s outreach efforts are available in Appendix C of this document. Through the outreach and engagement process, the City asked community members to provide input on issues or challenges related to housing and fair housing access. The City identified the following key themes:
• Section 8 Access: The community identified that there is little access to Section 8 vouchers. For those who are on the waiting list, they identified feeling as though there would not be opportunity to receive the funding support.
• Lack of Affordable Housing: The community identified an overall lack of available housing that is affordable to households who are considered low and very low income. Community members also noted that the waiting list for affordable housing projects in the City is long and it is incredibly challenging to receive placement in units.
• Aging in Place: The community identified challenges for seniors living in the city to afford to remain in Anaheim. Often called “aging in place,” community members identified that the lack of affordable housing options for senior citizens may force them to move away from the City to find affordable options.
Summary of Community Survey and Public Comments
Among the extensive community outreach conducted during preparation of this Housing Element, one of the most successful outreach methods was the Community Survey; see Appendix C. The Community Survey was meant to determine what kind of housing should be built in Anaheim through questions that gauged the participants’ housing type, tenure, and development area preferences. The Community Survey was distributed online in both English and Spanish in order to reach a wide audience. Approximately 323 people took the survey after its distribution, and most people who participated did so in English (303 out of 323).
Overall, the majority of participants agreed that there is a lack of affordable housing in Anaheim.
Participants also indicated an interest in more affordable housing and agreed that housing costs are the most influential barrier to housing growth in the City. Comments received during the public review period also highlighted similar sentiments.
Fair Housing Issues
Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation or any other arbitrary factor.
The City does not regularly conduct fair housing testing; however, the regional AI identified the following fair housing issues in the City:
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-68 • Housing Problems: The AI identified housing problems (overcrowding, high cost burden, inadequate facilities, or inadequate living conditions) as a primary issue within the City of Anaheim. The AI notes that housing problems occur more frequently in more populated areas of the County, including in Anaheim in particular. The data also noted that persons who identify as Hispanic more commonly experience housing problems in the City (about 68 percent of all household’s experience housing problems).
• Severe Housing Problems: The AI also identified severe housing problems as a fair housing issue in the City. Severe housing issues (problems as identified by CHAS data) disproportionately affect Hispanic residents in the City. Of the Hispanic population in Anaheim, 49.6% experience severe housing issues (41,509 households).
Fair Housing Enforcement
Currently, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County provides fair housing services to the City of Anaheim.
For FY 2020-21, the City of Anaheim has allocated $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Fair Housing Council of Orange County to perform the following, at no cost:
• Fair Housing Enforcement: Fair Housing Council investigates housing discrimination complaints, assists complainants with referrals to government enforcement agencies and assists in, or becomes a party to, litigation aimed at halting illegal discriminatory housing practices. • Fair Housing Training: The Fair Housing Council provides fair housing trainings intermittently throughout the region.
• Counseling: Counselors provide information in a wide range of areas including, but not limited to, rental assistance programs, mortgage default/foreclosure prevention, and the home buying process.
• Landlord/Tenant Mitigation: Fair Housing Council provides counseling concerning housing rights, obligations and laws, and answers questions about the rights and obligations of landlords or tenants. The counselors are trained professionals that are available to help resolve any landlord/tenant problem.
The Fair Housing Council’s primary mission is to eliminate housing discrimination. In addition to the services provided above, the fair housing councils also provides walk in counseling and meetings, attends public meetings, host community events, provides educational seminars, and engages young members of the community through a poster contest. In addition, the Fair Housing Council provides community outreach presentations to organizations and at events to inform individuals about fair housing laws, landlord/tenant issues, information about buying a home, seniors wanting information about reverse mortgages, and homeowners in mortgage default who need information to prevent and avoid foreclosure.
From 2014 to 2020, the City provided 8,995 residents with fair housing services using CDBG funding. As part of the FY 2020-25 Consolidated Plan for the Anaheim, the City has set a goal of assisting 500 or more people with fair housing issues within the five-year period using $340,000 of CDBG funding. The City’s 2020-21 Action Plan identified $100,000 to support persons experiencing fair housing issues. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. The basis for filing these grievances can be race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and retaliation.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-69 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunities (FHEO) Inquiries
FHEO Inquiries by City (HUD, 2013-2021)
Figure 3-9 depicts Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Inquiries (FHEO) in the City of Anaheim from 2013 through 2021. FHEO inquiries allow residents to submit complaints or questions related to their housing situation. The goal of the FHEO program intends to eliminate housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieve diverse, inclusive communities by leading the nation in the enforcement, administration, development, and public understanding of federal fair housing policies and laws. It should be noted that inquiries are not official cases. Inquiries may have been dropped by the resident for a number of reasons, and there is value to identify concerns that residents have about possible discrimination through the analysis of FHEO inquiries.
In the City of Anaheim, there were a total of 132 inquiries made over eight years, or 0.37 inquires per onethousand people. Of the 132 inquiries, 34 were identified as non-valid issues, six were not pursued by the resident who made the inquiry, and 71 failed to respond after the inquiry was made and processed. When inquiries are made, they are categorized and approved into different protected classes such as disability, race, and religion among others. HUD reported 16 inquiries related to disability, seven related to race, three related to familial status, six related to national origin, and three related to sex. One individual inquiry may be classified in multiple protected groups.
In comparison to surrounding jurisdictions, Anaheim’s inquires per one-thousand people is higher than cities such as Santa Ana (0.19 per one-thousand) Fullerton (0.20 per one-thousand), Yorba Linda (0.12 per one-thousand), and Stanton (0.13 per one-thousand). However, surrounding cities generally fall under <0.5 inquiries per one-thousand people, which is on the lower side of FHEO inquiries for a populous area like Anaheim and Orange County in general. Looking northward to Los Angeles County, more instances of communities with high densities of inquiries are more common.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-70 Figure 3-9: FHEO Inquiries by City (HUD, 2013-2021)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-71 County of Orange: FHEO Cases (2006-2020)
Figure 3-10 depicts the amount of Title VIII fair housing cases filed by FHEO from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2020 in Orange County. A Title VIII fair housing case deals with discrimination in the sale, rental, financing of dwellings, and other housing-related transactions based on a persons protected characteristics. Cases are categorized into protected classes. Some of the classes such as race are more specifically broken down (i.e. Race- Asian). It should be noted that one case may fall into multiple protected classes.
In the 14-year data collection period, a total of 28 Title VIII fair housing cases have been filed in Orange County. Of the 28, approximately three cases identified a racial bias as a barrier to fair housing, 17 identify a disability bias, and four identify a familial status bias. The majority of cases, approximately 61 percent, had identified a disability bias as a barrier to fair housing. Surrounding counties such as Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego also reflected this pattern.
Regionally, Orange County has the second lowest count of FHEO cases (28 total) even though it is the third largest County in the area with approximately 3,167,809 residents. 7 Los Angeles County (the County with
the most residents) had 291 total cases, San Bernardino County had 85 cases, Riverside County had 43 cases, and San Diego had 68 cases.
7 US Census Bureau, 2021, available at
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescountycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia,sandiegocounty california,riversidecountycalifornia,sanbernardinocountycalifornia,CA/PST045221 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-72 Figure 3-10: FHEO Cases Total (2006-2020)
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer City of Anaheim
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-73
4.2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Knowledge Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
The dissimilarity index is the most commonly used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. The dissimilarity index considers an index number above 60 to show high similarity and a segregated community.
It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country.8 Alternatively, when white residents leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, it can leave to the segregation of those neighborhoods. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.
Figure 3-1 Figure 3-11 shows the dissimilarity between each ifof the identified race and ethnic groups and Anaheim’s White population based on 2010 Decennial Census data analysis by CensusScope. The higher scores indicate higher levels of segregation among those racial and ethnic group. (latest data available as of April 2022). According to the data, there are highest dissimilarity rates among the Native Hawaiian Population (52.5) and those who identified as another race (Other, 43.1). Specifically, 52.5 percent of the Native Hawaiian population in Anaheim would need to move into predominantly White neighborhoods for perfect integration; 43.1 percent of the persons that self-identified as another race (Other) in Anaheim would need to move into predominantly White neighborhoods for perfect integration.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) considers dissimilarity index scores above 30 as moderate segregation and scores above 60 high segregation. While the City of Anaheim has no racial or ethnic populations with a dissimilarity index above 60, all populations but those who identified as Asian and two or more races have a score above 30, meaning these groups experience moderate segregation from the White population. While segregation may be a result of ethnic enclaves or persons of similar cultures living nearby, there is often increased likelihood that segregated areas have less access to essential resources or higher exposure to poverty. As a part of Anaheim’s efforts to further fair housing, the City will consider increased targeted outreach to minority residents. 8 Allen, J. P. and Turner, E. 2002 “Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California”. California State University, Northridge.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-74 Figure 3-1:-11: Dissimilarity Index with White Population *Indicates race alone, not any other ethnicity
**When a group’s population is less than 1,000, its dissimilarity index may be high even if the group’s members are evenly distributed throughout the area.
Source: 2010 Decennial Census data analysis by CensusScope (Social Science Data Analysis Network) *Indicates race alone, not any other ethnicity
Citywide and Regional Racial Predominance
The City of Anaheim has experienced a small shift in racial distribution from 2010 to 2019. Residents identifying as Hispanic were the majority of the population at 51.8 percent in 2010, and their proportion of Anaheim’s population increased to 54.3 percent in 2019. While the Hispanic proportion of the City’s population grew, the White proportion decreased by 4.7 percent over the time period. Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13 below show the predominantly White and Hispanic census tracts within the City of Anaheim as well as in the surrounding communities. The City has predominantly White populations in communities east of North Tustin Avenue while the populations west of the street are predominantly Hispanic with the exception of four census tracts that have varying degrees of White predominance (census tract 869.02, 117.22, 102.03, and 102.01). The census tracts west of North Tustin Avenue have a variety of median average incomes typically ranging from less than $30,000 to more than $125,000 (see Figure 3-16: Median Income, Anaheim). However, the majority in these areas have household incomes ranging from $30,000 to $87,100. Census tracts east of North Tustin Avenue typically have median household incomes of $125,000 and greater. However, there is one census tract in this area, 182.62, that earns nearer to the 2020 State median of $87,000.
Regionally, similar patterns occur as well. Lower income earning areas in the north and central parts of the County such as the cities of Westminster, Buena Park, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Stanton and La Habra are predominantly Non-White. South Orange County cities such as Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, and San Clemente are predominantly White. These areas tend to have higher median household incomes than those that are made up of Non-White communities such as those in areas west of North Tustin Avenue in Anaheim.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Black*
American Indian*
Asian*
Native Hawaiian*
Other*
Two or More Races*
Hispanic
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-75 Figure 3-12: Racially Predominant Groups in Anaheim-- White Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-76 Figure 3-13: Racially Predominant Groups in Anaheim—Hispanic Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-77 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward:
R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line.
9 Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
Location of residence can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. 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 residential segregation amplifies racial inequality. 10 However, these areas may also provide different
opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, or business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identify and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas in order to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a City.
Figure 3-14 displays the data for R/ECAPs located near Anaheim in the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove to the south. Figure 3-15 displays data for areas experiencing high segregation and poverty. within the City and in surrounding communities.
While Figure 3-14 shows that there are no R/ECAPs in the City of Anaheim, Figure 3-15 shows that there are three areas of high segregation and poverty in the City. Census tracts 117.20, 874.05, and 875.04 have populations with high segregationHispanic predominance (see Figure 3-13), and have median household that are well below the overall City median income of $71,763 in 2019 and poverty in Orange County’s median income of $90,234. Table 3-22 gives details on these areas. three tracts.
Table 3-22: Areas of High Segregation and Poverty
Census Tract Economic
Domain
Environmental
Domain
Educational
Domain
Composite Index
Score
Median Household
Income1
117.20 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.00 $46,148
874.05 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.00 $47,159
875.04 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.00 $42,180
Source: HUD. AFFH Data Viewer. Available at
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60. Accessed on February 7, 2022.
Notes: 1-Median Income is based on data from the American Community Survey (2015-2019). Available at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=income&g=1400000US06059011720,06059087405,06059087504&d=ACS%205- Year%20Estimates%20Subject%20Tables&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S1901. 9 Wilson, W. J. (1980). The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10 Schulz, A. J., Williams, D. R., Israel, B. A., & Lempert, L. B. (2002). Racial and spatial relations as fundamental determinants of health in Detroit. The Milbank quarterly, 80(4), 677–iv. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00028 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-78 Figure 3-14: R/ECAP Areas of High Segregation and Poverty Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-79 Figure 3-15: Areas of High Segregation and Poverty
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-80 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty have long been analyzed and reviewed as a contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, Whites are the most severely segregated. 11 Research also identifies segregation of affluence
to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.
Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) is from the 2012-2016 FiveYear American Community Survey and measured at the census tracktract level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000. The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
• RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
• Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract.
• RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs. • The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
• The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.
Overall, RCCAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices. 12 To identify if
these areas exist in Anaheim, this analysis examines census tracts with a population that is at least 50% percent white and a median income over $100,000. Table 3-10 were identified. Table 3-23 below displays the RCAA data for Anaheim. In total, there are eight census tracts that are characterized by populations that are more than 50 percent White and that have a median income of $100,000 or greater. Out of these eight tracts, only three meet the official income criteria and none meet the 80 precent White predominance criteria.
11 Edwards, G. and Damiano, W. 2019. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Minnesota.
12 Ibid.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-81 Table 3-23: Median Household Income by Race
Census Tract Anaheim
Percent Population White Median Income
219.15 60.98% $102,664.00
219.16 67.21% $100,509.00
219.05 58.81% $109,135.00
219.19 67.32% $102,093.00
219.20 62.09% $129,485.00
219.21 62.54% $151,836.00
219.23 57.14% $133,750.00
219.24 52.12% $120,179.00
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed August 20, 2021.
Additionally, Table 3-24 below shows local (Anaheim) and regional (Orange County) context for the median household incomes of white residentsdifferent racial groups.
Table 3-24: Median Household Income by Race
Race Anaheim Orange County
Median Income Population Median Income Population
Black or African
American
$64,476 3.4% $76,136 1.8%
American Indian and
Alaska Native
$64,871 0.4% $72,476 0.4%
Asian $89,164 17.5% $93,777 19.6%
Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander
$84,762 0.3% $95,150 0.3%
Hispanic or Latino origin
(of any race)
$62,691 42.8% $68,971 24.2%
White alone, not
Hispanic or Latino
$70,64184,345 66.434.3% $94,082101,958 61.0%
All Households $57,38571,763 -- $90,234 --
Source: 2015-2019 5-Year Estimates American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table S1903 Median Income in The Past 12 Months (In 2019 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) Five-Year Estimate 2015-2019 (for all households and for White Alone) , Available at
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=income&g=0500000US06059_1400000US06059011720,06059087405,06059087504 _1600000US0602000&d=ACS%205-Year%20Estimates%20Subject%20Tables While no census tracts meet both criteria that characterizes an RCAA, it can still be concluded that White households typically have higher household incomes than those that are Non-White with the exception of Asian residents making more than White residents. The average White household in Anaheim makes approximately $12,582 more than the average household in the City. Although there is a disparity between White and Non-White (excluding Asian) households in Anaheim, there is also a regional income discrepancy between Anaheim and Orange County. The average household income in Anaheim is approximately $32,849 less than the average in Orange County.
As shown in Figure 3-16, the median income for block groups in the central areas of Orange County such as Garden Grove, Stanton, and Westminster are typically lower. Areas in the City that are west of North Tustin Avenue shows household income levels that are typically lower than households east of North Tustin Avenue. Additionally, as shown in Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13, median income patterns and racial patterns of the City are linked. In areas with higher White predominance, median household incomes Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-82 range from $125,000 and greater with the exception of portions of census tract 218.12, 869.02, 1102.03 that earn lower median incomes. There are also some census tracts that have predominantly Hispanic populations that earn household incomes greater than $125,000 such as portions of census tract 863.06 and 867.01.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-83 Figure 3-16: Median Income, Anaheim
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-84 Disparities in Access to OpportunitiesOpportunity
Regional Opportunity Index
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank collaborated to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both “people” and “place” components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.”
The “ROI: People” is a relative measure of people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life as follows:
• Education Opportunity: Assesses people’s relative success in gaining educational assets, in the form of a higher education, elementary school achievement, and regular elementary school attendance.
• Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic well-being of the people in a community, in the form of employment and income level.
• Housing Opportunity: Measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
• Mobility/Transportation Opportunity: Contains indicators that assess a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
• Health/Environment Opportunity: Measures the relative health outcomes of the people within a community, in the form of infant and teen health and general health. • Civic Life Opportunity: A relative social and political engagement of an area, in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.
The “ROI: Place” is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life., as follows:
• Education Opportunity: Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high-quality schools that meet the basic educational and social needs of the population.
• Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
• Housing Opportunity: Measures relative availability of housing in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
• Health/Environment Opportunity: A relative measure of how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health-related environments.
• Civic Life Opportunity: Measures the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-85 Figure 3-17 identifies the achievement levels that persons living within the City have and Figure 3-18 displays the opportunity that different census tracts can provide. Figure 3-17 and Figure 3-18 below show that the majority of the City of Anaheim is classified as a “low opportunity zone” with pockets of “high opportunity” in the eastern portion of the City.east of North East Street and north of East Wagner Avenue in regard to place. These figures show a low to moderate level of relative opportunities that people can achieve, as well as a low to moderate level of relative opportunities that Anaheim provides. Overall, land west Anaheim isof North East Street Avenue displays low upward mobility and achievement for residents with pockets of higher opportunity provided by places. Low achievement in six census tracts.
Communities to the west of the street typically earn lower household incomes, are communities of color, have higher rates are consistent with low opportunity places, the city should focus on the place aspect of these areas as more health, education, housing, and resource opportunities may increase resident achievement and upward mobility. Overall,of single-parent households and higher rates of disabilities. In comparison, communities east Anaheim showsof North East Street show both high achievement for residents and high opportunity offered geographically. East Anaheim is overall higher income and higher achieving that west Anaheim, These communities are predominantly White, with the City should focus on providing opportunity and resources for lower income residents in the higher opportunity areas in east Anaheim.exception of one or two census tracts having Hispanic predominance.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-86 Figure 3-17: Regional Opportunity Index - People
Source: 2014, Regional Opportunity Index (UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank). Accessed August 2021.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-87 Figure 3-18: Regional Opportunity Index - Place
Source: 2014, Regional Opportunity Index (UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank). Accessed August 2021.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-88 Table 3-25: Opportunity Indicators - Anaheim and California ROI Indicator Anaheim Orange County California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 29% 44% 38%
Math Proficiency 69% 77% 70%
English Proficiency 60% 72% 65%
Elementary Truancy 16% 16% 24%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 86% 92% 83%
UC/CSU Eligibility 38% 48% 41%
Teacher Experience 67% 54% 36%
High School Discipline Rate 4% 4% 6%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 90% 92% 89%
Minimum Basic Income 59% 70% 64%
Place
Job Availability 787.52 859.93 701.75
Job Quality 38% 42% 40%
Job Growth 2% 2% 3%
Bank Accessibility 0.20 0.27 0.24
Housing
People
Home Ownership 47% 58% 55%
Housing Cost Burden 46% 52% 52%
Place
Housing Adequacy 81% 89% 91%
Housing Affordability 0.15 0.16 0.19
MobilityPeople
Vehicle Availability 85% 90% 86%
Commute Time 58% 61% 60%
Internet Access 4.42 4.7 4
Health/EnvironmentalPlace
Infant Health 95% 95% 95%
Birth to Teens 8% 5% 7%
Years of Life Lost 26.38 23.37 29.84
Place
Air Quality 11.77 10.44 10.01
Prenatal Care 87% 90% 83%
Access to Supermarket 58% 53% 53%
Health Care Availability 1.58 2.28 1.76
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 25% 31% 31%
English Speakers 81% 87% 88%
Place
US Citizenship 73% 81% 83%
Neighborhood Stability 85% 85% 85%
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-89 Additionally, Table 3-25 and Figure 3-19 display the data for Regional Opportunity Index in Anaheim compared to the State of California. and Orange County. The data shows the following findings:
• Anaheim residents have lower educational achievements than residents across the State; however, high and in the County; High school graduation rates are slightlyrate is higher in the County than both the State and City.
• The City shows lower economic results with lower minimum basic income, job quality, and job growth. Employment than the County and the State. The City’s employment rate and job availability are both higher in Anaheimthan the State, but lower than the County. • Households in the City are predominantly renter households and have lower rates of cost burden than across the State. Housing is more affordable in the City, but housing adequacy rates are lower.
• Households in the City has near the same access to vehicles as across the State, and a lower average commute time while the County experiences higher access rates. The commute time of Anaheim residents is the shortest out of the three jurisdictions. • Environmental and health opportunities are either similar or greater in the City. than the State.
Years of life lost are lower and access to prenatal care and supermarkets are greater in the City and County.
• U.S. Citizenship is 10 percent less in the City, and English speakers and voting rates are also lower.
In summary, the City of Anaheim provides a range of regional opportunity levels. As previously stated, there are discrepancies of wealth, race, and opportunities among different areas in the City that are apparent in Figure 3-17, Figure 3-18, and previous analyses.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-90 Figure 3-19: Regional Opportunity Index - People, Anaheim and California UC Davis Center for Regional Opportunity Index - PlaceChange and Rabobank, 2014.
Opportunity indicators also help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the City. Table 3-25 provides the index scores (ranging from zero0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the 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 score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Anaheim Statewide
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-91 • Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.
Table 3-26 identifies the opportunity indices by race and ethnicity for persons living in Anaheim. The data shows that all racial and ethnic groups, except for the White, Non-Hispanic population, face some poverty.
There are greater rates of poverty for the Hispanic population., which is the predominant population in most of Anaheim. School proficiency and labor market levels are lower for almost all population NonWhite racial and ethnic groups. All as well. While all Anaheim residents have high access to transit and low cost transportation, and all residents are exposed to poor environmental health conditions. The Hispanic population has the highest job proximity index.
Table 3-26: Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, City of Anaheim Anaheim (CDBG,
HOME, ESG)
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 57.74 51.16 55.99 86.30 72.67 43.78 11.42 Black, Non-Hispanic 42.85 39.66 45.37 89.16 78.00 36.96 8.52 Hispanic 36.00 27.30 39.83 90.59 79.51 50.51 7.89
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic
49.75 44.50 50.68 87.98 75.45 37.02 9.49
Native American, NonHispanic
44.95 36.79 46.32 89.37 77.46 48.18 8.95
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 45.90 40.49 46.79 89.04 77.96 42.96 9.09 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.74 34.14 37.42 89.65 79.84 31.61 7.85 Hispanic 29.41 22.31 35.78 91.71 81.27 52.65 7.32
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic
45.63 44.33 47.94 88.35 76.64 30.85 9.12
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-92 Table 3-26: Opportunity Indicators by Race and Ethnicity, City of Anaheim Anaheim (CDBG,
HOME, ESG)
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Native American, NonHispanic
28.04 34.19 30.87 92.22 79.80 57.77 8.38
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-93 Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps Additionally, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related State agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, the opportunity maps display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
This data represents opportunity levels based on the following five factors:
• Poverty – Percent of population with income above 200% of federal poverty line. • Adult Education – Percent of adults with a bachelor's degree or above. • Employment – Percent of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces.
• Job Proximity – Number of jobs filled by workers with less than a BA that fall within a given radius (determined by the typical commute distance of low-wage workers in each region) of each census tract population-weighted centroid.
• Median Home Value - Value of owner-occupied units.
According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice.
As shown in Figure 3-20 below, the maps classify nearly all of Anaheim within low to moderate resource areas with pockets of high segregation in the center of the City (see povertytwo census tracts near the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway (census tract 874.05 and segregation maps above). East Anaheim, however, is classifies875.04) and one census tract located on the north side of where SR-91 and SR-57 meet (census tract 117.20). The majority of land east of North Tustin Avenue is classified as high and highest resources, indication much higher. However there are three census tracts, 218.21, 218.07, and 762.02 that are designated as moderate resource opportunity for existing and future residents as compared to West Anaheimareas in this area. The majority of land west of North Tustin Avenue is classified as low resource.
There are eight census tracts west of North Tustin Avenue that are considered moderate resource (871.01, 102.02 104.02, 869.02, 102.03, 878.01, 883.02, and 868.01). Of those eight, the majority lie on the western boundary of the City, directly east of the City of Cypress. The City of Anaheim is committed to exploring programs and avenues to increase housing access and opportunity to both existing residents, future residents, and households in nearby areas.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-94 Figure 3-20: TCAC Opportunity Indicators Composite Score Map Source: 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score (HCD), Accessed August 2021.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-95 Labor Market and Job Proximity
Table 3-27 below displays opportunity indicators based on labor market and job proximity. The data shows that the City has an annual unemployment rate of 3.6 percent. This unemployment rate is higher than the overall County’s rate of 3.0 percent. Additionally, Anaheim residents experience slightly longer commutes with approximately 11 percent having a commute of 60 minutes or more compared to the County average of 9.7 percent. Table 3-25
Table 3-27: Opportunity Indicator –Labor Market and Job Proximity Opportunity Indicator Anaheim Orange County
Unemployment Rate
Total Unemployed 9,575 76,596
Annual Rate 3.6% 3.0%
Job Proximity
<29 mins. 54.7% 57.6%
30-59 mins. 34.3% 32.6%
60 mins. or more 11.0% 9.7%
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019, S1701, American Community Survey 2015-2019, S0801.
Opportunity Indicators
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data, as illustrated in Figure 3-20. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
• Math proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards. • Reading proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards. • High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time. • Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.
Additionally, The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include economic data, as illustrated in Figure 3-21 below, the maps classify nearly all of Anaheim within low to moderate resource areas with pockets of high segregation in the center of the City (see poverty and segregation maps above). Communities east of North Tustin Avenue, however, are classified as high and highest resources, indicating much higher resource opportunity for existing and future residents as compared to communities to the west. Figure 3- 21 and Figure 3-22 below display the geographic data for education and economic opportunity in Anaheim using the TCAC data detailed above. Land west of SR-57 and east of SR-39 is typically categorized as having less than 0.25 positive education outcomes with some areas experiencing slightly higher outcomes (0.25-
0.50) in census tracts 868.02 and 116.02. Communities east of SR-57 are characterized by greater than
0.50 more positive education outcomes with the exception of 117.14, 117.22, 218.13, and 218.21 where educational opportunity is below 0.5. Communities to the west of SR-39 have slightly higher educational opportunity compared to the communities directly east of the highway.
Economic opportunity patterns tend to follow a similar distribution pattern. Figure 3-22 shows the economic outcomes for the City and Region. A similar, though albeit less dramatic, discrepancy is displayed by the economic outcomes map in Anaheim. Areas east of SR-57 typically have more positive Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-96 economic outcomes than areas west of SR-57. Areas west of SR-57 are typically Non-White, lower income earning and experience higher pollution burdens in comparison to other tracts in the City.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-97 Figure 3-21: TCAC Opportunity Area (2021) - Education Score, Tract Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-98 Figure 3-22: TCAC Opportunity Area (2021) - Economic Score, Tract Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-99 Access to Transit
Access to transportation, specifically public transit, provides households with affordable and environmentally friendly commuting options. It can also increase accessibility to essential retail such as grocers and markets as well as recreational activities and safe transit options for young adults and children.
AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data provided, Anaheim scored a
6.04.9 AllTransit performance score, illustrating moderatea low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. Additionally, AllTransit identified the following transit related statistics for Anaheim:
• 96.9 percent of all jobs in Anaheim are located within ½ mile of transit • There are 105,535 customer households within a 30-minute transit commute of local businesses • 2.21 percent of workers in Anaheim walk to work
• 0.77 percent of workers in Anaheim bike to work
• 2.8 percent of low-income households live near transit On average, households in Anaheim have the following:
• 813 transit trips per week within ½ mile
• 6 transit routes within ½ mile of a block group on average • 219,497 jobs accessible in a 30-minute transit trip
• 3.43 percent of all commuters use transit
By comparison, the City of Buena Park scored 4.9, the City of Fullerton scored 5.8, the City of Irvine scored
3.6, and the City of Orange scored 5.1. Access to transportation can increase both economic and environmental/health opportunities. As the map below shows, these areas that score well within both economic and environmental opportunities tend to score poorly in relation to connectivity compared to most of the other areas of the City. Transit scores are higher in west of the I-5 Freeway where the neighborhoods are denser and typically characterized by lower median incomes when compared to those in the Anaheim Hills Area where residents are more likely to have access to personal modes of transit.
The majority of candidate housing sites within the sites inventory are located in central and west Anaheim.
These areas are characterized mostly as low resource but have higher transit scores than east Anaheim.
By providing more housing resources to predominantly low resource areas, other socioeconomic issues can be addressed such as a lack of housing and less opportunities overall. Through implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, more affordable housing opportunities will be available to residents that live in these areas.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-100 Figure 3-23: AllTransit, Anaheim
Source: 2019 AllTransit Data (Center for Neighborhood Technology).
Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants.
The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Model Isis made up of a suite of 20 statewide indicators of pollution burden and population characteristics associated with increased vulnerability to pollution’s health effects. The model uses the follow analysis and calculation to identify areas of health risk:
• Uses a weighted scoring system to derive average pollution burden and population characteristics scores for each census tract.
• Calculates a final CalEnviroScreen score for a given census tract relative to the other tracts in the state by multiplying the pollution burden and population characteristics components together.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-101 • The score measures the relative pollution burdens and vulnerabilities in one census tract compared to others; the score is not a measure of health risk.
Figure 3-24 below displays mapped results for the CalEnviroScreen in and around Anaheim. High scoring tracts signify high pollution burdens while low scoring signifies lower pollution burdens. The map shows that the communities west side of Anaheim isNorth Tustin Avenue are primarily high scoring while the communities to the east side of the City shows low scoring, orstreet are more low exposure to pollutants.
Overall, high scoring signifies high pollution burdens in the City, therefore, scoring. Communities to the west side of the City of Anaheim shows high exposure to harmful pollutants, specifically for residents in low-income census tracts.North Tustin Avenue are predominantly Hispanic and typically have lower incomes as seen in previous sections. Poor environmental qualityconditions often disproportionately affects low-income residents or areas with higher percentages of low-income households. Appendix B identifies the sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation.
The majority of candidate housing sites within the sites inventory are located in central and west Anaheim, which typically have higher CalEnviroScreen scores. A number of the sites are within the Beach Boulevard, Anaheim Canyon, Anaheim Festival, and proposed C3 Specific Plans, as well as the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, providing housing options near essential resources and economic opportunity/jobs, which can decrease overall vehicle miles travelled (VMT). In many cases, decreases in VMT relate to improved air quality. Additionally, the City may work with developers to implement and increase the use of environmentally friendly materials and strategiesAdditionally, by projecting above moderate and moderate income units in areas that are higher scoring, interest in developing resources in these areas would likely increase. As a result, scores could improve.
Figure 3-9:-24: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
Source: 2021 Draft CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Data (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-102
5.3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Anaheim evaluated existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.
Existing Needs
For the year 2020 within the City of Anaheim, there were 6,2005,917 Section 8 voucher holders within the community and the City has a 9,640 persons on the Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers waitlist.
Additionally, a variety of other affordable housing opportunities currently exist in the City. In Orange County, each category of publicly supported housing is represented. Publicly supported housing includes public housing, project-based Section 8, other multi-unit housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, and LowIncome Housing Tax Credit [LIHTC] units. Table 3-28 below identifies the varietytypes of publicly supported housing, by percent, in the City of Anaheim.
Table 3-28 below displays the demographicscharacteristics of all publicly supported housing in Anaheim.
The data shows that majority of persons who utilize and receive public housing support identify as Hispanic (40.01 percent) or White (38.49 percent), with a small percentage of those who identify as Asian/Pacific Islander or Black.
Table 3-14:-28: Publicly Funded Housing Usage by Demographics Housing
Type
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
# % # % # % # %
ProjectBased
Section 8
60 22.22% 19 7.04% 50 18.52% 141 52.22%
HCV
Program
15328 27.62% 412 8.57% 1,849 38,46% 1,210 25.17%
LIHTC 2,029 23.08% 506 5.76% 4,720 53.70% 792 9.01%
Total
Households 38,125 38.49% 35,014 3.04% 39,630 40.01% 16,470 16.63% Source: 2020-2024, Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (County of Orange).
Housing Needs in Anaheim
A variety of factors affects housing needs for different households. Most commonly, disability, household income and households’household characteristics shape the type and size of housing units needed, as well as accessibility based on existing units in a City. Table 3-29 through Table 3-45 displays data for demographic characteristics of Anaheim, as compared to the County of Orange and the State of California.
Additional detailed analysis of the Anaheim community demographics is outline in Chapter 2: Community Profile of this Housing Element.The following section describes the characteristics of City residents and how these groups experiencing unique challenges when finding affordable and quality housing.
Special Needs Populations
SENIORS
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-103 Currently, seniors make up approximately 11.5 percent of Anaheim’s total population. Table 3-29: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure in Anaheim, 2012-2016 shows that the vast majority of seniors within the City have incomes that are below the median household income in the area. Seniors who rent are more likely to have lower incomes than those who own their own living space. The senior and elderly household population may benefit from affordable housing as they often have fixed incomes that may not allow for the financial flexibility necessary to acquire suitable housing. Seniors may also face various disabilities.
Smaller, more affordable housing units allow for a greater accommodation of senior lifestyles.
Table 3-29: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure in Anaheim, 2012-2016 Income category, relative to
surrounding area
Owner Renter Total Percent of Total
Elderly Households
Extremely Low (30% MFI or less) 1,715 3,635 5,350 27.7% Very Low (30% to 50% MFI) 2,080 1,585 3,665 19.0%
Low (50% to 80% MFI) 2,520 1,180 3,700 19.2%
Moderate (80% to 100% MFI) 1,115 305 1,420 7.4%
Above (100% MFI or more) 4,370 775 5,145 26.7%
Total 11,800 7,480 19,280 100.0%
Notes: MFIrefers to Median Family Income.
Source: 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)).
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Senior Housing Needs Seniors in Anaheim generally have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Having limited and fixed incomes
• Disproportionately higher healthcare costs, adding monthly living costs • Require customized housing features due to mobility and selfcare limitations • Transit dependency
• Limited in-home support, due to living alone
Programs for Seniors
The majority of seniors within Anaheim have median incomesthat are less than the City’s median income.
In order to ensure fair housing for seniors, the following strategies have been included in Section 4:
• Housing Production Strategy 1D: Affordable Senior Housing Programs • Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-104 • Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Monitoring of Adopted Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
• Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Development through Acquisition and Conversion
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentives for Special Needs Housing • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: Section 8 Mainstream Housing Program Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Table 3-30 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10 percent of the California population reported having at least one disability. In the City, about 8.65 percent of persons reported at least one disability.
Figure 3-24 illustrates disability rates throughout the City by Census Tract. While most of the City’s Census Tractscensus tracts report under 20 percent having at least one disability, one tract reports 20 to 30 percent. (census tract 800.00). This census tract encompasses both Disney Parks, commercial and retail uses, and some residential units. Figure 3-25 shows that there are more tracts with higher proportions of persons with disabilities west of SR-57. Tracts in this area are typically Non-White (mostly Hispanic), lower income, and have access to less resources than communities to the east of SR-57.
The County reported the same percentage of persons with a disability at 8.5 percent. Of the 8.5 percent of Anaheim residents who reported a disability, the majority werereported independent living and ambulatory difficulties, which could be tied to the City’s senior population. Ease of reasonable accommodation procedures and opportunity for accessible housing can provide increased housing security for the population with disabilities.
Table 3-30: Percent of Population by Disability Type
Disability City of Anaheim County of Orange California
Total with a Disability 8.5% 8.5% 10.6%
Hearing Difficulty 2.3% 2.5% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 1.4% 1.5% 2%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.6% 3.4% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 5.5% 4.5% 5.8%
Self-care Difficulty 2.5% 2.2% 2.6%
Independent Living 5.0% 4.3% 5.5%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 022] Page 3-105 Figure 3-25: Population with a Disability, Anaheim
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 022] Page 3-106 Table 3-31 shows the employment data and poverty status of persons with disabilities in Anaheim.
Persons with disabilities are less likely to be a part of the labor force when compared to other protected groups. Additionally, even when employed, persons with disabilities in Anaheim typically make lower annual incomes than those without disabilities. The table shows that approximately 21 percent of persons with disabilities over the age of 16 are considered below the poverty level compared to only 12.7 percent of persons without disabilities in the City being considered below the poverty level. Overall, persons with disabilities are more likely to experience poverty and job instability when compared to persons without disabilities. Given that this is the case, finding housing can be even more challenging.
Table 3-31: Employment Data for Persons with Disabilities Population
with a
Disability
over 16 years
of Age
Number
Employed
Percent
Employed
Number Not
in Labor
Force
Percent Not
in Labor
Force
Number of
Persons with
Disabilities
below the
Poverty Level
Percent of
Persons with
Disabilities
below the
Poverty Level
27,887 6,749 24.20% 20,497 73.50% 5,821 20.90%
Source: ACS, Five-Year Estimates, 2019, S1811.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Persons with Physical/Developmental Disabilities Persons with physical and developmental disabilities in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for specialized housing to accommodate disabilities • Higher incidence of dependent living needs
• High incidence of unemployment and having fixed income • Need for supportive services
Programs for Persons with Disabilities
Compared to the region, Anaheim has a moderate amount of persons with disabilities. Communities in western Anaheim tends to have populations with higher proportions of persons with disabilities than eastern Anaheim. In order to ensure fair housing to persons with disabilities, the City has committed to the following:
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Monitoring of Adopted Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
• Affordable Housing Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentives for Special Needs Housing • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: Section 8 Mainstream Housing Program Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 022] Page 3-107 • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Section 8 Homeless Preference
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
The HCD defines large households as households of five or more individuals. Procuring resources for a large household requires a greater portion of income. This may lead households to find smaller, more affordable housing units, which may not be large enough to accommodate a large household and may lead to overcrowding. It may be more challenging for renters to secure larger housing units as multi- family rental units are typically smaller than single-family ownership units. Many apartment complexes do not typically have 4- or 5-bedroom units. As bedroom count increases, the affordability of a housing unit typically decreases.
In Anaheim, large households represent about 21 percent of all households as shown in Table 3-32. Of this amount, renters represent a higher percentage of large households at 58.8 percent. Five-person households are more common for both owners and renters than any other large households. The provision of affordable housing may alleviate potential overcrowding burdens experienced by these households.
Table 3-32: Large Households by Tenure
Household Size Owner Renter Total
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Five-Person Household 4,459 21.2% 6,715 32.0% 11,174 11.0% Six-Person
Household 2,310 11.0% 3,369 16.0% 5,679 5.6%
Seven-or-More Person
Household 1,877 8.9% 2,265 10.8% 4,142 4.1%
Total 8,646 41.2%1 12,349 58.8%1 20,995 20.7%2
1. Percent of large households.
2. Percent of total households.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
While households over the size of four people typically make more money than the City’s median income, shows that households with over four people typically allocate less money per person than households with four or fewer people.
Table 3-33: Median Household Income by
Size
Number of people in the
Household Two Three Four Five Six Seven-ormore people
Median Income $66,780 $82,052 $85,625 $75,625 $79,758 $83,669 Dollar Amount per person $33,390 $27,351 $21,406 $15,125 $13,293 $11,9531 Difference from average
income in Anaheim2 -$4,983 +$10,289 +$13,862 +$3,862 +$7,995 +$11,906 Notes:
1-Calculated by dividing median income of 7-or-more people by 7. It should be noted that there is a possibility for this number to be lower based on the amount of people in the household 2- The median income for a family in Anaheim is approximately $71,763.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). S1903.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Large Person Households Large person households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 022] Page 3-108 • Lack of affordable housing with sufficient bedroom counts • Options for larger bedroom counts in rental units
• Higher monthly cost burden
• Affordable options for large family households
• Childcare needs for working families
Programs for Large Households
Compared to other cities in the region, Anaheim has a relatively high amount of households that have five or more residents. The City has committed to the following programs in order to ensure fair housing for large households:
• Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Affordable Housing Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentives for Special Needs Housing • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts
FAMILIAL STATUS/SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD
Table 3-34 displays household type and income data for the State, County and City. Overall, the City has a larger percentage of family households than the County and State; this includes family households, married-couple family households, and those with children. Of the three jurisdictions, the City has the smallest percentage of non-family households (26.1 percent, compared to 28.3 in the County and 31.1 percent in the State). The City has a lower percentage of households with at least one senior over the age of 60 as compared to the state (29.2 percent) but a lower percentage than the County (39.9 percent).
Table 3-16:-34: Percent of Population by Familial Status Familial Status City of Anaheim County of Orange California Total Households 101,658 1,037,492 13,044,266
Family Households 73.8% 71.7% 68.7%
Married-Couple Family Households 51.9% 54.9% 49.8%
Households with Children 39.9% 30.9% 34%
Non-Family Households 26.1% 28.3% 31.3%
Households with one or more people 60 years+ 26.3% 39.9% 29.2% Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Figure 3-26 shows married-couple households throughout the City. The east portion of the City has much greater rates of married-couple households than the central areacommunities west of SR-91, which rangesrange from less than 20 to 40 percent. This trend is similar for children living in married-couple family households, as shown in Figure 3-27. Communities east of Anaheim is most likely toSR-91 have higher rates of married-couple family households with children than just married-couples. as shown in communities to the west of the freeway. At least 80 percent of children in census tracts toin the east portions of the City live in married-couple family households.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 022] Page 3-109 Figure 3-28 shows children living in female-headed households with no spouse present. There are greater rates of children living in female-headed households towards the center west of AnaheimNorth Tustin Avenue than in communities to the east of the City street. Housing to the west of North Tustin Avenue is typically less expensive to live in and attracts lower income residents such as single-mothers and persons with disabilities. Figure 3-29 shows there are littlevery few households in the City with individuals over 18 years of age living alone. One census tract towards the east of the City(218.13) northeast of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue reports over 80 percent of its population living alone; however, this area includes mostly industrial uses.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-110 Figure 3-26: Married-Couple Households, Anaheim
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-111 Figure 3-27: Children in Married-Couple Households, Anaheim Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-112 Figure 3-28: Children in Female-Headed Households, Anaheim Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-113 Figure 3-29: Persons Living Alone, Anaheim
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-114 Single-parent households, and especially single-parent female-headed households, typically have lower than average household incomes. Single-parent female-headed households account for approximately
12.9 percent of households in Anaheim and approximately 80 percent are considered to be living in poverty. Figure 3-28 shows that the majority of single-parent female-headed households with children are concentrated in areas of western Anaheim where less opportunities and resources are available in addition to higher exposure to pollutants.
Single-parent household trends in Anaheim slightly differ from both the State and Orange County.
Anaheim tends to have a moderate amount of single parent-male headed households; however these households are slightly more likely to experience poverty in the City when compared to the other two jurisdictions. Similarly, Anaheim has a moderate amount of single parent-female headed households.
Single parent-female headed households in Anaheim have higher rates of poverty when compared to both the State and County by about 2 percent.
While single-parent female-headed households experience higher rates of poverty than male-headed households, all single-parent households tend to make less than the median income of Anaheim. Singleparent female-headed households with children make significantly less income than all other groups listed in the table. Additionally, Figure 3-28 shows that the majority of single-parent female-headed households with children are concentrated in western neighborhoods of Anaheim where less opportunities and resources are available.
Table 3-36: Table: Median Income of Single-Parent Households Household Type Median
Income Difference from Average Income in Anaheim
Female-Headed $47,580 -$24,183
Female-Headed with Children $29,391 -$42,372
Male-Headed $66,450 -$5,313
Male-Headed with Children $49,042 -$22,721
Notes:
1- The median income for a family in Anaheim is approximately $71,763.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). S1903.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Single Parent Households Single Parent Households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Affordable housing options
• Rental and for dale housing options
• Higher monthly cost burdens with single-income families Table 3-35: Single-Parent Households
Jurisdictions Single Parent-Male,
No Spouse Present
Single Parent-Male
Household Living in
Poverty
Single ParentFemale, No Spouse
Present
Single ParentFemale Household
Living in Poverty
Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Count Percent1 Anaheim 5,069 6.1% 1,672 2.0% 10,645 12.9% 8,473 10.3%
Orange County 40,404 5.8% 8,282 1.2% 78,192 11.3% 42,189 6.1% California 588,062 6.65% 159,610 1.80% 1,180,435 13.34% 781,123 8.83% 1- Percent of total households.
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-115 • Childcare needs for working families
Programs for Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households, and more specifically, female-headed ones, are more likely to experience poverty, homelessness, and general instability. In order to alleviate some of the barriers to fair housing faced by single-parent families, the City has committed to the following programs:
• Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentives for Special Needs Housing • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
FARMWORKERS
There is no specific data identifying the amount of residents who work in agriculture within the City, however it was reported that there were approximately 848 people within the agriculture, farming, fishing and hunting, and mining industry that reside in Anaheim.13 According to the California Employment Development Department, the average farm worker (Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupation) in Orange County earned a median annual income of $31,978. This annual income would place each individual or household in the very low-income bracket for Anaheim. The farmworker’s tenuous and/or seasonal employment status may further exacerbate their limited income. These employees and their households may reside in severely overcrowded dwellings, in packing buildings, or in storage sheds.
Future housing in Anaheim may need to consider the needs of farm workers employed in and near the City.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Farmworker Housing Needs Farmworker households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Affordable housing options
• Higher incidents of cost burden for housing
• Rental and for sale housing options
Similar to other special needs groups, Farmworkers needs are focused on affordability of housing and access to services that support lower monthly overall costs. To address these challenges the City must consider a variety of solution to address the above issues, such as affordable housing options for farmworkers and leveraging grants and funding opportunities.
Programs for Farmworkers
While farmworkers do not make up a large group of residents within the City, the City has included Program 5M to amend the City’s Municipal Code to comply with the provisions for farmworker housing 13 US Census, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates 2019.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-116 set forth in the Employee Housing Act. In addition, the following programs are included to promote the development of affordable housing units throughout the City which may be available to Farmworkers:
• Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts
EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
According to HCD, extremely low income households are defined as households that earn 0 to 30 percent of the local annual median income (AMI). In Anaheim, the threshold is based on the Santa Ana-AnaheimIrvine, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent AMI. For a family or household of four people, the maximum amount of annual income in the Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA HUD Metropolitan Area is $40,350 to be considered extremely low income.14
Table 3-37 below shows local, regional and statewide data regarding extremely low income households and their tenure. Anaheim has the lowest proportion of extremely low income homeowners when compared to the County or the State, indicating that there is a need for affordable housing units for sale within the City. Overall, the City has approximately 17,705 extremely low income households as of 2018.
Table 3-37: Extremely Low Income Households1 by Tenure
# of Extremely
Low Income
Owners
% of Total
Extremely Low
Income Households
# of
Extremely
Low Income
Renters
% of Total
Extremely Low
Income
Households
Total Extremely
Low Income
households
Anaheim 3,595 20% 14,110 80% 17,705
Orange
County 47,290 33% 96,705 67% 143,995
California 536,865 27% 1,424,685 73% 1,961,550
Source: CHAS HUD. 2014-2018 data. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/cp.html. 1- ELI is defined as households that earn less up to 30 percent of AMI.
Table 3-38 shows cost burden for extremely low income households. The data shows 100 percent of extremely low income households experience some type of cost burden. Extremely low income families make up the largest group of people to experience a cost burden of greater than 50 percent. Extremely low income households also account for approximately 18 percent of households that experience cost burdens of greater than 30 percent.
14 HUD. 2021 Adjusted Home Income Limits. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/homedatasets/files/HOME_IncomeLmts_State_CA_2021.pdf. Accessed on February 17, 2022.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-117 Table 3-38: Extremely Low Income Household Overpayment
Cost Burden
of >30
percent
Percent of
Extremely
Low Income
Households
> 30 percent
cost burden
Cost burden
of > 50
percent
Percent of
Extremely
Low Income
Households >
50 percent
cost burden
Total Extremely
Low Income
Households
Experiencing Cost
Burden
Percent of Extremely
Low Income
Households
Experiencing Cost
Burden
Extremely
Low Income
Owners
2,755 18% 2,390 18%
17,705 100%
Extremely
Low Income
Renters
12,155 82% 10,920 82%
Total 14,910 100% 13,310 100% - -
Source: CHAS HUD. 2014-2018 data. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/cp.html.
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) tool separates housing problems into four categories: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%. Table 3-39 shows the amount of housing issues extremely low-income households experience based on tenure. Renters are much more likely to experience at least one of four housing problems, with about 88 percent of extremely low income renters experiencing them. Extremely low income owners are also likely to experience at least one of four housing problems, with approximately 77 percent of extremely low income earners in this category. Overall, 86 percent of all extremely low income households experience at least one of four of these housing problems as defined by CHAS.
Table 3-39: Extremely Low Income Household Problems
Household income <= 30
median family income Renters % of Renters Owners % of Owners Total Household has at least 1 of 4
Housing Problems 12,465 88% 2,765 77% 15,230
Household has none of 4
Housing Problems OR cost
burden not available, no other
problems 1,645 12% 835 23% 2,480
Total 14,110 80% 3,600 20% 17,705
Source: CHAS HUD. 2014-2018 data. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/cp.html.
Projected Needs for ELI Households
To calculate projected needs, the City assumed 50 percent of its very low income regional housing needs are extremely low income households. The City was allocated 3,767 very low income units, and as a result, approximately 1,884 units are projected for extremely low income households. As shown above, the majority of extremely low income households face a variety of housing problems. Additionally, some extremely low income households could face other issues such as having special needs or disabilities that could exacerbate housing problems. In order to provide ample housing for extremely low income households, the City allows for a variety of housing types, such as single-room occupancy (SRO) and transitional and supportive housing, all of which are described in detail in Section 3.B.5 Variety of Housing Types Allowed.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-118 Key Challenges and Resources to Address Extremely Low-Income Households Needs:
Extremely Low-Income Households in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for increased affordable housing options
• Markedly higher incidents of cost burden for housing
• Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s
• Rental assistance
• Higher incidents of homelessness
• Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing Programs for Extremely Low Income Households
Many census tracts in western portions of Anaheim is considered low income earning. The City has committed to the following programs in order to ensure fair housing for families experiencing financial hardships and to address unique needs of extremely-low income households in the City:
• Housing Production Strategy 1A(i): Affordable Housing Development Fee • Housing Production Strategy 1A(ii): Affordable Housing Production Program • Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
• Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Development through Acquisition and Conversion
• Affordable Housing Strategy 5A: Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers • Affordable Housing Strategy 5B: Transitional and Supportive Housing • Affordable Housing Strategy 5E: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5J: Project Based Voucher Program • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5K: Emergency Solutions Grant Program
PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
The City of Anaheim partners with the Anaheim Homeless Collaborative as well as City Net to support persons experiencing homelessness. The Anaheim Homeless Collaborative and City Net offer pathways to Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-119 housing, drug rehabilitation and other recuperative care.15 Currently, the City of Anaheim is responsible for overseeing two temporary emergency shelters that have approximately 427 beds as well as additional supportive services.
While there are resources provided by the City, Orange County has seen a 43 percent increase in homelessness between 2017 and 2019.16 Anaheim had the second highest count of persons experiencing homelessness in the County. It was reported that Anaheim had approximately 1,202 residents experiencing homelessness, which is approximately 17 percent of all persons experiencing homelessness in the County.17 Of the 1,202 reported residents, 694 people, or approximately 58 percent, were unsheltered.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Housing Needs for People Experiencing Homelessness:
Residents experiencing homelessness in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for increased affordable housing options
• Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s
• Rental assistance
• Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing • Lack of access to emergency shelters
Programs for People Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness is a serious issue in the City of Anaheim. Although the City has partnered with organizations to assist persons experiencing homelessness, the City has also committed to the following programs:
• Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Affordable Housing Strategy 5A: Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers • Affordable Housing Strategy 5B: Transitional and Supportive Housing • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Section 8 Homeless Preference • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5K: Emergency Solutions Grant Program • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5L: Homeless and At Risk for Homelessness 15 Anaheim Homeless Collaborative. Addressing Homelessness. Available https://www.anaheim.net/4991/AddressingHomelessness#:~:text=Anaheim's%20Community%20Care%20Response%20Team,the%20Community%20Care%20Response%2 0Team. Accessed on February 8, 2022. 16 Orange County Homeless Management Information System. Everyone Counts- 2019 Point in Time Final Report. Available at http://ochmis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-PIT-FINAL-REPORT-7.30.2019.pdf. Accessed on February 8, 2020. 17 County of Orange. 2019 Point in Time County Press Release and Infographic. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DQ41eE78AHkRSK35BNpCPpYT0szWpL_s/view. Accessed February 8, 2022.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-120
STUDENTS
According to the 2019 5-Year ACS data, there are approximately 29,491 Anaheim residents enrolled in college or graduate school. It should be noted that many college students may indicate Anaheim as their permanent address, however they may be living near their colleges and universities outside of the City.
Students in college or graduate programs are typically low income earners. According to the Urban Institute, undergraduate college students make under $20,000 a year even when working full-time.18 Given rising tuition and housing costs, many college and graduate students struggle to be able to independently support themselves.
Key Challenges and Resources to Address Student Housing Needs Students in Anaheim have exhibited the following unique challenges to housing:
• Need for increased affordable housing options
• Markedly higher incidents of cost burden for housing
• Rental assistance
Programs for Students
Students make up a significant portion of the City’s population. The City has committed to the following to ensure fair housing for students:
• Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts Housing Characteristics
Regarding household income, the City had a lower median household income than the County and State in 2019 ($71,763 in the City compared to $90,234 in the County and $75,235 in the State). As Table 3-40 shows, majority of the City’s households are moderate to low income; in total about 34 percent of households in Anaheim earn more than the State median income. Additionally, about 46 percent of households in Anaheim earn less than $50,000 annually. Figure 3-16 illustrates the median income of households across the City.
Table 3-40: Percent of Households by Income
Households Income City of Anaheim County of Orange California Less than $10,000 4.0% 4.2% 4.8%
$10,000-$14,999 3.7% 2.7% 4.1%
$15,000-$24,999 7.3% 5.6% 7.5%
$25,000-$34,999 8.0% 6.0% 7.5%
$35,000-$49,999 11.0% 8.8% 10.5%
$50,000-$74,999 17.6% 14.6% 15.5%
18 Urban Institute. (2016). Working During College. Available at http://collegeaffordability.urban.org/coveringexpenses/working-during-college/#/. Accessed on February 14, 2022.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-121 Table 3-40: Percent of Households by Income
Households Income City of Anaheim County of Orange California $75,000-$99,999 13.9% 12.8% 12.4%
$100,000-$149,999 18.0% 18.6% 16.6%
$150,000-$199,999 8.8% 11.1% 8.9%
$200,000 or More 7.7% 15.5% 12.2%
Median Income $71,763 $90,234 $75,235
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 3-41 displays data for households experiencing overpayment or cost burden in the State, County and City. Housing Cost burden has a number of consequences for a household, mainly displacement from their existing living situation creating limited access essential goods and often employment by potentially increasing commute times. Overall, the percentage of households that experience a cost burden greater than 30 percent is similar amongst the City, County, and State with all three reporting about 20 to 23 percent. The City has a slightly higher percentage of households that have a high-cost burden over 50 percent (22.3 percent in the City, compared to about 19 percent in the County and State). Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance funds help to prevent cost burden on households.
Table 3-41: Percent of Households by Overpayment and Cost Burden Overpayment/Cost Burden City of Anaheim County of Orange California Cost Burden > 30% 23.6% 21.2% 20.6%
Cost Burden > 50% 22.3% 19.3% 19.4%
Cost Burden Not Available 1.0% 1.4% 1.4%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 3-42 displays data for household tenure (owner vs. renter) for the State, County and City.
Homeownership is a foundation that is crucial to helping families with low incomes build strength, stability, and independence. The opportunity for transition into the homebuyer’s market is important for persons and households in different communities, homeownership allows for increased stability and opportunity to age in place. Table 3-42 shows that the City has a lower rate of homeownership to the County and state and a higher rate of renting.
Table 3-42: Households by Tenure
Household Tenure City of Anaheim County of Orange California Owner Households 44.9% 57.4% 66.0%
Renter Households 55.1% 42.6% 34.0%
Total Occupied Housing Units 101,658 1,037,492 13,044,266 Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Additionally, Table 3-20Table 3-43 displays data for overcrowding in the State, County and City. HCD defines overcrowding as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per room in a household and defies severe overcrowding as more than 1.51 persons per room. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates, it also occurs when there are not enough size appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational families. The City experiences very low rates of overcrowding in comparison to the County and the State. According to the data, overcrowding occurs more frequently in renter households rather than owner households. In Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-122 Anaheim, owner households that are severely overcrowded represent less than percent of all households, while severely overcrowded renter households represent five percent. Both the County of Orange and California show higher rates of overcrowding; however, the stateState shows a lower rate of severe overcrowding for both owners and renters.
Table 3-43: Households by Overcrowding and Tenure
Overcrowding and Tenure City of Anaheim County of Orange California Owner Households
Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.5 persons per room)
2.3% 2.6% 1.6%
Severely Overcrowded
(1.51 or more persons per room)
0.7% 1.0% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded
(1.01 to 1.5 persons per room)
8.1% 9.8% 3.6%
Severely Overcrowded
(1.51 or more persons per room)
5.0% 6.0% 2.4%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Housing Stock in Anaheim
Table 3-44 displays comparative housing stock data for the State, County and City for occupied housing units by type. A variety of housing stock provides increased opportunity in communities for different size and households types. The majority of housing stock in Anaheim classifiesis classified as multi-unit housing (housing with more than one living unit). Just under 41 percent of Anaheim homes classify as single-unit homes (1-unit detached). In comparison, both the stateState and the County Orange have a greater amountproportion of single-family homes, and an overall smaller number multi-family housing (two or more units).
Table 3-44: Occupied Housing Units by Type
Housing Unit Type City of Anaheim County of Orange California 1, detached 40.7% 50.6% 57.7%
1, attached 8.3% 12.3% 7.0%
2 units 1.0% 1.6% 2.4%
3 or 4 units 9.9% 6.9% 5.5%
5 to 9 units 8.9% 6.7% 6.0%
10 to 19 units 6.4% 5.4% 5.2%
20 or more units 21.4% 13.7% 12.3%
Mobile home or other type of housing 3.3% 2.7% 3.7%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Table 3-45 displays housing stock by year built or the City, County, and State. Older housing generally requires more upkeep, regular maintenance and can cause a cost burden on both renters and homeowners. Majority of Anaheim’s housing stock has a “year built” of between 1950 and 1990.1979 (66 percent). Although approximately 45 percent of Anaheim’s housing was built before 1970, suggesting that the City has an aging housing stock. Development shows to have slowed significantly in the City after Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-123 2009, which could be indicative of the Great Recession. The majority of the County and State’s housing units have a “year built” between 1980 and 2009.Whereas the distribution of development over time was more evenly distributed from 1950 to 1990 in the State. Overall, increased numbers of older housing, if not maintained, can lead to cost burden and substandard living conditions.
Table 3-22:-45: Housing Unit by Year Built
Year Built City of Anaheim County of Orange California
Built 2014 or later 1.9% 2.7% 1.7%
Built 2010 to 2013 1.4% 2.0% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 5.6% 8.3% 11.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 9.3% 11.7% 10.9%
Built 1980 to 1989 11.5% 14.9% 15.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 25.4% 23.3% 17.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 17.4% 19.5% 13.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 23.2% 13.0% 13.4%
Built 1940 to 1949 1.9% 2.1% 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 2.4% 2.5% 9.1%
Source: 2015-2019 Five-Year American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau).
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-124
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Substandard housing is defined by the U.S. Census as:
• Housing without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower; and • Households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove or a refrigerator.
Table 3-46 below showssubstandard housing within Anaheim, Orange County, and the State of California.
The City of Anaheim has the highest percent of occupied housing units without complete plumbing and kitchen facilities when compared to the County and State. Anaheim’s units without complete kitchen facilities is more than three times higher than the County and approximately seven times higher than the State.
Table 3-46: Substandard Housing
Jurisdiction Total Occupied Housing
Units
Without complete Plumbing
Facilities (percent)
Without complete Kitchen
Facilities (percent)
Anaheim 101,658 0.46% 0.79%
Orange County 1,037,492 0.28% 0.14%
California 13,044,266 0.30% 0.01%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
The City has received approximately 1,069 substandard housing complaints from 2014 through 2021.
These complaints report issues such as including structural deterioration (e.g. holes on the wall/ceiling), lack of maintenance (e.g. broken windows/doors, damaged flooring, etc.), health and safety (e.g. mold, no hot water, no heater, insects/rat, etc.). In order to tackle the issue of substandard housing, the City has committed to adopting Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2D: Neighborhood Improvement.
The program commits the City to identifying and improving blighted and borderline blighted communities within the City. Thus far, the City has rehabilitated and entered into covenants from over 734 units, and with the adoption of this program, the City has recommitted to continuing this work.
Urban Displacement Analysis
The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement projects provides a database for Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties displaying gentrifications and socioeconomic indicators based on 2015 ACS data. The project defines gentrification as the influx of capital and higher income, higher-educated residents into workingclass neighborhoods. 19 The final (2018) version of the database shows whether each Census tract comprising these three Southern California counties gentrified between 1990 and 2000; gentrified between 2000 and 2015; gentrified during both of these periods; or exhibited characteristics of a “disadvantaged” tract that did not gentrify between 1990 and 2015. The outcome of the data is a map which displays displacement typology by census tract, which is outlined in Table 3-47.
Table 3-47: Displacement Typologies
Displacement Typology Definition and Qualifier
Low Income/Susceptible to
Displacement:
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018
19 UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, 2015, available at https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/08/urban_displacement_project_-_executive_summary.pdf Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-125 Ongoing Displacement of
Low-Income Households:
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
At Risk of Gentrification: • Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018 • Didn't gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018
• Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018
• Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap
Early/Ongoing
Gentrification:
• Low-income or mixed low-income tract in 2018
• Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018
• Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2012-2018
• Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Advanced Gentrification • Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high• income households in 2018
• Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Stable Moderate/Mixed
Income:
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018 Risk of Becoming Exclusive: • Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018
• Marginal change or increase in housing costs
Becoming Exclusive: • Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018
• Rapid increase in housing costs
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
• Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018
• Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000
Stable/Advanced Exclusive: • High-income tract in 2000 and 2018 • Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018 • Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs As shown in Figure 3-30 below, Anaheim experiences a variety of levels of gentrification. Anaheim communities east of SR-91 are typically more affluent and experience stable, exclusive conditions in the City while census tracts bordered to the west by South Euclid Street and to the east by South State College Boulevard are characterized as low-income/susceptible to displacement, at risk of becoming exclusive, becoming exclusive, or stable/moderate income. Census tract 871.05 is the only census tract within the City that is characterized as experiencing advanced gentrification. Figure 3-31 below displays the mapped displacement typology for Anaheim. The data shows that Anaheim has a mix of typologies throughout the City. The analysis concludes the following:
• 79 67 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 9,304 3,469 potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘Stable Moderate/Mixed Income’. Of those units, 1,690 1,125 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-126 • 174 147 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 15,688 10,362 potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘At Risk of Becoming Exclusive’. Of those units, 4,958 4670 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 78 66 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 4,914 3,458 potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement’. Of those units, 1,064 777 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 14 7 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,828 702 potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘Stable/Advanced Exclusive’. Of those units, 217 251 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 10 7 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 529 65 potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘Advanced Gentrification’. Of those units, 65 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 49 48 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 5,257 4,851 potential units) are located within block groups designated as ‘Unavailable or Unreliable Data’. Of those units, 3,137 3,137 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
Overall, the City of Anaheim is made up of areas that are becoming more exclusive and or are already exclusive. The pattern of gentrification follows closely to the income and racial distributions that were analyzed previously. Tracts in western areas of Anaheim experience a variety of displacement levels while tracts in eastern Anaheim communities have established advanced and moderate stages of gentrification. Approximately 1,972 1,093 low and very low income units are planned to be in areas that are characterized as “Advanced Gentrification”, “Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement” and “Stable/Advanced Exclusive”. By encouraging the development of low income and very low income housing in these areas through the implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update, gentrification would be slowed and, in some cases, partially reversed.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-127 Figure 3-30: Urban Displacement
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-128 Figure 3-31: Urban Displacement (Candidate Housing Sites) Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-129 Displacement Risk
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunity. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.
Table 3-48 below shows subsidized housing units as well as their covenant expiration dates within the City of Anaheim. The City has 3,748 subsidized units, approximately 67 percent of which are intended for families. Senior housing makes up the second largest group of subsidized units at approximately 30 percent of all subsidized units listed while special needs housing makes up about 3 percent. The covenant expiration dates range from 2022 through 2077 and approximately 515 units are at-risk of converting to market rate between 2022 and 2031. The City has provided policy programs in Section 4 that address the preservation of the units listed in the table.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-130 Table 3-48: Housing Successor / Anaheim Housing Authority Project Name Assessor’s
Parcel No. Address Subsidized Units
Market
Units
Total
Units
Unit Mix of Subsidized Units
Year
Constructed/
Rehabilitated
Covenant Date Covenant Recording
No.
Expiration of
Affordability
Covenants Studio 1 Bdrm. 2
Bdrm. 3 Bdrm. 4 Bdrm.
SENIOR
1 Anaheim Memorial Manor 255-076-08 275 E Center St. 75 0 75 N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 7/27/1989 6/2/1988 88-259218 2/1/2030 2 Bel'Age Manor 250-051-15 1660 W.
Broadway St. 178 1 179 N/A 178 N/A N/A N/A 8/10/1989 2/24/1988 88-081485 2/1/2063 3 Fountain Glen 354-451-01 225 S. Festival
Drive 130 129 259 N/A 106 24 N/A N/A 1/29/2001 9/13/1999 19990657226 1/29/2031 4 Heritage Village 036-150-06 707 W. Santa Ana
St. 49 147 196 N/A 42 7 N/A N/A 12/18/1986 11/10/1992 92-766712 11/12/2022 5 Linbrook Court 127-071-23 2240 W. Lincoln
Ave. 80 1 81 N/A 65 15 N/A N/A 4/3/2003 2/11/2002 20020122298 4/3/2058 6 Miracle Terrace 135-301-31 225 S. Western
Ave. 178 1 179 71 107 N/A N/A N/A 9/10/2017 1/11/2017 2017000013245 1/11/2072 7 Sage Park 034-053-53 810 N. Loara St. 25 75 100 N/A 14 11 N/A N/A 9/7/1988 11/10/1998 19980764327 11/10/2028 8 Solara Court 135-192-75 3335 W. Lincoln
Ave. 132 0 132 N/A 108 24 N/A N/A 9/10/2003 11/28/2001 20010850144 11/28/2056 9 Sterling Court 127-291-38 935 S. Gilbert
Avenue 33 1 34 N/A 29 4 N/A N/A 3/10/2003 2/11/2002 20020121982 3/10/2058 10 Tyrol Plaza 251-012-34 891 S. State
College Blvd. 59 1 60 N/A 54 5 N/A N/A 9/30/2004 10/30/2003 2003001336697 9/30/2059 11 Villa Anaheim 135-211-27 3305 W. Lincoln
Ave. 47 88 135 N/A 45 2 N/A N/A 4/27/1994 3/19/1993 93-0185858 4/27/2024 12 Village Center 255-076-01 280 E. Lincoln
Ave. 99 1 100 N/A 99 N/A N/A N/A 12/1/2014 8/7/2014 2014000318747 8/7/2069 13 El Verano 255-076-01 1248 E Lincoln
Ave. 53 1 54 0 0 N/A N/A N/A 11/13/2020 5/1/2019 2019000166110 12/31/2075 Sub Total 1,138 446 1,584 71 922 92 0 0
FAMILY
1 318 S. Lemon Street 037-164-29 318 S. Lemon St. 2 20 22 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A 9/30/1992 6/1/1990 90-294205 9/30/2022 2 Anton Monaco 072-591-38 1881 W. Lincoln 229 3 232 N/A 66 121 42 N/A 12/15/2014 12/14/2012 2012000777744 12/15/2069 3 Arbor View 127-181-66 620 S. Velare 45 1 46 N/A N/A 26 9 10 12/15/2010 9/15/2009 2009000490617 12/15/2065 4 Broadway Village 037-17310 1239-1249 Blvd. 45 1 46 N/A N/A N/A 25 20 11/16/2008 7/24/2007 20070004613338 11/20/2063 5 Calendula Court 127-301-31 928-934 S.
Webster Ave. 7 24 31 N/A 8 12 11 N/A 12/19/2014 12/4/2013 2013000658515 12/19/2044 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-131 Table 3-48: Housing Successor / Anaheim Housing Authority Project Name Assessor’s
Parcel No. Address Subsidized Units
Market
Units
Total
Units
Unit Mix of Subsidized Units
Year
Constructed/
Rehabilitated
Covenant Date Covenant Recording
No.
Expiration of
Affordability
Covenants Studio 1 Bdrm. 2
Bdrm. 3 Bdrm. 4 Bdrm.
6 Cobblestone Apartments
(Resissued) 126-252-19 870 Beach Boulevard 63 1 64 N/A 56 7 N/A N/A TBD 3/15/2017 2017000104484 3/15/2072 7 Elm Street Commons 037-021-12 111 W. Elm St. 51 1 52 N/A N/A 34 17 N/A 1/29/2009 2/14/2007 200700097860 1/29/2064 8 Greenleaf Apartments 27208107 &
272-081-09
2048-2050 W.
Greenleaf 19 1 20 N/A 6 7 6 N/A 10/5/2010 2/5/2010 2010000058183 10/5/2065 9 Hermosa Village
Phase l (Reissued) 129-342-17 1515 S. Calle del Mar 295 2 297 N/A 67 138 72 18 TBD 12/28/2016 2016000660411 12/28/2071 10 Hermosa Village
Phase ll 129-342-17 1515 S. Calle del Mar 111 1 112 N/A 14 54 43 N/A 10/1/2003 10/23/2003 2003001305932 10/1/2058 11 Hermosa Village
Phase lll 129-342-17 1515 S. Calle del Mar 76 0 76 N/A 16 37 23 N/A 10/1/2006 2/10/2006 N/A 10/1/2063 12 Hermosa Village
Phase lV 129-342-17 1515 S. Calle del Mar 36 0 36 N/A 8 16 12 N/A 12/31/2007 7/27/2007 2007000470798 12/31/2063 13 Monarch Pointe 072-091-04 1860 W. Crescent 62 1 63 N/A 12 28 22 N/A 5/7/2008 2/15/2007 2007000103949 8/8/2076 14 Nutwood Apartments 128-561-44 1668 S. Nutwood
St. 2 28 30 N/A 1 1 N/A N/A 10/10/1985 3/6/1992 92-136293 3/6/2022 15 Palm West Village 079-141-48 644 S. Knott 58 0 58 24 28 6 N/A N/A 10/11/1974 5/23/1997 19970239023 5/15/2027 16 Park Vista 073-479-50 1200 Robin St. 392 2 394 N/A 82 307 2 1 8/26/1988 2/11/1988 88-063652 11/15/2055 17 Paseo Village 271-091-13 1115 N. Citron 174 2 176 N/A 37 83 54 N/A 12/1/1997 2/28/2013 2013000126726 3/1/2068 18 Pebble Cove Apartments 127-333-22 2555 W. Winston
Road 112 0 112 N/A 30 32 N/A N/A 4/1/2016 8/19/2015 2015000434138 8/19/2070 19 Pradera Apartments
Phase A
035-351-01
035-351-02
035-351-03
100-165 N. Ciitrus 71 1 72 N/A N/A 48 23 N/A 9/5/2010 5/15/2009 2009000246177 2/23/2076 20 Pradera Apartments
Phase B
035-351-01
035-351-02
035-351-03
100-165 N. Citrus 73 1 74 N/A N/A 49 24 N/A 9/15/2010 5/15/2009 2009000246186 9/15/2065 21 Renaissance Apartments 135-133-20 3433 W. Del
Monte 127 0 127 N/A 72 55 N/A N/A 6/5/2009 5/23/1997 19970239015 5/15/2027 22 Rockwood Apartments 037-173-46 1270 E. Lincoln
Ave. 69 1 70 N/A 17 31 21 N/A 10/1/2016 3/20/2015 2015000A2231 3/31/2072 23 Sea Wind Apartments
(Resissued) 272-071-04 1925 W. Greenleaf 90 1 91 N/A 21 45 24 N/A TBD 3/15/2017 2017000104509 3/15/2072 24 The Arbors at
Vintage Crossings - Phase I
037-282-02
037-282-03
037-281-19
808, 814, 815, 833
Dakota St. 16 0 16 N/A N/A 10 6 N/A 1/1/2014 12/14/2012 2012000778523 11/30/2069 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-132 Table 3-48: Housing Successor / Anaheim Housing Authority Project Name Assessor’s
Parcel No. Address Subsidized Units
Market
Units
Total
Units
Unit Mix of Subsidized Units
Year
Constructed/
Rehabilitated
Covenant Date Covenant Recording
No.
Expiration of
Affordability
Covenants Studio 1 Bdrm. 2
Bdrm. 3 Bdrm. 4 Bdrm.
25 The Arbors at
Vintage Crossings - Phase II
037-282-02
037-282-03
037-281-19
808, 814, 815, 833
Dakota St. 21 0 16 N/A N/A 10 6 N/A 1/1/1900 12/14/2012 2012000778523 11/30/2069 26 The Crossings at
Cherry Orchard 125-022-09 2748 W. Lincoln Ave. 44 1 45 N/A 1 29 14 N/A 10/16/2013 8/23/2012 2012000489080 12/31/2077 27 Vineyard Townhomes 988-162-05 325 - 425 S. Vine
St. 59 1 60 N/A N/A 28 31 N/A 12/21/2007 2/22/2006 2006000119692 12/21/2062 28 Vintage Crossings 037-282-15 700 E. South St. 91 1 92 N/A N/A 63 28 N/A 5/11/2012 3/9/2011 2011000125644 5/11/2069 29 Westchester 135-311-20 125 S.
Westchester 64 1 65 N/A N/A 53 11 N/A 12/3/2004 12/2/2004 2004001071410 12/1/2076 Sub Total 2,504 96 2,595 24 542 1,331 527 49
SPECIAL NEEDS
1 Diamond Aisle 255-022-63 1232 Diamond St. 24 0 24 N/A 15 9 N/A N/A 12/3/2008 1/2/2008 2008000001796 12/3/2072 2 Integrity House 79-893-30 921 S. Beach Blvd. 48 1 49 48 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9/9/2010 7/21/2009 2009000389253 11/30/2065 3 Casa del Sol 272-055-14 1820 W.
Gramercy 4 0 4 N/A N/A 3 1 N/A 5/24/2011 4/5/2010 2010000159000 4/4/2065 4 Casa Alegre 126-220-20 2761 W. Ball Road 22 1 23 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12/17/2003 1/29/2003 2003000108497 12/17/2057 5 Buena Esperanza 070-761-12 2691 W La Palma
Ave. 69 1 70 69 1 N/A N/A N/A 7/23/2021 4/30/2020 2020000196424 7-23-76 6 Mariposa Village 128-291-05 933 - 939 Park
Circle 8 0 8 N/A 6 2 N/A N/A 8/31/2012 5/19/2011 2011000411372 8/31/2067 Sub Total 106 2 108 70 21 14 1 0
GRAND TOTAL 3,748817 544545 4,287357 94163 1,485486 1,398 528 49 Source: City of Anaheim, 2021
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-133 Cost of Preservation and Replacement Analysis
“At Risk” Analysis
Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze assisted housing that may convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development.
Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. This section will provide:
• An inventory of assisted housing units that are at risk of converting to market-rate housing, • An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units, • Resources that could be used to preserve at-risk units, • Program efforts for preservation of at-risk housing units, and • Quantified objectives for the number of at-risk units to be preserved during the Housing Element planning period.
Inventory of Units “At Risk”
There are a total of 515 assisted housing units in Anaheim at-risk of converting to market-rate between 2021 and 2031. These units are listed in Table 3-49.
Table 3-49: Units “At-Risk” of Conversion (2021-2031)
Project Name Assisted
Units
Total
Units Assistance Program Earliest Possible Date of Conversion Anaheim Memorial Manor 75 75 Senior Ordinance/HUD 202 2/1/2030 Fountain Glen (Overlook at
Anaheim Hills 130 259 Senior Ordinance/CDLAC-Bonds 1/29/2031 Heritage Village 49 196 Senior Ordinance/CDLAC-Bonds 11/12/2022 Villa Anaheim 47 135 Senior Ordinance 4/27/2024
Palm West Village 58 58 CDLAC-Bonds 5/15/2027
318 S. Lemon Street 2 22 Density Bonus 9/30/2022
Nutwood Apartments 2 30 Density Bonus 3/6/2022
Renaissance Apartments 127 127 CDLAC-Bonds 5/15/2027
Sage Park 25 100 Senior Ordinance/CDLAC-Bonds 11/10/2028 Total Units 515 1,002
1. Breakdown of number of units by bedrooms is unavailable – units assumed at one-bedroom.
Source: City of Anaheim.
The City has provided policy programs in Section 4: Housing Policy Program that address the preservation of the units listed in the table above.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-134 Cost of Preservation of Units
There are many options for preserving units including providing financial incentives to project owners to extend lower-income use restrictions, purchasing of affordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units.
The strategy scenario considered below provides local rental subsidy to residents. The rent subsidy scenario would provide financial assistance to residents if their affordable units converted to market rate.
To determine the subsidy needed, Fair Market Rents determined by HUD were compared to market rate rents for properties with recent rental data. Table 3-50 provides a project by project cost breakdown to show the cost of preservation for each subsidized housing project. Overall, the total annual cost of preservation of these at-risk units would be approximately $1,959,840.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-135 Table 3-50: Preservation Cost per Project
Project
Total
Units
at
Risk
Number of Unit Types
(Bedroom [BR]) Average Market-rate rent per BR1 Average Fair Market rent per BR2 Difference Annual Subsidy3 Annual Cost of
Preservation4
Efficiency 1
BR
2 BR
3 BR
4 BR Efficiency 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Efficiency 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Efficiency 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Efficiency 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Anaheim
Memorial
Manor
75 0 75 0 0 0
$2,532 $2,149 $2,790 $3,600 $4,225 $1,716 $1,905 $2,324 $3,178 $3,674 $816 $244 $466 $422 $551 $0.00 $219,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $219,600.00
Fountain Glen
(Overlook at
Anaheim Hills)
130 0 106 24 0 0 $0.00 $310,368.00 $134,208.00 $0.00 $0.00 $444,576.00 Heritage
Village 49 0 42 7 0 0 $0.00 $122,976.00 $39,144.00 $0.00 $0.00 $162,120.00 Villa Anaheim 47 0 45 2 0 0 $0.00 $131,760.00 $11,184.00 $0.00 $0.00 $142,944.00 Palm West
Village 58 24 28 6 0 0 $235,008.00 $81,984.00 $33,552.00 $0.00 $0.00 $350,544.00 318 S. Lemon
Street 2 0 0 1 1 0 $0.00 $0.00 $5,592.00 $5,064.00 $0.00 $10,656.00 Nutwood
Apartments 2 0 1 1 0 0 $0.00 $2,928.00 $5,592.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,520.00 Renaissance
Apartments 127 0 72 55 0 0 $0.00 $210,816.00 $307,560.00 $0.00 $0.00 $518,376.00 Sage Park 25 0 14 11 0 0 $0.00 $40,992.00 $61,512.00 $0.00 $0.00 $102,504.00 Total: 515 24 383 107 1 0 Total: $1,959,840.00
Source/Notes:
1- HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System –Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine MSA. 2- HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System –Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine MSA.
Ibid.
3- Difference multiplied by number of unit type per project 4- Sum of Aannual subsidy
5- Numbers for estimates for market rate rents found Zumper Median Market Rent, August 2021.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-136 Cost of Replacement
The City of Anaheim may also consider the cost of replacing the units with new construction. Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft costs associated with construction in addition to per unit land costs. The analysis assumes the replacement units are apartments with concrete block with steel frame buildings and parking provided on-site. Square footage estimates are based on estimated size of units to be replaced and assume housing units are developed on multi-family zoned properties. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis. Table 3-51: Replacement Cost by Project shows the breakdown of cost per unit eligible for replacement. The following is a summary Table 3-51:
• The cost of replacing the 75-units in the Anaheim Memorial Manor would total more than $7,331,250.
• The cost of replacing the 130-units in Fountain Glen (Overlook at Anaheim Hills) would total more than $13,889,500.
• The cost of replacing the 49-units in Heritage Village would total more than $5,134,500. • The cost of replacing the 47-units in Villa Anaheim would total more than $4,692,750. • The cost of replacing the 58-units in Palm West Village would total more than $5,437,000. • The cost of replacing the 2-units in 318 South Lemon Street would total more than $453,250. • The cost of replacing the 2-units in 318 Nutwood Apartments would total more than $244,750. • The cost of replacing the 127-units in Renaissance Apartments would total more than $15,123,000.
• The cost of replacing the 25-units in Renaissance Apartments would total more than $2,985,500.
Overall, the total cost of replacing all at risk units would be approximately $55,291,500. The estimated total preservation cost of these units is approximately $1,959,840 annually. It would take approximately 28 years of paying for housing preservation to match the total cost of unit replacement described above.
Additionally, as time goes on, it is likely that the price of land and construction would rise making both the cost of both increase.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-137 Table 3-51: Replacement Cost by Project
Project
Total
Units at
Risk
Number of Unit Types (Bedroom [BR])
Cost per
Square Foot
(SF)1
Average SF per BR2 Replacement Cost per Unit Type3
Total Cost of
Replacement
Efficiency 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Efficiency 1 BR2 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Efficiency 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR Anaheim Memorial
Manor 75 0 75 0 0
$125.00 606 782 1,176 2,450 -
$0.00 $7,331,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,331,250.00
Fountain Glen
(Overlook at
Anaheim Hills
130 0 106 24 0 0 $0.00 $10,361,500.00 $3,528,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,889,500.00 Heritage Village 49 0 42 7 0 0 $0.00 $4,105,500.00 $1,029,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,134,500.00 Villa Anaheim 47 0 45 2 0 0 $0.00 $4,398,750.00 $294,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,692,750.00 Palm West Village 58 24 28 6 0 0 $1,818,000.00 $2,737,000.00 $882,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,437,000.00 318 S. Lemon Street 2 0 0 1 1 0 $0.00 $0.00 $147,000.00 $306,250.00 $0.00 $453,250.00 Nutwood
Apartments 2 0 1 1 0 0 $0.00 $97,750.00 $147,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $244,750.00 Renaissance
Apartments 127 0 72 55 0 0 $0.00 $7,038,000.00 $8,085,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,123,000.00 Sage Park 25 0 14 11 0 0 $0.00 $1,368,500.00 $1,617,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,985,500.00 Total 515 24 383 107 1 0 Total $55,291,500.00
Source:
1. International Code Council – August 2020 Report.
2. Kimley-Horn and Associates Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across nine properties on August 11, 2021 a. Zumper Median Market Rent, August 2021.
3. Kimley-Horn and Associates Analysis
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-138 Resources to Preserve “At Risk” units
A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units.
The following summarizes financial resources available:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements and public services. • HOME Investment Partnership – Local jurisdiction can receive funds by formula from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance. • Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled and/or handicapped persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing.
• Section 202/811 Program – Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very low-income rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance. • California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan financing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects. • Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) - PLHA funds are a permanent source of funds approved by the state legislature in 2019, and will vary from year to year, since it is generated Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-139 from real estate transaction fees. PLHA funds can be used for the development of affordable rental and for-sale housing opportunities.
• Tax-Exempt Multifamily Revenue Bond Financing (Bond Financing) - Tax-Exempt Multifamily Housing Bonds provide financing at below-market interest rates for the development of rental housing, all or a portion of which is affordable to very low- or low-income households at affordable rent at a minimum of 15 years.
• State Housing and Community Development Multifamily Housing Program - MHP funds are often combined with local resources, tax credits and other financing for new construction, preservation and acquisition/rehabilitation of multifamily housing. Housing developed with MHP funds must be rented to households with incomes at 60% or below of the area median income at affordable rents.
Qualified Entities to Preserve Affordable Housing Units The following organizations may potentially assist in preserving future at-risk units:
• Jamboree Housing Corporation
• Irvine Housing Opportunities, Inc.
• Bridge Housing Corporation
• The Irvine Company
• Orange County Housing Authority
• Housing Corporation of America
• Southern California Housing
Development Corporation
• Century Housing
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-140 Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City’s quantified objective it to preserve 60 of the 515 affordable housing units “at-risk” of converting to market rate through policy programs provided in Section 4: Housing Policy Program. The Quantified Objective represents what the City has determined to be a reasonable number when taking into consideration factors such as available funding and current market conditions.
Future Growth Need
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA allocation of 3,767 very low and 2,397 low-income units within the 2021-2029 planning period. Appendix B of this Housing Element shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.
Senate Bill 330 (2019) / SB 8 (2021)
Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), as codified predominantly into Government Code 66300 as the Housing Crisis Act, and as amended effective January 1, 2022 by Senate Bill 8, aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. currently through January 1, 2030. Under this legislation, jurisdictions are restricted in ordinances and policies that they can apply to residential development. Additionally, per SB 330 the revised definition of “Housing Development” now contains residential projects of two or more units, mixed-use projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designated for residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects. SB 8 also added projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit and clarified applicability to projects that involve both dictionary and nondiscretionary approvals. SB 330 also sets a temporary 5-year prohibition ofrestrictsresidential density reduction associated with a “housing development project,” from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025.. For example, during this temporary prohibition, a residential triplex cannot be demolished and replaced with a duplex as this would be a net loss of one unit or a city may not downzone (reduce the number of units feasible on a site) without identifying replacement opportunity elsewhere.
The goal of the bill is to reduce the overall potential for loss of unit opportunity and limits a jurisdictions’ ability to disapprove housing for very low, low, and moderate-income households. The State has also adopted just cause eviction provisions and statewide rent control to protect tenants from displacement.
None of the sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA contain existing deed restricted units with low-income housing that new development would displace if the sites redevelop. To the extent that there is existing housing, any new development must provide an equal or greater number of units (Government Code Section 66300). The City will implement the regulations of SB 330, as necessary, during its processing of project applications. Additionally, if new development displaces existing lower income residence the City will make diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-141
1.4. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing in Anaheim
In the preceding analysis, the City has comprehensively reviewed Local, State and Federal data on protected classes (such as race, ethnicity, income, etc.) and opportunity indicators to ensure that 6th Cycle Housing Elements affirmatively furthers fair housing. The section below summarizes identifies key findings.
• While the City does not have R/ECAPs, there are three Census tracks characterized by High Segregation and Poverty in central and western areas of Anaheim. • There are eight Census Tracts within the City that are considered RCAAs through the criteria determined in this analysis. These Census Tracts are characterized by populations that are at least 50 percent White and make a median income of over $100,000. • Anaheim residents living west of North Tustin Avenue typically have less access resources and opportunities while residents east of the street live in neighborhoods characterized as high to highest opportunity areas (People).
• Overall, the City has a variety of opportunity levels (Place) ranging from lowest to highest opportunity. There is no clear pattern in regard to opportunities associated with Place in Anaheim.
• Hispanic residents of Anaheim are more likely to experience poverty and have less opportunities than any other racial group even though they make up one of the largest racial and ethnic groups in the City.
• Western areas of Anaheim typically have lower rates of positive educational and economic outcomes.
• Communities in eastern Anaheim experience a lack of transit connectivity that could potentially connect people to jobs and the region.
• Higher pollution burdens are found in areas near freeways and in communities west of North Tustin Avenue.
Additionally, the AI identifies the following regional goals for mitigating impediments to fair housing within jurisdictions in Orange County:
• Goal 1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas. • Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, other seniors, and people with disabilities.
• Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities. • Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness. • Goal 5: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-142 Taken together, the following provides four key fair housing issues that the City has addressed through programs in Section 4: Housing Policy Plan and summarized in Table 3-52 below.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-143 Local Contributing Factors
Table 3-52: Local Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue Action Area Contributing Factors Priority Level
Actions
1. Availability of
Affordable
Housing
(People/Place)
Goal 1:
Increase the
supply of
affordable
housing in
high
opportunity
areas.
Nongovernmental and Governmental
Constraints as discussed and evaluated in
Sections 3.A and 3.B
Timing
identified
for each
policy in
Section 4
• Housing Production Strategy 1A(i): Affordable Housing Development Fee
• Housing Production Strategy 1A(ii): Affordable Housing Production Program
• Housing Production Strategy 1B: Evaluate Alternative
Funding and Financing Mechanisms
• Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low- and Moderate-Income
Housing Developments
• Housing Production Strategy 1D: Affordable Senior Housing Programs
• Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the
Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI)
Households
• Housing Production Strategy 1J: Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone
• Housing Production Strategy 1K: Use of Sites from Previous Housing Element Cycles
• Housing Production Strategy 1M: Developer Incentives
Program
• Housing Production Strategy 1P: Review of Entitlement Processes, Development Standards, and Development Fees
• Housing Production Strategy 1T: Consideration of New
Zoning Tools
• Housing Production Strategy 1U: Replacement Housing
• Housing Production Strategy 1W: City-Owned Sites and
Surplus Land Act
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-144 • Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A:
Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
• Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2D:
Neighborhood Improvement
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3E: Community Design • Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3F: Provision of
Infrastructure to Serve Housing
• Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Development through Acquisition and Conversion
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5D: Compliance with SB 35 Permit Streamlining Provisions
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5M: Employee
and Farmworker Housing
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5N: Density
Bonus
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5O: Emergency Shelter Parking Requirements
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5P: Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units
2. Access to
Opportunity
(People/Place)
Goal 4:
Ensure equal
access to
housing for
persons with
protected
characteristi
cs, who are
disproportio
nately likely
to be lowerincome and
to
experience
As discussed and evaluated in Sections 2.E
and Section 3.D
Timing
identified
for each
policy in
Section 4
• Housing Production Strategy 1G: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
• Housing Production Strategy 1H: Center City Corridors Specific Plan
• Housing Production Strategy 1I: Facilitate Housing CoLocated with Religious and Community Facilities • Housing Production Strategy 1L: Development of Housing Information
• Housing Production Strategy 1N: First Time Homebuyer
Program
• Housing Production Strategy 1O: Police Residence
Assistance
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-145 homelessne
ss.
Goal 5:
Expand
access to
opportunity
for
protected
classes.
• Housing Production Strategy 1Q: Promoting Availability of Housing Opportunity Sites
• Housing Production Strategy 1R: Multiple-Family Rezoning in High Resource Area
• Housing Production Strategy 1S: Accessory Dwelling Units • Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2E:
Residential Uses Not Defined as Single Housekeeping Unit • Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3A: Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential Development
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3C: Universal Design • Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4B: Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes
• Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4C: Relocation Assistance • Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5A: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5B: Transitional Housing and Transitional and Supportive Housing
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Section 8 Homeless Preference
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5J: Project Based Voucher Program
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5K: Emergency Solutions Grant Program
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5L: Homeless and At Risk for Homelessness
3. Opportunities
for Persons with
Goal 3:
Increase
community
integration
As discussed and evaluated in Sections 2.E
and Section 3.D
Timing
identified
for each
• Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the
Development of Housing for Special Needs Households
• Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A:
Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-146 Disabilities
(People/Place)
for persons
with
disabilities.
policy in
Section 4
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Monitoring of Adopted Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
• Affordable Housing Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentives for Special Needs Housing
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: Section 8 Mainstream Housing Program Vouchers for Persons with
Disabilities
• Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Section 8 Homeless Preference
4. Environmental
Justice
Discrepancy
(People/Place)
Goal 2:
Prevent
displacemen
t of low- and
moderateincome
residents
with
protected
characteristi
cs, including
Hispanic
residents,
Vietnamese
residents,
other
seniors, and
people with
disabilities.
As discussed and evaluated in Section 3.D. Timing
identified
for each
policy in
Section 4
• Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2C:
Community-Based Neighborhood Enhancement
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3D: Parks and Open Space and Recreational Amenities
• Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3E: Community Design • Housing Production Strategy 3G: Affordable Housing Design Guidelines
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-147
5. Analysis of Sites (Pursuant to AB 686)
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively, further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix B), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.
Figures 3-32 through Figure 3-38 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlaid with demographic data layers (at the census tract level) under the segregation and integration topic area provided through HCD’s AFFH data and mapping resources.
• Figure 3-32 – Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino Predominance • Figure 3-33 – Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, Non-White Population • Figure 3-34 - Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, Low and Moderate Income • Figure 3-35 – Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas • Figure 3-36 – Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAA Areas • Figure 3-37 – Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC Opportunity Areas • Figure 3-38 – Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, CalEnviroScreen Potential Effects on Integration and Segregation Trends This analysis evaluates the potential effects candidate housing sites and their affordability could have on current patterns of residential segregation based on race and ethnicity and/or income once housing is built within the City. Previous analyses have established that there are varying levels of racial and ethnic segregation in Anaheim. Communities to the west of North Tustin Avenue are typically characterized by Hispanic predominance while tracks to the east of the street are primarily White predominant. There are a few exceptions to this pattern such as census tracts 869.02, 117.22, 102.03, and 102.01 to the west of North Tustin Avenue having predominantly White populations.
Figure 3-32 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Anaheim in relation to the location of residents of Hispanic origin. These sites take into consideration access to goods, services, and public transportation and are therefore ideal areas for the City to focus much of its future housing growth. It is anticipated that accessory dwelling unit (ADU) growth, including growth for affordable ADUs, will occur in the less dense areas of the community, specifically in single unit residential neighborhoods.
Additionally, the City meets its RHNA obligation for the Above Moderate income through projects in the pipeline (which are also mapped in the figure below). Figure 3-16 shows the following findings:
• 19 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 2,101 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic less than 20 percent. Of those units, 501 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 139 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 15,734 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-148 between 20 and 40 percent. Of those units, 3,608 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 97 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 9,203 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 40 and 60 percent. Of those units, 3,077 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 120 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (7,653 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 60 and 80 percent. Of those units, 3,795 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 36 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,178 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic above 80 percent. Of those units, 253 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
Figure 3-32 shows the approximately 8,227 units, or 36 percent of all projected housing units, are within areas of the City where a strong majority (over 60 percent) of the population identifies as Hispanic. These projected units include approximately 3,695 low income units, 2,699 moderate units, and 1,833 above moderate income units. By placing more affordable housing in predominantly Hispanic communities, housing issues such as overcrowding, overpayment, and lack of housing options can be alleviated where they are felt most.
The remaining 14,680 projected units, or 64 percent of all housing units, are in areas where the Hispanic proportion of the population ranges from 0-60 percent. Of these units, approximately 6,330 low income units are projected for these areas, which is approximately 63 percent of all low income units. The redistribution of lower-income household opportunities into places where Hispanic predominance is not as strong could mean the alteration of settlement trends for Hispanic and low income households. As a result, Anaheim communities could become further integrated in regard to race/ethnicity and income.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-149 Figure 3-32: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino Predominance Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-150 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-151 Figure 3-33 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Anaheim in relation with census data showing the percentage of the population within each block group that is Non-White. Figure 3-17 shows the following findings:
• 5 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,204 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as As previously discussed, in Section 2: Community Profile, the majority of Anaheim residents are Non-White between 20 and 40 percent. Of those units, 52 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 29 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 2,080 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as. The largest Non-White between 40 and group within the City are residents who identify as Hispanic. Figure 3-32 shows the approximately 33,01920,938 units, or 8891 percent of all projected housing units, are within areas of the City where a strong majority (over 60 percent. Of those units, 1,181 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 205 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 21,856 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that ) of the population identifies as Non-White between 60 and 80 percent. Of those. This includes approximately 10,0018,947 income units, 10,870 9,597 moderate units, and 12,1482,394 above moderate income units, 5,894 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. 172 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 172 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as. Non-White above 80 percent.
Of those units, 4,107 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.residents of the City have been shown to have lower median household incomes (see Table 3-24: Median Household Income by Race) than White households. An influx of housing of all income categories could further integrate the City in regard to income and ethnicity. Additionally, increased numbers of above moderate and moderate units in neighborhoods that are relatively lower income could increase the average median household income of the census tract as well as bring more interest in future resource development and investment to these communities.
The remaining 4,5011,969 projected units, or 12 9 percent of all housing units are in areas where the NonWhite proportion of the population ranges from 400-60 percent. Of these units, approximately 1,130 low income units are projected for these areas.
Areas within the City that have higher proportions of Non-White residents, typically show trends of lower median income, opportunity, and environmental health scores. By putting more affordable housing in areas with greater resources, low-income and special needs residents will have more options to move into areas with higher opportunities. Additionally, by placing more affordable housing in predominantly NonWhite areas, other housing issues such as overcrowding and overpayment can be alleviated where they are felt most.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-152 Figure 3-33: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, Non-White, 2018 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-153 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-154 Figure 3-18Figure 3-34 shows location of proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Anaheim in comparison with census data showing the percentage of the population within each block group who is categorized as low income or moderate income by the American Community Survey. Figure 3-18 shows the following findings:
• 4 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 604 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low or moderate income less than 10 percent. Of those units, 52 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 80 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 7,243 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low or moderate income between 10 and 25 percent. Of those units, 2,229 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 76 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 6,093 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low or moderate income between 25 and 50 percent. Of those units, 3,268 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 179 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 20,485 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low or moderate income between 50 and 75 percent. Of those units, 4,612 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 72 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,444 potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low or moderate income above 75 percent. Of those units, 1,073 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
There are approximately 23,683 10,145 projected units, or 63.2144 percent of all projected housing units, in areas where over 650 percent of the population are considered low to moderate income earners. Of these units, 5,6854,144 are low income units, 7,8154,622moderate units and 10,1831,379 above moderate units. By increasing the number of affordable housing opportunities in areas with higher proportions of low to moderate income earners, burdens such as overcrowding, overpayment, and lack of access to affordable housing have the potential to be eased. Development of more moderate and above moderate income units in these areas has the potential to exasperate gentrification. However, by gradually increasing the amount of these units over the planning period, moderate and above moderate income units could potentially improve conditions in these communities. Average median incomes could increase, and as a result, more interest in investment in these neighborhoods could occur.
The remaining 13,837 12,762 projected housing units are in higher earning areas with lower proportions of low to moderate income earners. Approximately 5,449 5,933 of these units are projected for lower income households, which would increase the amount of affordable housing in areas of the City where there are more opportunities and better environmental health. This would further the integration of variety of income groups within the City and create a more diverse neighborhood setting in regard to income.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-155 Figure 3-34: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, Low- and Moderate-Income Households 2015 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-156 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-157 Figure 3-35 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Anaheim in relation with data showing R/ECAP areas within the City. R/ECAPs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; they are marked in red hatchings. The goal of the AB 686 analysis is to analyze how the sites identified to accommodate the RHNA allocation may exacerbate or mitigate existing fair housing issues. Figure 3- 19Figure 3-35 shows there are no R/ECAPs located within the City of Anaheim; therefore, no proposed candidate sites are located in a R/ECAP.
Figure 3-20Figure 3-36 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Anaheim in relation with data showing RCCA areas within the City. RCCAs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence; they are identified as areas with a White Non-Hispanic population greater than 80 percent and a median household income greater than $125,000. Figure 3-20Figure 3-36 shows there are no RCAAs located within the City of Anaheim; therefore, no proposed candidate sites are located in an RCAA.
Figure 3-37 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Anaheim in relation with the TCAC/HCD Opportunity areas within the City. TCAC is the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee/Housing and Community Development Opportunity Area Maps which show how resources are spatially distributed throughout the City. As discussed previously, the City of Anaheim is has a variety of opportunity levels ranging from lowest resource (high segregation and poverty) to highest resource. The majority of census tracts east of North Tustin Avenue are characterized by high to highest resource levels while areas west of North Tustin Avenue range from moderate to lowest. There are three census tracts in the City that are considered areas experiencing high segregation and poverty.
Figure 3-21 shows the following findings:
• 338 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 32,710 units, including 9,718 units affordable to low and very low income households) are located within Low Resource areas of the City.
• 36 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,877 units, including 747 units affordable to low and very low income households) are located within Moderate Resource areas of the City.
• 13 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,383 units, including 320 units affordable to low and very low income households) are located within High Resource areas of the City.
• 2 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 548 units, including 0 units affordable to low and very low income households) are located within Highest Resource areas of the City.
• 11 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 462 units, including 0 units affordable to low and very low income households) are located within High Segregation and Poverty areas of the City.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-158 The majority of housing units are projected to be within low resource areas. Of the 37,52022,959 total projected units, approximately 32,46419,326 units, or 847 percent of all projected housing units, are projected in low resource areas. It is projected that of these units, 9,7188,810 are projected as low income, 10,001 8,810 as moderate income units, and 12,7451,852 as above moderate income. This large influx of moderate and above moderate housing units in low resource areas has the potential to exacerbate gentrification. However, it also has the potential to bring more resources to these areas as well. Median incomes in low income areas would increase, which could lead to the development of much needed resources in the area. This would result in increased economic, educational and overall opportunity for these communities.
Additionally, approximately 3,7052,230 units, or approximately 10 percent of all projected housing units, are in areas considered as moderate resource and higher. Of these units, approximately 9641,004, or 10
8.7 percent of all low income units, are intended for low income households. By providing affordable housing in moderate to high resource areas, lower income households have greater opportunities to live in areas with better educational and economic opportunities.
The large projection of housing units in areas where resources are considered low has the potential to bring new development and resources to these areas. Additionally, by projecting 10 percent of all low income units in higher resource areas, lower income households are given the option to take advantage of opportunities in these neighborhoods. Overall, the distribution of projected housing units has the potential to enhance lower income area resources while further integrating the higher resource communities of Anaheim.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-159 Figure 3-35: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-160 Figure 3-36: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAA Areas
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-161 Figure 3-37: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC Opportunity Areas Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-162 Figure 3-38 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Anaheim in relation with the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores throughout the City. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution as well as socioeconomic factors called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). Scores range from 0 to 100, with the higher scores indicating higher burdens of pollution in conjunction with socioeconomic burdens. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of certain ethnicities and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. The pattern is reflected in Anaheim communities as well. Communities west of North Tustin Avenue tend to be Non-White and lower income earning.
CalEnviroScreen scores in these areas are also high while opportunity scores are low.
The average CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score of all projected housing is 62.1. Approximately 23,15317,172 units, or approximately 61.775 percent of all projected housing units, are in areas with CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores between 40 and 870. Of these units, approximately 6,3148,386, or 5783 percent of all low income units are proposed. Additionally, approximately 2,097889 projected units, 501 of which are low income, are projected in areas where scores are lower than 3040, which would increase affordable housing opportunities for low income households to live in places with healthier environmental conditions. The remaining 12,2704,846 projected units are in areas where CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores exceed 870. These units are projected fairly evenly among income categories. 6,1034,261 of these units are located in areas with scores ranging from 70-880-90. Only 1,119 585 units are in areas that exceed scores of 90 and the majority of them are intended for above moderate income households, which could lead to more investment in these communities and as a result, lower pollution and socioeconomic burdens.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-163 Figure 3-38: Anaheim Proposed RHNA Sites, CalEnviroScreen Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-164 AB 686 Sites Analysis AFFH Findings
The fair housing analysis above displays the following results:
• The City has ample capacity to accommodate future housing at all income levels • The sites identified to accommodate the RHNA allocation are geographically dispersed through both east and west Anaheim and are strategically placed to further integrate racial and ethnic groups, varieties of income categories, and to enhance the availability of opportunities throughout the City.
• The areas identified to accommodate the low and very low-income RHNA create opportunities for lower income residents to access affordable housing in higher resources areas. • The areas identified to accommodate the low and very-low income RHNA are in areas where the City will plan for higher density housing and are in resource rich areas. • Above moderate and moderate income units are dispersed throughout the community and have the potential to enhance resources and opportunities in neighborhoods that historically have less access to resources.
6. Summary of Programs to Support Fair Housing
To enhance mobility and promote inclusion for protected classes, the chief strategy included in this housing element is to provide sites suitable for affordable housing in high-resource, high opportunity areas (Affordable Housing Strategy 5.E), as demonstrated by the analysis of the housing resource sites contained in Appendix B. Other programs that affirmatively further fair housing and implement and help to mitigate the identified local contributing factors to fair housing issues in Anaheim include the followingare included in Table 3-52.
E. Housing Resources
1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Future housing need refers to the share of the regional housing need that a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) allocates to the jurisdictions within its region. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) supplies a regional housing goal number to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the MPO for the region in which Anaheim is located. State law then mandates that SCAG allocate the housing goal to city and county jurisdictions in the region through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). In allocating the region’s future housing needs to jurisdictions, SCAG is required to consider the following factors, pursuant to Section 65584 of the State Government Code:
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-165 • Market demand for housing.
• Employment opportunities.
• Availability of suitable sites and public
facilities.
• Commuting patterns.
• Type and tenure of housing.
• Loss of units in assisted housing
developments.
• Over-concentration of lower income
households.
• Geological and topographical
constraints.
HCD, through a determination process, allocates units to each region across California. It is then up to each region to determine a methodology and process for allocating units to each jurisdiction within that region. SCAG adopted its final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan in February 2021. This RHNA covers an 8-year planning period (starting in 2021) and addresses housing issues that relate to future growth in the region. The RHNA allocates to each city and county a “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income group. The major goal of the RHNA is to assure a fair distribution of housing among cities and counties within the Southern California region, so that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of housing for all economic segments.
Anaheim’s share of the SCAG regional growth allocation is 17,453 new units for the current planning period (2021-2029). Table 3-53 indicates the City’s RHNA need for the stated planning period.
Table 3-53: Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Income Category (% of County AMI) Number of Units Percent Extremely Low (30% or less) 1,884 10.8%
Very Low (31 to 50%)1 1,883 10.8%
Low (51 to 80%) 2,397 13.7%
Moderate (81% to 120%) 2,945 16.9%
Above Moderate (Over 120%) 8,344 47.8%
Total 17,453 100%
Note 1: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data.
This section of the Housing Element provides an overview of the resources available to the City to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Residential Sites Inventory
Appendix B of the Housing Element includes the required sites inventory tables and sites selection information of vacant and non-vacant properties to meet the City’s RHNA need through the 2021-2029 planning period. The following sections summarize the methodology behind the City’s sites inventory and projected land use designation changes.
The City of Anaheim plans to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need by income category through the identification of adequate sites and related Policies and Programs detailed in this Housing Element. This appendix includes details on the sites determined to meet the City’s RHNA, which include:
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-166 • Submitted Development Applications known as “Projects in the Pipeline”; • Anticipated development of accessory dwelling units (ADU) with regional affordability assumptions developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and • Candidate Sites, as described in the categories below:
o Sites within existing zones, overlay zones, or specific plan development areas that permit development of housing;
o Sites within the proposed Center City Corridors (C3) Specific Plan that are anticipated to develop with accommodate housing developments (subject to the approval of the C3 Specific Plan and any associated General Plan Amendments); o Sites designated for residential land use by the General Plan that require a proposed addition of the Residential Opportunity (RO) or Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay Zone in order to streamline the development of housing;
o Sites requiring a change in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations, in order to permit development of housing; and
o Sites owned by the Anaheim Housing Authority and Successor Agency.
Table 3-54 provides a summary of the City’s RHNA allocation and types of sites projected to meet the housing need for each income category. Table B-1 displays the following Income Categories:
• Extremely Low-Income: indicates RHNA allocated units that are within the Extremely LowIncome category (referred to as EL Income Units in the table). The Extremely Low-Income category is a subset of the Very Low Income category (referred to as VL Income Units in the table). The RHNA allocation for the Extremely Low Income Category is one-half of the Very Low Income RHNA Allocation.
• Lower Income: The Very Low Income and Low Income categories of the RHNA allocated units into “Lower Income” for Projected ADU and Candidate Sites because the development requirements for these units are consistent. State law considers any Candidate Site that has a permitted density of 30 or more dwelling units per acre and is between 0.5 and 10 acres to be suitable to develop units for Lower Income Households. However, although the City can count all sites that allow 30 or more dwelling units per acre within the Lower-Income category, the City has elected to include sites that allow 60 or more dwelling units per acre in the Moderate Income category. The City does not currently have any Lower Income units built at this higher density range of 60 dwelling units per acre and therefore, thought it would be more appropriate to place these units in the Moderate Income category. Therefore, the Lower Income category only include sites that allow 30 or more dwelling units per acre, but less than 60 dwelling units/acre. The Extremely Low Income category is a subset of the Very Low Income category and represents 50 percent of the Very Low Income RHNA Allocation.
• Moderate Income: The City considers any Candidate Site that has a permitted density of 18 or more dwelling units per acre suitable to develop units for Moderate Income Households. In addition, although stated above and pursuant to State law, the City can count all sites that allow 30 or more dwelling units per acre within the Lower-Income category, the City has elected to Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-167 include sites the permit up to 60 dwelling units per acre in the Moderate Income category, consistent with market realities.
• Above Moderate Income: Any site that permits fewer than 18 dwelling units per acre or is a Pipeline Project that is not proposing to provide any income-restricted units, is included in the Above Moderate Income category.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-168 Table 3-54: Summary of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation and Adequate Sites Analysis Extremely
Low Income
Very Low
/ Low Income
Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 1,884 4,280 2,945 8,344 17,453
Units within Pipeline Projects
Pipeline Projects (Table B-2) 170 118 884 216 525 91 13,116 6,106 14,695 6,531 Projected Accessory Dwelling Unit(ADU) Construction
Lower Income Moderate
Income
Above Moderate
Income Total
Projected ADU Construction 514 227 15 756
Projected Dwelling Units on Candidate Sites(Table B-8)
Unit Capacity: Citywide
No Proposed Change in General Plan Land
Use Designation
No Proposed Change in Zoning
557 7,556 5,319 0 108 8,113 5,984
Unit Capacity: Citywide
No Proposed Change in General Plan Land
UseDesignation
Proposed Change in Zoning to Residential
Opportunity or Mixed Use Overlay Zone
93 709 2,408 199 517 1,001 3,018
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use
Designation
Proposed Change in Zoning
9,261 9,158 480 0 0 480 9,741 9,638
Unit Capacity: Citywide
Housing Authority and Successor Agency
Sites
101 477 8 586
Unit Capacity: Center City
Corridors (C3)SpecificPlan
No Proposed Change in General Plan Land
UseDesignation
Proposed Change in Zoning to C3 Specific
Plan
0 1,843 1,157 0 661 1,843 1,818
Unit Capacity: Center City
Corridors (C3) SpecificPlan
Proposed Change in General Plan Land Use
Designation
Proposed Change in Zoning to C3 Specific
Plan
168 1,722 844 0 903 1,890 1,915
Total on Candidate Sites 10,180 10,077 12,787 10,205 207 2,677 23,174 22,959 Total Summary
RHNA (2021-2029) 6,164 2,945 8,344 17,453
Total Units: Pipeline Projects,
ADU, and Candidate Sites 11,748 10,925 13,539 10,523 13,338 8,798 38,625 30,246 Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-169 Total Unit Capacity Over
RHNA 5,584 4,761 10,594 7,578 4,994 454 21,174 12,793
Percentage of Unit Surplus 91% 77% 360% 257% 60% 5% 121% 73% Reasonable Capacity Assumptions
This section describes the methodology developed to determine the site capacity for the lower, moderate, and above moderate-income sites.
Capacity for sites identified to meet the City’s lower, moderate, and above moderate need was calculated based on a number of factors, including site size, existing zoning requirements, vacancy and total number of units entitled, and the maximum density achievable based on history of development densities for recently constructed projects within the City. Based on these factors, densities identified below are assumed to promote development for each income category:
• Low and Very Low Income
o An assumed density of at least 30 du/ac and less than 60 du/ac • Moderate Income
o An assumed density of at least 18 du/ac and less than 30 du/ac OR o An assumed density of at least 60 du/ac
• Above Moderate Income
o An assumed density of less than 18 du/ac
Potential constraints, such as environmentally sensitive areas, steep slopes, and other factors were considered, which decreased the net buildable area of a parcel. Additionally, existing units’ non-vacant parcels were analyzed to determine the number of existing units currently on the parcel. Replacement of existing units was included as a factor to prevent no net loss of existing housing stock.
Rezones to Accommodate the RHNA
Appendix B: Adequate Sites describes the sites that require a change in General Plan Land Use or Zoning to allow for housing development; and Section 4: Housing Policy Program identifies the associated Housing Strategies. The specific development assumptions (both on affordability and overall development potential) that produce the Potential Units are described in the Sites Inventory of Appendix B. Below is a description of the sites that do and do not require a change in General Plan Land Use or Zoning to allow for housing development.
Existing Citywide Capacity
The City has multiple zones which permit residential development at appropriate densities for affordable housing and which have remaining capacity to accommodate residential development. There are 95 79 sites identified under existing zoning within approximately 155 117 acres of potential development area.
These sites are primarily within the Platinum Triangle, Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, and Beach Boulevard Specific Plan but are also in other areas throughout the City. These sites have the capacity to Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-170 develop 9,359 5,984 units, 670 557 of which have the capacity to develop affordably. Additionally, the City has committed to Housing Production Strategies 1K that creates by-right housing development opportunities on sites that have been identified in two or more consecutive Housing Element planning periods.
The City occasionally receives requests to develop housing at densities below the assumed density in Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis. Appendix B assumes that candidate sites will develop at 80 percent of the max density in their respective zones. Proposed densities are often driven by developers and the City encourages developers to develop at maximum densities allowed. While some developers may request to develop below the assumed density of 80 percent, on average, projects develop at or above the assumed maximum density. Of the 14 residential housing projects approved from 2019 to 2021, six projects have a density utilization below 80 percent. The remaining 8 residential housing projects approved from 2019 to 2021 developed at densities well above the assumed density. The average density utilization of the residential housing projects approved from 2019 to 2021 is 81 percent, slightly above the density assumed in Appendix B.
City Center Corridors (C3) Specific Plan
The development of the C3 Specific Plan is currently underway, and the City anticipates that it will bring considerable housing potential to the study area. The City has identified multiple sites to accommodate its RHNA allocation within the future C3 Specific Plan using the assumptions detailed previously in this appendix. In order to accommodate this capacity, several of the identified sites will require General Plan land use designation changes, in addition to receiving a change in zoning as part of the approvals for the C3 Specific Plan.
Table 3-55: Sites for Rezone within C3 Specific Plan
Category Income Sites Acres Unit Capacity
No Change in
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Lower Income 0 0 0
Moderate Income 20 8 29.4 15 843 1,157
Above Moderate Income 0 11 0.0 14 0 661
Proposed Change in
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Lower Income 6 6 168
Moderate Income 27 4 44.3 18 1,722 844
Above Moderate Income 0 24 0 27 0 903
Total: 53 79.780 3,733
Citywide Zoning or Overlay Zone Change
The City identified sites, which require a change in the Zone or Overlay Zone designation to accommodate housing at appropriate densities for all income levels. Several of these sites will also require a change to the General Plan Land Use designation. Implementation of policies under the Housing Production Strategy Area (found within Section 4: Housing Policy Program) will reclassify these sites to add either the Residential Opportunities (RO) Overlay Zone or the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone as indicated below in Table 3-56: Sites for Rezone Citywide. However, until January 1, 2030, Government Code Section Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-171 65589.5(j)(4) allows development of sites that are consistent with objective General Plan standards and criteria without the requirement for a zone change.
Table 3-56: Sites for Rezone Citywide
Category Income Sites Acres Unit Capacity
No Change in
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Lower Income 2 3 93
Moderate Income 29 34 14.4 36 709 2,408
Above Moderate
Income
8 15 15.8 22 199 517
Proposed Change in
General Plan Land
Use Designation
Lower Income 145 143 324.0 320 9,261 9,158
Moderate Income 1 0 22.24 0 480 0
Above Moderate
Income
0 1 0 22 0 480
Total: 169 195 401.7 403 10,742 12,656
Development of Non-Vacant Sites
Accessory Dwelling Unit Production
The City believes that ADUs present a viable option as part of the overall strategy to develop housing at all income levels during the 2021-2029 6thSixth Cycle Housing Element planning period. Appendix B describes:
• Recent ADU legislation and regional actions,
• Local factors that may increase ADU development over the next eight years, and • Actions Anaheim will take through housing programs to incentivize ADU development.
The City assumes a total development of 756 ADUs from 2021-2029. Utilizing the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) approved ADU affordability assumptions, 514 ADUs will be allocated to the low and very low income RHNA, 227 will be allocated to the City’s moderate income RHNA and 15 will be allocated to the above moderate. This is based on the methodology described within Appendix B:
Adequate Sites and incorporates guidance from HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook.
Previous Cycle Sites
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), any non-vacant sites identified in the prior 5thFifth Cycle or vacant sites identified two or more consecutive planning periods, shall be provided by-right development when at least 20% of the units in the proposed development are affordable to lower-income households.
Appendix B: Adequate Sites identifies vacant and non-vacant sites that the City used in previous Housing Elements to meet the current RHNA need. To comply with State law, the City will amend the Zoning Code to permit residential uses by-right for housing development in which at least 20-percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households for sites that:
• Are non-vacant and identified in the prior planning period; and Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-172 • Vacant sites included in two or more consecutive planning periods Pursuant to the text on page 12 of HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, “Sites where zoning already permits residential “use by right” as set forth in Government Code section 65583.2 (i) at the beginning of the planning period would be considered to meet this requirement.” On such sites, the City would not require, but would be encourage the development of units affordable to lower-income households.
Projects in the Pipeline
Pipeline projects are indicators of the future development of housing throughout the City, based upon property owner/developer interest. Since the start of the projection period for the Sixth Cycle Planning Period (June 30, 2021), the City has multiple projects in different stages of the pipeline. These stages include:
• Conceptual Development Review Application: an applicant has submitted a housing project for Conceptual Development Review Application, which may be followed by the submittal of a Development Application
• Development Application: the property owner has submitted a Development Application that is in process but not yet approved
• Approved Entitlements: The Development Application that has approved for the site, but the City has not issued building permits as of June 30, 2021
• Under Construction: The City has issued building permits, but it is not yet constructed, as of June 30, 2021
Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The City of Anaheim has a total 2021-2029 RHNA allocation of 17,453 units. The City is able to take credit for 14,695 6,531 units currently within the planning process (Projects in the Pipeline) and 756 units with the implementation of ADUs. Both Categories would lower the total RHNA planning need to a “remaining Need” of 6,789 10,166 units. The Housing Element update lists sites that would be able to accommodate an additional 23,174 22,959 units, well in excess of the remaining RHNA need.
Anaheim has identified sites with a capacity to accommodate 10,180 10,077 lower income dwelling units, which is in excess of its 6,164-unit lower income housing need. The identified sites for lower income dwelling units are on parcels that will permit residential development at an assumed density of between 30 and 60 dwelling units per acre. The following figures display the sites identified to accommodate the City of Anaheim’s RHNA for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Planning Period, with the exception of ADU, which the City and State law permit within residential areas citywide. As described in this appendix, the development capacity for each site depends on its permitted density, consistency with surrounding uses, the City’s past performance, development trends, and the site’s location, as well as known development factors.
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-173 Figure 3-39: Sites Inventory Map
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-174 Figure 3-40: Sites Inventory Map
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-175 Figure 3-41: Sites Inventory Map
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-176 Figure 3-38: Sites Inventory Map
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-177 Figure 3-39: Sites Inventory Map
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-178 Figure 3-40: Sites Inventory Map
Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-179 Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations
The data and map detailed in Figure 3-19the figures above showsshow the City of Anaheim’s ability to meet the 17,453 RHNA allocation in full capacity with a 21,172 12,793-unit buffer. Along with the identifying appropriate sites to meet the current and future housing needs, the City has established a Housing Plan to support its efforts in providing housing opportunities for all income levels in the City.
Alternate Sites
As provided for in Government Code Section 65400(a)(2)(B)(iii), local governments can count existing housing units to address up to 25 percent of their housing need for low and very low income by counting existing units substantially rehabilitated, converted to affordable from market rate, or preserved through the provision of “committed assistance” if those units also meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.1(c). Such sites are referred to as Alternate Sites.
As previously discussed, the City has identified adequate sites for all income categories and as such provision of Alternative Sites as allowed by 65400(a)(2)(B)(iii) is not required. However, the City has a long track record of acquiring, rehabilitating and preserving existing housing units deed-restricted for lower income households. As stated in the Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A of the Section 4: Housing Policy Programs, the City is continuing to commit to providing resources for the creation of lower income units during the Sixth Planning Cycle in conformance with Government Code Section 65583.1(c) through the Anaheim Housing Authority with subsidy amounts generally ranging from $220,000 to $258,000 per unit.
Therefore, the City intends to report such qualifying units towards the City’s annual progress addressing housing need for lower income households. Appendix B: Adequate Sites Analysis, identifies potential locations for qualifying units within the planning period.
F.Financial Resources
Providing an adequate supply of decent and affordable housing requires funding from various sources, the City has access to the following finding sources.
1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a Federal government program to assist very lowincome families, the elderly, and the disabled with rent subsidy payments in privately owned rental housing units. Section 8 participants are able to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located within subsidized housing projects. They typically pay 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent and utilities. The Anaheim Housing Authority administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Anaheim. In 2020, the City assisted 5,917 homes with vouchers; and in 2019, the City assisted 5,988 homes with vouchers.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides annual grants on a formula basis to cities to develop viable urban communities by providing a suitable living environment and by expanding Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-180 economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons (up to 80 percent AMI). The City can use CDBG funds for a wide array of activities, including:
• Housing rehabilitation;
• Lead-based paint screening and abatement;
• Acquisition of buildings and land;
• Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and infrastructure, and; • Public services for low-income households and those with special needs.
Each year, the City of Anaheim receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City Administration is responsible for administering these funds. The City must use these funds to develop viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide items such as decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons.
The guides its investment of CDBG funds in the community with its Five-Year Consolidated Plan, which identifies the housing, community, and economic development needs of the community; the resources available; and strategies to address identified needs. Each Annual Action Plan describes the activities to be undertaken using CDBG funds to address Consolidated Plan strategies. Subsequent to each program year, the City prepares a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation report detailing the results of CDBG activities.
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80-percent of area median income.
The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households. The City of Anaheim reports receiving $1,564,078 in HOME funds 2020.
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grants
SB2 Grant
To supplement the cost of the City’s effort to update the streamlining process of affordable housing, HCD has awarded the City an SB 2 Planning Grant Program gran. The SB 2 program includes improvements to expedite local planning processes. In 2020, the City received $625,000 from the SB 2 Grant. The funding of the program is to address the following:
• CEQA Streamlining
• Reconcile General Plan with 2030-2045 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-181 • Climate Action Plan
• General Plan updates with focus on housing
• Zoning Code Amendments
LEAP Grant
The City of Anaheim applied for and received a total of $750,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). LEAP Grants provide funding opportunities for jurisdictions to update their planning documents and implement process improvements that will facilitate or accelerate housing productions to meet the Sixth Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
The City of Anaheim applied for and obtained (PLHA) funds to assist with the development of affordable housing. PLHA is a permanent source of funds approved by the state legislature in 2019, and will vary from year to year, since it is generated from real estate transaction fees.
2. Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation lighting, water heating, and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that the City facilitate efforts to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving non-renewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. There are also a number of benefits associated with energy conservation including improved air quality and lower energy cost.
Title 24
The City abides to Title 24 standards as mandated by the State. Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings (new structures and additions) to reduce energy consumption. ICC updates these standards every three years to achieve greater efficiency and reach for new goals.
Energy Use and Providers
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service for the City. Natural gas is a “fossil fuel” and is a non-renewable resource. SCGC owns and operates most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the City. SCGC has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations noted in state law. As development occurs, SCGC will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines.
Anaheim Public Utilities (APU) provides electricity on an as-needed basis to customers within existing structures in the City. APU is the distribution provider for electricity in Anaheim. Every year APU expands and improves existing facilities according to demand.
Utility companies serving Anaheim offer programs to promote the efficient energy use and assist lowerincome customers. Anaheim customers can receive utility payment assistance on their electric bill through Section 3: Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 3-182 the federally funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) administered through Community Action Partnership of Orange County (CAPOC). Anaheim Public Utilities partners with the Southern California Gas Company, to assist income-qualified renters and homeowners in making their homes more water-energy efficient and comfortable while simultaneously reducing their utility costs.
Eligible customers receive no-cost weatherization, including attic insulation, energy efficient refrigerators, energy-efficient furnaces, weather stripping, caulking, low-flow showerheads, water heater blankets, and door and building envelope repairs, which reduce air infiltration.
Section 4
Housing Policy Program
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-2 A. Housing Policy Program
This section of the Housing Element describes the Policy Program for the 2021-2029 Planning Period. The Policy Program identifies the specific policy actions necessary to address present and future housing needs, meet the specific requirements of State law, and consider the input by residents and stakeholders. The emphasis of the 2021-2029 Policy Program is on actions enabling the City to maintain and increase housing opportunities affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low, and moderate income households.
In developing this Policy Program, theCity assessedits housing needs, evaluatedthe performance of existing programs, consideredthe availabilityof existing andprojected funding resources andreceivedinput from the community throughextensive outreachefforts.
Anumber ofthe policy actionsidentifiedin thepolicy programare dependent upon theavailabilityof external funding sources, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and EmergencySolutions Grant(ESG) and State and Federal Development and Planning Grants. The City intends to use these funds for specific policy actions stated in this Policy Program. It is the intent of the City to leverage funding opportunities to further enhance programviability and maximize local benefit.
B. Key Policy Considerations
In order to develop a comprehensive strategy to preserve and expand housing opportunities for extremelylow, very-low, low, and moderate income households and address the development challenges unique to the City of Anaheim, it is important to understand the needs of local stakeholders, the current real estate market and the type and condition of existing housing stock. Section 3 of this Element provides a complete overview of these factors.
Through the City’s efforts to engage its citizenry and stakeholders in the planning process, the City identified a number of housing challenges, opportunities, and resources. The Housing Element Update Committee further identified and refined important areas to consider in policy development. Appendix A provides a summaryof the community outreach process and itsresults.
The input from the community and the Housing Element Update Committee, in conjunction with the needs analysis provided in Section 2 and 3, resulted in identifying a series of Policy Considerations, which form the primary guidance for the 2021-2029 Planning Period.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-3 Policy Consideration 1.0: Financing and Funding for HousingDevelopment A variety of factors can influence the development of affordable housing. Stringent qualification guidelines for pre-development and construction financing can make it challenging for private sector financing. On the local government front, local jurisdictionjurisdictions continue to feel the effects of the loss of redevelopment funds as a replacement funding source of that size and scale has not yet emerged. There are limited opportunities for local governments to create funding streams to assist with the production of housing that addressesthe needs of persons at the very -low and extremely-low income ranges.
Additionally, while both the State and Federal government have introduced new affordable housing production programs, the programs award funding on a competitive basis and often, the priorities ascribed not do not align well with the Orange County region (Transit Oriented Development). These factors have resulted in significant impacts on the City’s ability to assist in creating and maintaining affordable housing.
The City must now focus on the development of alternative funding and financing sources and better align policy and programmatic strategies with short-term and long-term funding resources. Additionally, the City must better align available housing sites with available state and federal housing programs to maximize the potential for funding and financing of affordable housing.
Policy Consideration 2.0:Growth Needs
The City of Anaheim’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element is 17,453 units. Anaheim’s allocation represents a significant increase in forecasted housing needs compared to prior cycles. The City continues to have the challenges of limited land resources, funding and financing constraintsthat have a directinfluence onthe City’sability toassist and facilitate the privatemarkettoprovide a variety of housing choicesthat meetthe needs of Anaheim residents.
Policy Consideration 3.0:Utilization and Prioritization of Existing ResourcesforHousing The available funding and staffing to address projected housing need is limited. Therefore, the City must anticipate and pursue comprehensive and strategic utilization of funding sources, prioritize programs, and maximize coordinated participation between public, private, and non-profit entities. As new funding streams have emerged, particularly at the State level, the City has adjusted priorities to and become more strategic in itsselectionofaffordable housing sites, acquiringsitesthat are neartransit, amenities,school, and hospitals to become more competitive. Sites that are located near transit and other amenities are more competitive and have a betterlikelihood of gettingfunded.
Policy Consideration 4.0: Community Design and Sustainability Anaheim’s community members and stakeholder groups have identified the maintenance and enhancement of quality of life as an important factor to address when planning for the City’s future housing needs. The preservation and enhancement of that quality of life can be accomplished through community design and sustainability concepts that consider the function and livability of Anaheim’s existing and planned neighborhoods. Establishment of a holistic approach to community design and sustainability can have a positive effect on the quality of life in Anaheim.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-4 Policy Consideration 5.0: Equitable and Fair Housing Opportunities for Anaheim’s Residents The City has identified that programs providing fair housing counseling, education, and enforcement are a means to provide affordable housing opportunities for Anaheim’s residents. The City of Anaheim should strategicallyaddressthe specific needsof Anaheimresidentsthroughutilizationof newand existing resources in collaboration with County, State, Federal, and private and non-profit resources. Specifically, the consideration of homelessness, the needs of residents with special needs, housing access, affordability issues, and rental and for-sale housing opportunities can be best addressed at the local level through targeted policies and programs sponsored and/or administered by the City.
Policy Consideration 6.0: Community Education and Outreach The City is committedtoensuring thatthe community is aware of new and existing programsthat are in place to address their housing needs. Through education and outreach, particularly non-traditional means, the Citycan ensure that housing information is available to interested community members. It is the City’s goal to ensure that education and outreach efforts are effective and reach a broad audience. To that end, the City provides materials in multiple languages and seeks to place information at locations that are widely used by community members such as libraries, family resource centers and city offices. The City also utilizes all available platforms as appropriate including its website, social media, and printed materials. The City will continue to measure and enhance its community outreach efforts on an ongoing basis.
Policy Consideration 7.0:Housing Availability and Affordability Housing opportunitydemandin Anaheimremainshigh due toemployment opportunities, adesirable location, and local amenities. Housing costs in Anaheim and the surrounding region continue to remain higher than what is affordable for many households, especially the lower-income segments of the population. The City’s pro-housing policies and planning effortshave resultsresulted in significant housing opportunitiesin the City. Anaheim has been a leader in Orange County housing production. However, challenges remain in providing adequate opportunitiesfor lower-income households.
Policy Consideration 8.0:Infill and Redevelopment
The City of Anaheim is a built-out community, with very limited vacant land for new housing. Therefore, the majority of growth will occur as infill development on currently developed sites. Policies should allow and encourage creative solutions to challenges such as land assemblage, infrastructure, environmental cleanup, and construction costs in orderto maximize the potential of redeveloping areas of Anaheim.
Policy Consideration 9.0: Fair Housing
As required by State law requires, the City of Anaheim toCity’s policies and programs should affirmatively, further, Fair Housing by taking meaningful actions toresist discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected classes.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-5 Policy Consideration 10.0: Special Needs
The City’s policies and programs should address the diverse range of housing types for all segments of the population, including current and future residents with Special Needs or physical and developmental disabilities.
Policy Consideration 11.0:Regulatory Reform and ProcessIncentives The City should continue to pursue regulatory reform and process streamlining efforts to address barriers to timely and predictable development review processes.
Policy Consideration 12.0:Regional Partnership and Collaboration Tomaximizetheimpact ofproviding affordablehousing opportunities,theCitymustalign local,regional,state, and federal programs through partnership and collaboration. Emerging partnerships at the regional level, such as with the Orange County Housing Trust and Orange County Housing Finance Trust, provide regional collaboration opportunities for gap financing for the acquisition, development, or construction of affordable housing. By increasing the supply and housing options through regional partnerships, the City can address housing needs at a regional level and enhance the quality of life for all Orange County residents.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-6 C. Housing Policy Strategy Areas
The Housing Policy Program organizes the Policy Strategies for the 2021-2029 Housing Element into five, core, policy strategy areas:
• Housing Production–establishes policy actions for the production of a range of rental and for-sale housing units in the City.
• Housing Conservation and Preservation – establishes policy actions for the conservation of the existing housing stockand preservationof housing opportunities for Anaheim’sresidents. • HousingQuality andDesign–establishes policyactions for providing high quality, well-designedliving environments for Anaheim residents.
• Housing Rehabilitation – establishes policy actionsforthe rehabilitation and improvement ofexisting housing.
• Affordable Housing Opportunities – establishes policy actions for the establishment ofaffordable housing opportunities.
Policy Strategy #1: Housing Production
Housing Production Strategy 1A(i):Affordable Housing Development Fee (NEW) During the fifthFifth cycle, the City issued permits for housing development that exceeded its total RHNA allocation. While the number of housing units developed during the fifth housing cycleFifth Cycle indicates that there are not significant barriers to the development of housing within Anaheim, the production of affordable housing was not equivalent to the City’s RHNA allocation. Due to prevailing project development costs, including high land values and other factors, the ability of the private market to develop affordable housing without some level of subsidy is a continuing challenge. Therefore, the City will establish an Affordable Housing Development Fee to support an Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Production Program, described below in Housing Production Strategy 1A(ii) (Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Production Program)..
The City will apply the Affordable Housing Development Fee to all sites identified in Table B-1 (All Potential Housing Sites) of Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis) that require a City-initiated General Plan amendment and zone change, including sites within the proposed Center City Corridors Specific Plan. In addition, the City could potentially apply this fee to proposed housing developmentdevelopments on sites not included in Table B-1 (All Potential Housing Sites) that require a General Plan amendment and zone change. The potential amount of the fee will be determined based upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, a market analysis to determine the potential demand for housing on the subject sites and the impact that the development of market-rate housing has on the City’s need for affordable housing. The City will evaluate the final amount of the fee and the applicable projects based on the fee’s ability to provide Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-7 meaningful funding towards the production of affordable housing, balanced with City’s overall fee burden for housing development in comparison to surrounding and comparable cities.
Objective: Establish an Affordable Housing Development Fee Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building Source of Funds: Private Development
Timeline for Implementation: Within six12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adoption.
Housing Production Strategy 1A(ii):Affordable Housing Production Program (NEW) The City has a substantial need for affordable housing that will be a challenge to accommodate within the 2021-2029 planning period. In order to address this need, the City will create a fee, described above in Housing Policy Strategy 1A(i) (Affordable Housing Development Fee).. This fee will go into an Affordable Housing Trust Fund established subject to public noticing and City Council approval that the City will use to facilitate the production of affordable housing. The City will use this fund to implement an Affordable Housing Production Program that will augment city staffing, leverage local resources for State and Federal funding, construct supporting infrastructure, and other actions as identified, to facilitate affordable housing consistent with HCD’s guidelines on the administration of local housing trust fund programs.
Objective: Create and implement an affordable housing production program Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund/Private Development
Timeline for Implementation: Withinsix months of Housing Element adoption Housing Production Strategy 1B: Evaluate Alternative Funding and Financing Mechanisms (AMENDED) The loss of Redevelopment in 2011 has had a lingering effect on the ability of local agencies to provide funding and financing resources for the development of affordable housing. However, the City of Anaheim has made every effort to pursue all available, alternative funding sources and methods of funding and financing to bridge the gap created by the loss of Redevelopment. The City of Anaheim applied for and obtained state Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds to assist with the development of affordable housing. PLHA is a permanent source of funds approved by the state legislature in 2019 and will vary from year to year since the State generates PLHA from real estate transaction fees. The City has applied for and received funding from Orange County Housing Trust Fund (OCHTF) and the Orange County Housing Finance Trust Fund (OCHFTF) for the development of three affordable housing rental projects. The City continues to leverage grants and/or other funding sources as they become available for the development of affordable housing, including collaborating with the County of Orange to compete for funds such as No Place Like Home (NPLH) and Mental Health ServicesAct Funding, (MHSA) to assist Anaheim affordable housing projects.
AnaheimThe City will continue to collaborate with private, non-profit, state, and federal entities to investigate alternative methods for funding and financing the construction of new housing units and Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-8 rehabilitation and preservation of exiting units citywide. The City will also establish continued communication with local, state, and federal legislators to encourage the establishment of alternative funding and financing mechanisms.
Objective: Increase use of County, State and Federal funding and financing mechanisms Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: On-going monitoring of alternative funding and financing sources, with annual review on at least anannual basisand adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Developments (AMENDED)
The City shall continue to offer expedited process discretionary entitlement and plan check processing for lower income housing developments across all City reviewing Departmentsin an expedited manner and offer Business Assistance Program, which provides resources and information to guide developers through the building permit process, including inter- and intra-agency coordination. Expedited processing provides an incentive to encourage development of affordable housing projects as shorter development timeframes results in lower housing production costs. The City will evaluate the effectiveness of the expedited processing program and modify as needed to encourage affordable housing development. As part of this evaluation, the City will analyze and monitor the effectiveness of inter-departmental coordination to ensure that expedited reviews are occurring in a consistent and coordinated manner.
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable housing developments to reduce housing production costs and to help affordable housing projects meet financing deadlines Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building / Public Works / Public Utilities / Fire
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: TBDOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1D:Affordable Senior Housing Programs (AMENDED) The City recognizes the unique needs of its senior population. Seniors typically have fixed incomes and unique housing needs thatmarketrate housing does not generally address.
The City currently provides incentives for affordable senior housing through the Senior Citizens’ Apartment Project and Density BonusesHousing Incentives chapters of its Municipal Code. The City will continue to encourage the development of quality senior housing that, when feasible, includes transportation and other appropriatesupportiveservicesspecific to this population. The Citywill evaluateexistingprograms and adjust themaccordingly to serve the needs ofseniors.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-9 The Housing Authority has utilized the Project-Based component of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program to preserve and/or create new senior housing. The Housing Authority will continue to work with affordable housing developers to build on these efforts. The tenant-based component of the Housing Choice Voucher program will also continue to serve as a vehicle to help low income seniors afford units of their choice available in the privatemarket.
Inaddition tothe programs detailedabove,theCityrecentlylaunched theSenior Safety Net programProgram that provides case management, emergency rental assistance and a short-term rental assistance. While this program is not a production program, it is an important tool that helps to provide support to the senior population and is part of the City’s homeless prevention strategy.
Objective: Senior housing development and Section 8 financial assistance Responsible Party: Planning & Building / Housing and Community Development / Community Services Source of Funds: General Fund / HUD
Timeline for Implementation:OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-10 Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-Low Income (ELI) Households (AMENDED)
The City encourages and facilitates the development of housing units for extremely-low income households earning less than 30 percent of the Median Family Income for Orange County. To further these efforts the Housing Authority provides gap financing and/ or Project-Based vouchers to achieve deeper affordability levels for more units in planned affordable housing developments. The City will maintain up-to-date information about financial resources on its website for local residents and developers and continue to provide gap financing and/or Project-Based vouchers through the Housing Authority for eligible projects.
The City has also looked to adoptproactively worked towards adopting land use policies that support the development of housing at ELI levels.extremely-low income level. In 2018, ahead of the State’s Homekey Program. The, the City implemented the Anaheim Motel Conversion Ordinance to allow the conversion of Motelsmotels to Permanent Supportive Housing for extremely-low income households, providing another tool to increase the amount of extremely-low income units. As one of the actions for Strategy 1E, the City will conduct biennial community outreach meetings with local stakeholders and affordable housing developers to promote this Ordinance and discuss other City-incentives to create affordable housing.
In addition, the City continues to provide an expedited review process for developers applying for Federal and State Tax Credits, which require a designation of a percentage of the units for extremely low-income households. The City will place specific emphasis on housing for extremely low-income households by encouraging the development of transitional living facilities, permanent special needs housing, and senior housing. The City currently has a number of tools that developers can utilize to create opportunities for affordable housing development such as the Density Bonus, including, but not limited to:
• Housing Incentives and Senior Citizens' Apartment Housing ordinances; down • Down payment assistance programs;
• Section 8 programs; deferral
• Deferral of City development fees; exemption
• Exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments; and expedited • Expedited processing for tax credit projects. The
In addition to incentives listed above that the City is already implementing, the City will continue to investigate additional incentives and seek funding opportunities to encourage development of housing for extremely low-income households. The City will also support funding applications for affordable housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households.
Objective: Productionof extremely low-income units.
Objective: Provide gap financing and/or Project-Based vouchers to affordable housing developers with qualifying projects to facilitate the construction of affordable housing units on a case-by-case basis and continue to provide information on incentives and financial assistance available online and at City Hall.
Disseminate on the City’s website and conduct one community outreach meeting every two years (four total within the planning period) with local stakeholders and affordable housing developers to promote the Motel Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-11 Conversion Ordinance and discuss other City-incentives to create affordable housing.
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building / Housing Authority Source of Funds: General Fund / HOME / Section 8 Project-Based Program / PLHA Funds / Various State and Federal Funding programs
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing monitoring of the development of extremely low-income units with review of incentives and potential funding on at least anOn-going with biannual outreach and annual basisreview
Housing Production Strategy 1F: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special Needs Households (AMENDED)
The City understands the need for housing to accommodate Special Needs households, including persons with developmental disabilities. Historically, theCityhas assistedinthe development of housing projects for special needs households by providing technical assistance with tax credit applications, andtax-exempt bond financing and other public funds, including, ESG, CDBG, andHOME.
Under the umbrella of the Housing Authority, the City has also utilized the provision of Project-based vouchers and other federal funds such as HOME to support development of housing for special needs populations. Generally, developments that utilize this type of financing structure are affordable for a minimum of 55 years.
The City will continue to utilize available incentives to encourage and support the development of rental housing for special needs families within future affordable housing projects. Developers and builders ofsuch projects will be required to incorporate specialized social services to assist the special needs households, in exchange for these incentives.
The City will coordinate with local developers and non-profit entities specializing in housing for Special Needs residents to meet existing and future housing needs.
Objective: Maintain existing and develop new units for special needs households.
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building / Housing Authority Source of Funds:Housing Authority / General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1G: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-12 (AMENDED)
During the sixth Cycle Planning Period, the City will continue to implement The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and coordinate with developers proposing projects in this area in an effort to further encourage the production of high-density housing.
The City will also explore potential expansion opportunities for the Platinum Triangle area, to include additional areasfor the accommodation of housing.
The Platinum Triangle replaces an older industrial area with a dynamic mixed-use development district including higher density housing, residential-serving retail and amenities and employment-generating commercial/office uses. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP) was developed in conjunction with the General Plan Update in 2004 and originally allowed for development of up to 9,825 residential units within the 393 acres of the Platinum Triangle that are designated for mixed-use residential development. The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use PlanThe PTMLUP provides opportunity for development of up to 17,501 units at densities of up to 100 units per acre.
Prior to the adoption of the master land use planPTMLUP, no residential development was permitted within this area. The City allocates development intensities to individual properties on a first come basis through the approval of a development agreement. Since the creation of the Master LandUse PlanPTMLUP, 12,642 residential units have been entitled for development. Of these entitled units, developers have built 5,232 units and there is a remaining capacity for the development of up to 4,859 units.
For the sixth CycleDuring the Sixth Cycle Planning Period, the City will continue to implement the PTMLUP and coordinate with developers proposing projects in this area in an effort to further encourage the production of high-density housing.
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element identifies a number of properties located within the PTMLUP boundary as Candidate Sites. In addition, the City will prioritize and encourage the development of affordable housing units affordable to moderate,- and lower-income households. The City will encourage the maximization of all of the City’s current andfuture programsthat encourage affordable housing within the Platinum Triangle.
The programs include, but are not limited to, the Housing incentives and Senior Citizens' Apartment Housing ordinances; down payment assistance programs; Section 8 programs; deferral of City development fees; exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments; and expedited processing for tax credit projects. The City will explore additional outreach to market-rate and affordable housing options, throughmixed used and higher density development standardsdevelopers annually to promote these programs and incentives to facilitate discuss additional opportunities forto incentivize the development of units affordable to moderate and lower -income households. The City will maintain up-todate information on all incentive programs and available funding options online and at City Hall.
The City will also facilitate the development of additional housing options through an evaluation of mixeduse and higher density development standards facilitate opportunities for lower income households. The City will conduct this evaluation annually in response to feedback gained during the annual development community outreach meeting.
Objective: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan.; outreach to market-rate and Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-13 affordable housing developers maintain up-to-date information on incentives and funding programs online and at City Hall
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building / Housing Authority Source of Funds:General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1H: Center City Corridors Specific Plan (NEW) The City is currently developing the Center City Corridors Specific Plan (C3SP). The Specific PlanC3SP will provide a vision for the future of the Center CityCorridors area andcontainguiding principles and themes to inform the evolution of the Study Area over time. The C3SP study area is comprised of approximately 2,600 acres and is centrally located within the City of Anaheim. The C3SP area boundaries are the SR-91 Freeway to the north, Interstate 5, and Platinum Triangle to the south, East Street and the Metrolink Railroadto the east, and Interstate 5 and West Street to the west. The applicable parcels are identified in Table B-8, Sites Inventory Table of Appendix B.
The Specific Plan will provide opportunities for residential andmixed-use housing development within the Specific Plan’s four planning areas. A core Guiding Principle of the plan is to “Provide a wider range of new housing options.” The Specific Plan will considerthe permitting of different housing typologies based on the context and appropriatenesstothe area.
Timeframe: Within 36 months of adoption of the Sixth CycleHousing Element Objective: Adopt the Center City Corridors (C3) Specific Plan ResponsibleAgency: CommunityEconomicDevelopment /Planning & Building Funding Sources: Grant Funded ProjectGrants
Timeline for Implementation:Ongoing Within 12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element but no later than February 2023
Housing Production Strategy 1I: Facilitate Housing Co-Located with Religious and Community Facilities (NEW)
Religious and Community Facilities provides a unique opportunity to provide affordable housing on properties that may have surplus land available. Additionally, these sites may support affordable housing options that could provide additional support services on site.
AB 1851 (Wicks, 2020) allows faith-based organizations like churches and other places of worship to reduce or eliminate parking requirements when they seek to build affordable housing on land they own or lease.
AB 1851 allows faith-based organizations to build housing on their parking lots and prohibits cities from requiring the replacement of those parking spaces.
The City will evaluate opportunities to facilitate co-location of housing on Religious and Community Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-14 Facilitiessites through a Zoning Code amendment and collaboratewith faith-based organizationsto support viable, voluntary opportunities.
Objective: Affordable housing of Religious and Community Facility Sites Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building Source of Funds:General Fund
Timeline for Implementation:OngoingWithin 24 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Housing Production Strategy 1J:Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone (NEW) The City established a Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone in 2011. The RO Overlay Zone has the following major objectives:
• Create “by-right” opportunities for residential development on sites throughout the City,consistent with the density allowed by their current GeneralPlan designation. • To implement state laws that require cities to demonstrate available land capacity and zoning tools to accommodate the City’s projectedneed for housing; • Provide amix of housing types; and
• Stimulate market-drivendevelopment investment.
The City will identifyhas identified additional sites, included in Table B-8 of Appendix B, to apply the RO Overlay Zone to enhance the ability to provide additional affordable housing opportunities citywide.
Objective: Affordable housing on ResidentialOpportunity Overlay Zone sites Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund / Grants
Timeline for Implementation:OngoingWithin 12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Housing Production Strategy 1K: Use of Sitesfrom Previous Housing Element Cycles (NEW) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), any non-vacant sites identified in the prior fifthFifth Cycle or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods, shall be provided by-right development when at least 20% of the units in the proposed development are affordable to lower-income households.
Table B-8 of Appendix B identifies vacant and non-vacant sites that the City used in previous Housing Elements to meet the current RHNA need. To comply with State law, the City will amend the Zoning Code to permit residential uses by-right for housing development in which at least 20-percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households for sites that:
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-15 • Are non-vacant and identified in the prior planning period; and • Vacantsitesincluded in twoor more consecutive planning periods Pursuant to the text on page 12 of HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, “Sites where zoning already permits residential “use by right” as set forth in Government Code section 65583.2 (i) at the beginning of the planning period would be considered to meet this requirement.” On such sites, the City would not require, but would be encourage the development of units affordable to lower-income households.
Objective: Compliance with state law
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building / Housing Authority Source of Funds: General Fund / Grants
Timeline for Implementation: UponWithin 12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Housing Production Strategy 1L:Development of Housing Information (AMENDED) The City continues to refer persons interested in homeownership to Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County, a non-profit agency that assists families with housing opportunities. To disseminate affordable housing information to a wider audience, the City also establishedwill establish mechanisms to make available information accessible to the public that provides a “one stop” location for comprehensive information about Anaheim’s housing projects, programs, policies, available funding, technical assistance, and other applicable items. In addition to consolidating information, the City will provide information in easily accessible locations including the City’s website, public facilities, at public events and at locations community membersfrequent. The City shall continue to maintain and update public information as needed and make improvement that will increase the accessibility and usability of the program. The City will update the City’s website, provide updates to outreach collateral in various languages andtarget specific outreach activitiesto the segments ofthe community in need of assistance.
Objective: Facilitate disseminationof housing information Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1M:Developer Incentives Program (AMENDED) The incentives and concessionsthat canbeofferedto developerstooffsetincreasedcosts associatedwith the Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-16 production of affordable housing include: funding of development fees; write downs of land costs; longterm ground leases of public property; pre-development loans/grants; funding of off-site improvements; bond financing; density bonushousing incentives; fee deferrals; and assistance with tax credit and other funding applications.
For non-Housing Authority sites, the City will support and seek to utilize any emerging State and Federal and private funding sources.
Objective: Financial incentivesfor developers(basedonavailable funds) tohelp facilitate the construction of new and rehabilitatedaffordable housing units by 2029
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development/ / Housing Authority/ / Orange County Housing Trust Funds
Source of Funds: HUD Funds/ / Others TBDState, Federal and private funds as they become available Timeline for Implementation: On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1N: First Time Homebuyer Program (AMENDED) Current first time homebuyer programs include deferred payment second mortgage loans to assist lowincome households in purchasing a home. This loan program offers a 3% simple interest rate and defers monthly loan payments for up to 30 years. Homebuyers are required to provide a minimum 3% down payment. To promote the availability of the Down Payment Assistance Program, the City will include information, including application requirements.
There are limited funding options for the provision of first time down payment assistance programs at this time; however, the City will explore opportunities to enhance current offerings.
Objective: Mortgage assistance, subject to federalfunding availability and local allocation of funds Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: BEGIN / Other State and Federal Funds
Timeline for Implementation: On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1O: Police Residence Assistance (AMENDED) This existing program encourages local homeownership for Anaheim police officers who wish to reside in Anaheim. Through this program, the City provides one-time, no interestforgivable loans of up to $10,000 to Anaheim police officersfor purchase of an owner-occupied home within the City.
Objective: TwoProvide assistance to two (2) households
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-17 Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1P: Review of Entitlement Processes, Development Standards, and Development Fees (AMENDED)
The City understands that overly restrictive development standards, burdensome entitlement processes and unreasonable development fees can pose a significant barrier to future residential development. In order to ensure that such conditions do not pose a local barrier to future housing production, the City will continuously examine its residential development standards, entitlement processes and fees during the 2021-2029 Planning Period to ensure their reasonableness and effectiveness in support of future residential development.
The City will continue to conduct an annual evaluation of standards, processes, and fees to ensure the continued reasonableness.
Objective: Continued evaluation of reasonableness of development fees, standards, and processes Responsible Party: Planning& Building / Public Works
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, Annual ReviewOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable
Housing Production Strategy 1Q: Promoting Availability of Housing Opportunity Sites (NEW) Appendix B Housing Sites Analysis provides a detailed listing of properties that the City has designated and/or planned for residential land use inidentified as available to meet the future.City’s 2021-2029 RHNA.
The sites identified in Appendix B demonstrate theCity’s ability to accommodate its projected housing need by income category for the 2021-2029 PlanningPeriod. The City intends for theseThese sites towill be available for residential development. through the Strategies identified in this Housing Plan. The City will continue to market these available sites by making them available on the City’s website and providing access to allmake available information on the required development standards and entitlement provisions governing applicable to these sites.
The City will re- evaluate its Housing Opportunity site inventorySite Inventory halfway through the 2021- 2029 Planning Period to determine if the program has been effective in providing housing opportunities for a variety of income levels, including lower income and if. If housing production at all income levels is not proportionally meeting the City’s RHNA, the City should apply other strategies as a meanswill take additional actions to encourage housing development for a varietyof income levels. these actions include:
• Outreach to local market-rate and affordable housing developers to solicit feedback and provide incentives and funding sources available for residential development of the sites. • Identification of additional sites at any point throughout the planning period if the City’s remaining inventory cannot accommodate the remaining RHNA.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-18 Objective: Promotion of Housing Opportunity Sites on the City’s website and re-evaluate the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory mid-way through the 6th Cycle; if necessary, outreach to housing developers and potentially identify new sites
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, MidOn-going, with mid Sixth Cycle Reviewreview of SitesHousing Opportunity Site Inventory
Housing Production Strategy 1R: MultifamilyMultiple-Family Rezoning in High Resource Area (NEW) The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) has created opportunity maps identifying areas in Anaheim whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—, particularly long-term outcomes for children. To capitalize on the opportunities within these areas, the City will identify candidate siteshas identified Candidate Sites in Table B-8 of Appendix B within these High Resource Areas for rezoning to Multiple Familybe rezoned to allow multiple-family residentialuse.
Objective: Allow Multiple -Family Housing in High Resource Areas Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building Source of Funds:General Fund
Timeline forImplementation:AmendZoning Code within 36Within 12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adoption.
Housing ProgramProduction Strategy 1S:Accessory DwellingUnits (NEW) California State ADU Law (Government Code Section 65852.2) establishes statutory requirements for the zoning requirements and review process of ADUs across the State. The City will adopt Municipal Code and ADU Ordinance amendments to comply with the State ADU Law, , and thereafter as may be amended from time to time, and as detailed in HCD’s ADU Ordinance letter to the City of Anaheim dated December 14, 2021.
In addition, the City will continue to accommodate and promote the construction of affordable ADUsAccessory Dwelling Units (ADU) by increasing the public awareness of the ADU and Junior ADU permit requirements and new provisions in State law expanding opportunities for ADU development. The City will develop outreach material for public dissemination, including updates to the City’s website, information at City Hall and via other appropriateprint and digital media. To promote the development of Accessory Dwelling Units, the Citywill complete the following actions within the specific time periods:
• Update relevant Codes to reflect state law. within one year of adoption of the Housing Element Update
• Partner with OCCOG and surrounding jurisdictions in support of creating “pre-approved” ADUPlans. • Proactively outreach to property owners in Anaheim to provide greater awareness of program components by utilizing a varietyof print and electronic media. every two years Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-19 • Explore additional incentives and/or program components that will further support the development ADU’s andJunior ADU’sin
• City to maintainMaintain an ADU monitoring program during the planning period that tracks ADU development, including affordability levels and deed-restrictedaffordable units. • Consider reduced fees or streamlined permitting for affordable ADUs. • Conduct a mid-cycle reviewannual reviews of ADU development within the 2021-2029 planning period to evaluate if the City is achieving its production estimates.
Should ADU development not occur at a rate consistent with assumptions of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City will, within six months, review and identify additional development incentives and conduct additional outreach of programs available.
Objective: Promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units through partnerships, outreach, and accessible development information; conduct annual reviews of applicable legislation, ADU development and implement incentives and actions listed within the strategy.
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, Mid Municipal Code amendment within 12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Review of Sites InventoryHousing Element with review annually thereafter Housing Production Strategy 1T: Consideration of New Zoning Tools (NEW) AB 73 (Chiu, 2017, Government Code Section 65582.1, 66200 through 66210 and Public Resources Code 21155.10 and 21155.11) authorizes localities to create “Housing Sustainability Districts” as a method to streamline the development of housing. The legislation provides a pathway for state financial incentives to cities and counties. This law allows for the creation of housing on infill sites around public transportation by incentivizing local governments to complete upfront zoning and environmental reviewand rewarding them when they permit housing.
SB 540 (Roth, 2017, authorizes cities and counties to establish a “Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone” by preparing a policy and regulatory plan and certifying an environmental impact report (EIR). The plan should be similar to that described in existing planning law, but must include the planned location of 100to 1,500 housing units at specified minimum densities and must be consistent with an applicable SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy. The plan must include additional details, including design review criteria and additional public hearing requirements that the local jurisdiction has added to the plan adoption process. Some housing projects will not require additional CEQA review and will require approval within 60 days afterthe Cityhas deemed the application complete, including projects that:
• Comply with the policy and regulatoryplan(s);
• Include a prescribed amount of very-low, low-, moderate-, and medium-income housing units; Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-20 and
• Would be constructedusing prevailing wage rules.
The City is currently planning plans to apply its Residential Opportunity (RO) and Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay Zones to sites that the City has identified to meet its RHNA allocation and are not already within residential or mixed-use zones. However, asAs part of this rezoning effort, which will also include amendments to address existing inconsistencies between the General Plan Land Use Elementland uses and Zoning designations, the City will consider the possibility of utilizing eitherother zoning tools a “Housing Sustainability District” or a “Workforce Opportunity Zone.” The City will complete the environmental clearance for these sites in conjunction with the programmatic EIR addressing comprehensive review of rezoned to encourage housing sites in the City, implementing this Housing Elementdevelopments on sites that consist of non-residential uses.
Objective: Consideration of New Zoning Tools
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds:General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: withinWithin36 months of the adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Housing Production Strategy 1U: Replacement Housing
The City may have existing non-vacant sites that may contain vacant or demolished residential units that were occupied by lower income households or households subject to affordability requirements within the last five years. The City will adopt a formal replacement housing program to ensure the replacement of any units lost for housing units shall comply with the same requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65915(c)(3), if applicable.
Objective: Replacement Housing for Current Residential Sites, if applicable Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Within 12 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Housing Production Strategy 1V:Availability of Zoning, Development Standards and Fees Online The City of Anaheim shall continue to provide all zoning and development standards, and fees for each parcel within its jurisdictional boundaries on the City’s website pursuant to government transparency laws contained in Government Code Section 65940.19(a)(1)(B) and other provisions as may be amended from time to time.
Objective: Dissemination of information
Responsible Party: Planning & Building Division
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-21 Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 1W: City-Owned Sites and Surplus Land Act The City will maintain compliance with the Surplus Land Act throughout the 2021-2029 Housing Element period. The City will assess the appropriateness of and consider implementing the following: outreach opportunities with housing developers, requests for proposals, development incentives, fee waivers, priority processing, and financial assistance (when available) to facilitate and incentivize developers to develop housing units on City-owned sites. The City will conduct an annual review of applicable legislation and promote program and funding incentives available for the development of affordable housing units on City-owned sites.
Objective: Maintain compliance with the Surplus Land Act Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: LMIHAF/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Assess potential incentive actions with 2 years of adoption of the Housing Element; implement actions within 3 years of adoption of the Housing Element, or as otherwise required by State Law
Policy Strategy #2: Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and Preservation of “At-Risk” Units (AMENDED)
To ensure the continued provision of affordable units, the City will regularlymonitor the over 3,805 deedrestricted, affordable housing units that exist citywide. Of these units, the City has identified 524 units as having the potential of converting to market-rate units during the planning period because of expiring deed restrictions. The City will provide targeted outreach to owners of these units to encourage the extension and/or renewal of deed restrictions and/or covenants that ensure affordability. In order to address units atrisk of conversion proactively, the City shall develop a program to collaborate with non- profit housing providers and develop a preservation strategy. The preservation strategy will allow the City to act quickly if, and when, it receives notice of conversion. As part of the strategy, the City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements; conduct tenant education and pursue funding to preserve the units.
Objective: ContinualContinued monitoring of all assisted units with focused effort on the identified 524 atrisk units.
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD/ / State/ / Federal/ / Qualified Preservation Entities Timeline for Implementation:OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2B: Conservation of Existing Historic Resources Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-22 (AMENDED)
The City is currently home to 381390 historic homes that maintain valid Mills Act contracts. These contracts provide a powerful incentive aimed at maintaining and preserving the cultural resources that add tremendous value to many of the City’s neighborhoods, including its established Historic Districts. The City shall continue to provide opportunities for the conservation of existing historic resources through the Mills Act Program. The City shall also continue to provide outreach to residents within the City’s Historic Districts and owners of historic properties outside of these districts via print media, the City’s website, and social media to inform them of the programbenefits.
Objective: Continued conservation of Historic Resources Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2C: Community-Based Neighborhood Enhancement (AMENDED)
Continue to encourage the involvement of neighborhood-based groups in the conservation, preservation, and enhancement of neighborhood quality of life. Efforts will focus on community participation related to planning activities,strategies and programsthat directly address quality of life in Anaheim’s neighborhoods.
The City will continue focused outreach efforts, through a variety of marketing techniques (e.g., website, informational flyers, facilitating pre-development community meetings, providing regular development updates to established neighborhood organizations, etc.).), to encourage additional public participation in ongoing neighborhood improvement efforts.
Objective: Enhanced community participation in neighborhood enhancement efforts Responsible Party: Planning & Building / Housing and Community Development / Police / Community Services
Source of Funds:General Fund / Other Sources TBDfunding sources as they become available Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable
Housing Conservation and PreservationStrategy 2D:Neighborhood Improvement (AMENDED) The City shall continue the identification and mitigation of substandard units and properties exhibiting deferred maintenance through continued implementation of the Neighborhood Improvement Program, and enhanced Code Enforcement efforts. The City shall continue to focus efforts on neighborhoods exhibiting Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-23 significant blight and on those “borderline” neighborhoods that have the potential for blight absent focused attention. The City shall also continue to facilitate private efforts to acquire substandard rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability covenants. During the planning period, the City will re-assess its list of areas within Neighborhood Improvement Program Priority Level III and IV neighborhoods1 toensurethatthese neighborhoods remain properly classified. In addition, the City will seek to identify other neighborhoods that are exhibiting blight, or that have the potential for blight, for potential inclusion on the priority lists associatedwiththe Neighborhood Improvement Program.
The City has facilitated private efforts in priority neighborhoods such as the Hermosa Village, Paseo Village, and the Avon Dakota neighborhoods to acquire substandard rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability covenants. The City has rehabilitated and entered into covenants for over 734 units in these neighborhoods. The City will continue to conduct additional acquisitions of substandard rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings, and establish long-term affordability covenants in the following neighborhoods and others asthe City identifies such neighborhoods:
• Ariel/Olinda • ABC
• Glen/Neighbors • Rose/Bush/Vine
• Avon/Dakota • Jeffrey/Lynne
• Guinida Lane • Haster/ Orangewood
• Balsam/Curtis • Park Lane
• Anna Drive • Benmore/Canfield
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable housing developments to reduce housing productioncosts.
Objective: Identification and improvement of blighted and borderline blighted neighborhoods Responsible Party: Planning & Building / Housing and Community Development/ / Community Services Source of Funds: General Fund / HUD/LMIHAF/PLHA
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2E: Residential Uses Not Defined as Single Housekeeping Unit (NEW)
Section 18.92.220 of the Anaheim Municipal Code defines a "Single Housekeeping Unit" as follows: “A nontransient group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the use of common areas, for the purpose of sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores and expenses. Ifthe dwelling is rented, each adult resident is named on and is a party to a single written lease that gives each resident joint use and responsibility for the premises. The membership of the household is determined by the residents, not by a landlord, property manager or other third party. Other typical factorsthatindicate a household operating as a Single Housekeeping Unit may include, but not limited to, the following: the residents do not have separate and private entrances from other residents; the residents do not have a 1 Priority Level III neighborhood is characterized as a neighborhood that is experiencing moderate to substantial decline; Priority Level IV neighborhood is characterized as a neighborhood that is in severe social, and physical decline.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-24 separate secured food facilities such as separate refrigerators or food-prep areas; the household is strictly resident-run; there is no care or supervision provided by a third-party or a paid resident/housemanager at the dwelling unit or on the property.”
Section 18.2636.040.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code describes a “Boarding House” as follows: “A building, or portion thereof, where lodging is provided for persons, with or without meals for monetary or non- monetary compensation, on a commercial basis, for typical stays of more than seven (7) consecutive nights with no cooking facilities in the guest rooms. The total number of people living at the property, including permanent residents, live-in operators, and guests, shall not exceed fifteen (15) people. This use class shall not include a Hotel, Motel, Bed and Breakfast Inn, Convalescent & Rest Homes, Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facilities, Community Care Facilities–Licensed, Community Care Facilities- Unlicensed, Sober Living Homes, or any other uses defined in this Section.” Staff will continue to review State Lawlaw to verify that it meets all State law requirements for uses that fall between the categories of a Single Housekeeping Unit and a Boarding House., and if necessary, amend the Municipal Code to ensure consistency with State law. The purpose of this review will be to ensure that these uses, where State law requires the City to treat said uses as a residential use, do not create any impacts to residentialneighborhoodsthat are nottypical of a Single Housekeeping Unit.
Objective: ComplianceMaintain compliance with State Law Requirements for Residential Uses that do not meet the definitionof Single Housekeeping Unitlaw requirements Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing, 2021-2029Review annually Policy Strategy #3: Housing Quality and Design Strategy Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3A: Efficient useUse of Energy Resourcesin Residential Development (AMENDED)
Encourage residential developers to maximize energy conservation through proactive site, building and systems design that exceed the provisions of Title 24 of the California Building Code. To further promote efficient use of energy resources, the City shall investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of offering incentives or otherstrategiestofurther encourageenergy conservationin new and existing housing. The City will create and promote a fact sheet of energy conservation resources, incentives, and strategies, and maintain up-to-date information on the City website and at City Hall.
Objective: Increased sustainable building practices/ and energy conservation Responsible Party: Public Utilities / Planning & Building Source of Funds: Public Utilities / General Fund
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-25 Timeline for Implementation: Annually, as funds are availableReview annually Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Monitoring of Adopted Reasonable Accommodation Procedures (AMENDED)
The City understands the importance of providing equal housing opportunity for persons with special needs.
Persons withdisabilities may require reasonable accommodationstomeettheir particular housing needs. To comply with federal and state housing laws, the City adopted reasonable accommodation procedures to provide exceptions and/or relief from Code regulations and permitting procedures that may have a discriminatory effect on housing for individuals with disabilities. The policy shall includeincludes procedures for requesting accommodation, timeline for processing and appeals, criteria for determining whether a requestedaccommodation is reasonable, andministerial approval for minor requests.
The City shall continue to monitor to ensure the effectiveness of reasonable accommodation standards and procedures.
Objective: Monitoring of adopted reasonable accommodationprocedures Responsible Party: Planning & Building / City Attorney
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation:OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3C: Universal Design (AMENDED) The City recognizes that all people have varying physical abilities and that many people will encounter temporary or permanent changes in ability to conduct the tasks necessary for daily living throughout their lives. The City adopted its Universal Design Principles in 2012. The Principles are available on the City’s Website to guide the design and constructionof homes to incorporate features that are usable by people of all abilities. These features help to create housing that can allow residents to stay in their homes over their lifetime and create living environments that are safer and more accessible for everyone. The Universal Design program intends to provide development incentives, which will facilitate the building ofresidential spaces that include products and technology to accommodate families of all ages and backgrounds. The City shall continue to monitor over time to ensure implementation of Universal Design featuresin housing.
Objective: Monitoring of UniversalDesign Principles
Responsible Party: Planning & Building
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3D: Parks and Open Space (AMENDED)and Recreational Amenities The GreenElement of Anaheim’s GeneralPlan is a comprehensive plan to ensure thatthe Cityis meeting the Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-26 community’s recreational needs. Parks and open space are important factors that contribute to Anaheim residents’ quality of life. As the housing stock and population grows in the City, and vacant landbecomes scarcer, the Citywillneed tocontinue toexplore creative opportunitiesto provide quality parks, open space, and recreational amenities for Anaheim residents. The City will ensure consistency between the goals of the Green Element and Housing Element to ensure a balance between the provision of additional housing and additional recreational amenitiesthatsupportthe growing population of the City.
Objective: Ensure consistency with the goals of the Green Element Responsible Party: Planning & Building / Community Services/Housing and Community Development Source of Funds:General Fund
Timeline for Implementation:OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3E: Community Design (AMENDED) The Community Design Element of Anaheim’s General Plan provides policy guidance to ensure quality design of the City’s built environment. This element addresses community-wide design features such as gateways, landscaping, streets, and public signage, as well as special policies for specific districts within the City. Many of these policies are also reflected in the City’s Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Municipal Code), as well the City’s otherdesign guidelines/planssuch as theAffordable Housing DesignGuidelines; The Anaheim Colony, Vision Principles and Design Guidelines; The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and the GreaterDowntownof Anaheim Guide for Development.
In order to ensure quality design of the City’s neighborhoods, the City will ensure that it continues to use and reference the Community Design Element during the review of proposed housing developments. The Citywill also update the Community Design Element to address current development trends, as necessary.
The City will comprehensively review the City’s Community Design Element and Zoning Code and update the existing design guidelines and/or convert appropriate sections into objective development standards, as applicable and consistent with the requirements of state law.
Objective: Ensure quality design of future residential projects Responsible Party: Planning & Building / Public Works / Fire Source of Funds:General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3F: Provision of Infrastructure to Serve Housing (AMENDED) The City understands the need to provide adequate infrastructure to support existing and future housing needs. To address future demand on infrastructure facilities proactively, the Citywill work collaboratively to ensure future housing demand is coordinated with future capital planning for the City’s potable water, Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-27 electrical,stormdrain and sewerinfrastructure systems.
The City shall continue to identify existing deficiencies to the water, electrical, storm drain and sewer systems in those areas where the City expects future residential development to occur, and balance those needs with public safety, economics, efficiencies, regulatory requirements, and other Capital Improvement Plan objectives.
Objective: Provisionof infrastructure to support future housing growth Responsible Party: Public Works/ / Public Utilities / Planning & Building / Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund/ / Impact Fees/ / Grants/ / Utility Rates/ / User Fees Timeline for Implementation:OngoingOn-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Production Strategy 3G: Affordable Housing Design Guidelines (AMENDED) The City’s Affordable Housing Design Guidelines provide summary of broad level design guidance for the design of affordable housing units. To further the effectiveness of these Design Guidelines, the City will evaluate their content and effectiveness. Based upon this review, the City will adopt additionalThe City will comprehensively review the City’s Community Design Element and Zoning Code and update the existing design guidanceguidelines and/or convertingconvert appropriate sections into objective development standards within the City’sZoning Code, consistent with the requirements of state law.
Objective: Effective Affordable Housing Design Guidance Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building Source of Funds:General Fund / Grants
Timeline for Implementation: Amend Affordable Housing Design Guidelines withinWithin 36 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adoption.
Policy Strategy #4: Housing Rehabilitation
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Development through Acquisition and Conversion (AMENDED)
The elimination of Redevelopment has diminished the City’s ability to maintain prior levels of acquisition and rehabilitation, which the City had previously used to create affordable housing units. As a result, the City will primarily focus the use of its limited resources in neighborhoods previously identified as Level III and Level IV priority neighborhoods through the Neighborhood Improvement Program. To support such efforts, the City shall continue to provide, through regulatory incentives such as expedited processing, financial incentives, and development concessions, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of blighted apartment housing units. The City will focus efforts on the acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, and accessibilityof existing market-rate unitsto long-term affordable units.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-28 The City Council has also continued to support the continued acquisition and rehabilitation of apartment buildings in the Hermosa Village, Paseo Village and Avon Dakota neighborhoods in order to create and expand long-term affordability. The City has rehabilitated and entered into covenants for over 734 units in these two neighborhoods and will continue to implement an aggressive acquisitions program within these neighborhoods. The City will continue to conduct additional acquisitions of substandard rental properties, rehabilitate the buildings, and establish long-term affordability covenants in the following neighborhoods and others asthe City identifies such neighborhoods:
• Ariel/Olinda • ABC
• Glen/Neighbors • Rose/Bush/Vine
• Avon/Dakota • Jeffrey/Lynne
• Guinida Lane • Haster/ Orangewood
• Balsam/Curtis • Park Lane
• Anna Drive • Benmore/Canfield
In addition, pursuantIn conjunction with Policy 2D, the City will identify and improve blighted and borderline blighted neighborhoods. This may include the identification of blighted non-residential properties with a potential to provide additional housing opportunity, especially for lower income residents.
Pursuant to AMC 18.38.215, the City encourages the conversion of existing motels, and other commercial and office structures, to Supportive, Transitional andMultiple-FamilyHousing for low-income persons, for a defined period of time or until the City achieves a maximum unit threshold. This Code section established the regulatory framework to achieve a high level of livability for residents and ensurecompatibility with surrounding uses insupport of CityCouncilpolicies todevelop a continuum of care that assists individuals in transitioning from homelessness and Emergency Shelters to Transitional and Supportive Housing. During the fifthFifth cycle, the City used this Code section to convert a former motel into 69 units of Permanent Supportive Housing. The City will continue to encourage the use of this Code section in the sixth cycle.and pursue further SRO development as described in Policy 5P.
Consistent with the City’s on-going practice, the City is committing to allocate substantial financial and other resources to provide affordability through the acquisition, preservation, and conversion of market-rate units to lower-income units. It is the City’s intent to provide such acquisition, preservation, and conversion of existing housing units in conformance with the State’s Alternate Adequate Sites provisions, as specified in Government Section 65583.1(c). Appendix B, identifies adequate sites for all income categories and as such provision of Alternative Adequate Sites as allowed by 65583.1(c) is not required.
Objective: Very-Rehabilitation and existing and creation of new very low income units - and low-income units
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME,/ PLHA /LMIHAF/HUD/State and Federal funds Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029 On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4B:Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes (AMENDED) Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-29 The City of Anaheim has a Residential Rehabilitation Program to assist low-income families in Anaheim to improve their living conditions by focusing efforts on health, safety, and accessibility through critical home repairs. The City provides financial assistance for needed repairs as a forgivable loan and completed by our non-profit partner Habitat for Humanity of Orange County. The goal of this program is to correct hazardous structural conditions; to make improvements considered necessary to eliminate blight; and, to correct building and health code violations.
To supplement this program, the City shall seek local, State and Federal funding resources to provide additional rehabilitation loans for appropriate exterior and interior improvements that enhance the quality, safety, accessibility,andlivability of existing single-family homes.
Objective: Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG / HOME
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029 On-going, with annual review and adjustment as applicable Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4C: Relocation Assistance (AMENDED) As and when required by law, the City shall provide financial relocation assistance, such as payment of moving costs, for qualified tenants during City-assisted substantial rehabilitation of residential units.
Relocationcan be temporary or permanent.
Objective: RelocationProvide relocation assistance, as needed Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME/Low-Mod Set-Aside/ / LMIHAF/ Various State, Federal Funding Sources to be Determineddetermined
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029, On-going, with annual review and adjustment as neededapplicable
Policy Strategy #5: Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5A: Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers (NEW)
State law provisions have recently been modified to require approval 'by right' of supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Low barrier navigation centers are generally defined as service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing. Low barrier navigation centers provide temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. If the City receives applications for these uses, it will process them as required by California Government Code Section 65660-65688.The City will amend its Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-30 Zoningthe Municipal Code, pursuant to allow for processing and review of permit applications consistent with California Government Code Article 12 (Sections 65651, to permit Supportive65660-65688 and thereafter as may be amended from time to time.
Supportive Housing in Multi-Family and Mixed Use Zones: Government Code Section 65583 (and 65651) also identifies that supportive housing, as defined in 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, subject to provisions in Article 11 (commencing with 65650).
Article 11 regulations provide housing opportunities for the target population of persons, including persons with disabilities, and families who are “homeless,” as that term is defined by Section 11302 of Title 42 of the United States Code, or who are “homeless youth,” as that term is defined by paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 12957 of the Government Code. The City will amend the Municipal Code to regulate supportive housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65650, to permit supportive housing as a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses, subject to the requirements of State law and to comply with State law thereafter as may be amended from time to time. This amendment will apply to all zones where a multifamily and mixed uses are permitted. Specifically, the City will add a definition, consistent with Government Code Section 65650, for supportive housing relevant to the specific target population to AMC 18.36 and update AMC Chapters
18.06, 18.20, 18.24, 18.30, 18.32 to permit this use by right consistent with the by right treatment of multifamily or mixed uses and subject to the requirements of Section 65651. The AMC amendment will also identify the streamlined approval process including plan requirements set forth in Article 11.
Objective: Permanent Supportive HousingCompliance with the State law Responsible Agency: Planning & Building
Funding Sources: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Amend Zoning Code withinWithin 24 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adoption.
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5B: Transitional and Supportive Housing Government Code Section 65583 identifies that transitional housing and supportive housing, as defined in 65582 of Article 10.6, shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Article 10.6 regulations provide housing opportunities to persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.
In response to HCD’s Notice of Violation to the City of Anaheim dated December 14, 2021, the City will amend the Municipal Code to regulate transitional housing and supportive housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65582, consistently regardless of the number of residents and remove the conditional use permit requirement regardless of size, unless required for residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
This amendment will apply to all zones where a residential use of property is permitted or conditionally Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-31 permitted. Specifically, the City will update the use tables in Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) Chapters 18.04,
18.06, 18.20, 18.24, 18.30, 18.32 to identify transitional housing and supportive housing uses (as currently defined in AMC 18.36) as permitted by right, conditionally permitted, or not permitted, consistent with the same type of dwelling in the zone. The distinction of 6 or fewer, or 7 or more will be eliminated, consistent with the following example.
Objective: Compliance with the State law
Responsible Party: Community Development / Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Within 90-days following Housing Element Certification Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5C: Zoning Incentivesfor Special Needs Housing (NEW) The City understands Special Needs groups may have unique housing needs that developers do not typically address in traditional housing development. To encourage private development to address special needs design features the City will incorporate design features and facilities considerations for Special Needs populations and will evaluate and adopt a variety of zoning incentives to encourage the inclusion of these featuresin housing development by amending the Zoning Code.
Objective: IncentivesProvide incentives for Special Needs Housing Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development /Planning & Building Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: AmendZoning Code within Within 24 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adoption.
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy5D:Compliance with SB35 Permit Streamlining Provisions(NEW) The City of Anaheim will establish written procedures a streamlined approval process to comply with California Government Code Section 65913.4 and publish those procedures for the public, as appropriateapplicable, to comply with the requirements of SB 35. Theseprovisions apply when the Citydoes not meettheStatemandatedrequirementsforHousing Element progress and reporting on Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Currently, the City of Anaheim is subject to SB 35 and is required to process development projects with atleast 50% affordable units through a streamlined permit process (i.e., 90 days for projects with up to 150 units). All projects coveredby SB 35 are stillsubjecttothe objective development Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-32 standards ofthe CityofAnaheim Municipal Code and Building Code. However, qualifying projects cannot be subject to Design Review or public hearings; and in many cases, the City cannot require parking. Per SB 35 requirements, the City cannot impose parking requirements on a SB 35 qualified streamlining project if it is located:
• Within a half-mile of public transit;
• Within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; • In an area where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the development; or
• Where there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the proposed project.
One parking space per unit may be required of all other SB 35 projects. The City’s status with regard to SB 35 can change over time with a record of good progress towards RHNA and timely reporting to the State.
Objective: Compliance with the State law; provide applicable provisions based upon SB 35 requirements and disseminate information to developers and the public.
ResponsibleAgency: Planning & Building / Housing and Community Development Funding Sources: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029Within 24 months of adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5E:Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (NEW) Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions during the planning period in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected classes, as defined by State law. Subsection D of Section 3 of the Housing Element contains the City’s complete AFFH analysis. As shown in Table 3-52, concrete actions to address fair housing issues are contained throughout the City’s policy program. Strategy 5E captures additional policies as recommended by the AI.
The City will collaborate with appropriate capable organizations to review housing discrimination complaints, assist in the facilitation of equitable dispute resolution, and, where necessary, refer complainantstoappropriate stateorfederalagenciesforfurtherinvestigation, action,andresolution. Section 3of theHousing Element contains ananalysis ofAnaheim’s existing conditions. The analysisfound that:
• There are no racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPs) within Anaheim as identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within the City with a non-white population of 50 percent or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area. However,there are two census tracts,whichHUD identifies as areasofhigh segregationand experiencing poverty. • The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Anaheim Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-33 have a moderate to low level of access to opportunity throughout the City. Additionally, analysis of the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps show that those maps classify some census tracts in Anaheim with the “Low to Moderate Resource” designation. This indicates that these censustracts may lack essential mobility, retail/food, economic, housing, or civic resource that may promote upward mobility and result in healthier neighborhoods. East Anaheim shows some census tracts some areas as highresource and high opportunity.
• The City provides moderate transit trip opportunity, additionally, about 97% of all city jobs are within ½ mile of transit but just about 3 percent of the working population uses public transit as a primary source of transportation.
• The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community through the designation of sites tomeet the very low and low-income RHNA need (Appendix B) These sites are dispersedthroughout the community. • There are 524 current units with affordable covenants at risk of converting to market rate before the year 2029 in the City.
• The CalEnviro Screenmapping tool (2018) identified most of the City as moderate to high scoring, indicating high pollution levels,some of which overlap with identified R/ECAPsin the City.
In addition to actions outlined in Table 3-52, the City will also do the following as recommended by the 16 Orange County Cities Regional Analysis of Impediments:
Impediments Actions
Regional Impediments Carried Over from 2010 Regional and Subregional AI Housing
Discrimination
• In partnership with each city's fair housing provider, conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach should include workshops, informational booths, presentations to civic leaders and community groups, staff trainings, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature.
• Conduct focused outreach to small property owners/ landlords; conduct property manager trainings on a regular basis; promote fair housing certificate training. • Provide general counseling and referrals to address tenant-landlord issues, and provide periodic tenant-landlord walk-in clinics at City Halls and other community locations.
• Include testing/audits within the scope of work for each city's fair housing provider.
Support enforcement activity and publicize outcomes of fair housing litigation.
Racial and
Ethnic
Segregation
• Coordinate with fair housing providers to focus fair housing services, education/outreach, and/or additional testing in areas of racial/ethnic concentrations.
• Offer 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.
• Promote equal access to information on the availability of affordable housing by Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-34 providing information in multiple languages, and through methods that have proven successful in outreaching to the community, particularly those hard-to-reach groups. • Affirmatively market first-time homebuyer and/or housing rehabilitation programs to low and moderate income areas, and areas of racial/ethnic concentration. • Work collaboratively with local housing authorities to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and de-concentration policies are implemented.
Discriminatory
Advertising
• Through each city's fair housing contractor, periodically monitor local newspapers and online media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory housing advertisements. When identified, make contact with the individual or firm and provide fair housing education.
• Take steps to encourage both the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register to publish a Fair Housing Notice and a "no pets" disclaimer that indicates rental housing owners must provide reasonable accommodations, including "service animals" and "companion animals" for disabled persons.
Hate Crimes • Continue to monitor FBI data to determine if any hate crimes are housing-related and 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 • As resources permit, monitor HMDA data annually using the 2013 HMDA analysis as a benchmark.
• As resources permit, monitor the top 10 lenders in Orange County to compare and contrast loan denial rates and percentage of loans completed to minority populations. • Both of the Orange County fair housing service contractors should assist in identifying potential issues regarding redlining, predatory lending and other illegal lending activities. In addition, each city should review 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.
• Each city should explore ways to collaborate with local lenders and support lenders’ efforts to work with community groups to help minority households purchase their homes.
• Collaborative efforts should ensure that minority groups have access and knowledge of City programs, supportive services, and provide for networking opportunities with these groups.
• Coordinate with local lenders to expand outreach efforts to first time homebuyers in minority neighborhoods.
• Affirmatively market 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.
Source: City of Anaheim, 16 Orange County Cities Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices, 2016, pg. 15-17.
All actions recommended by the AI would be ongoing.
The City will continue to work with the community to address potential constraints to fair housing Anaheim.
This may include actions such as an analysis of barriers to entry into homeownership or rental,review of historic policies or restrictions that may have prevented or may still prevent disadvantaged groupsfrom locating in Anaheim, or specific actionsthat contributeto Anaheim being amore inclusive to allracial,social, and economic groups.
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-35 Objective: Affirmatively further fair housing
ResponsibleAgency: Housing and Community Development / Planning & Building / Economic Development Funding Sources: General Fund / CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: 2021-2029On-going; Timeline for each action is stated above and in Table 3-
52. Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Local Support of Regional Fair Housing Efforts (AMENDED) The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) and similar agencies provide community education, individual counseling, mediation, and low-cost advocacy with the expressed goal of eliminating housing discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all people irrespective of race religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, age, family size or disability to freely choose the housing for which they qualify in thearea they desire. TheCityprovides ongoing fairhousing training for front limeline staffassigned to the delivery of housing services. Additionally, City staff refers inquiries for fair housing services to the FHCOC and similar agencies and maintains literature and informational brochures at City Hall available for public distribution.
To further outreach to the community, the City shall provide fair housing information in multiple languages and through print and electronic media that may include the City’s website, brochures, and newsletters.
Objective: AllocateProvide estimated annual financial allocation of $100,000, based on program funding availability. Estimated annual allocation of $100,000
Responsible Party: Housing and Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Section8 Rental Assistance Program (AMENDED) The Anaheim Housing Authority provides rental assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Under this program, families/individuals whose annual income is below 50 percent of the HUD Area Median Income a can apply to receive a housing subsidy. Participants pay approximately 30 percent of their adjusted gross monthly income for rent. The Authority pays the remainder of the rent directly tothe property owner. The City bases its funding for the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program on Congressional appropriations and is subject to available funds. The City will continue to advocate for increased funding at the Federal level.
Objective: EstimatedProvide estimated 6,500 Vouchers annually, subject to federal funding availability Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Section 4: Housing Policy Program [DRAFT JUNE 2022] Page 4-36 Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: Section 8 Mainstream Housing Program Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities (AMENDED)
This program provides Section 8 rental assistance to very-low-income persons with disabilities to enable them to access rental housing available on the open market in a community of their choice. The Housing Authority screens its current Section 8 waiting list for disabled persons who meet the eligibility requirements for this program. Once the City has identified and assisted all of the disabled applicants on the Section 8 waiting list, the Housing Authority seeks disabled referrals from various local service providers.
Housing Authority staff works closely with these local service providers to ensure that Section 8 tenants are receiving the supportive servicesthey require in order to live independently.
Objective: EstimatedProvide estimated225 Vouchers annually, subject to federal funding availability Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Section8 Homeless Preference (AMENDED) The City of Anaheim has developed a number of programs to address the immediate needs of persons experiencing homelessness. In support of these efforts, the Housing Authority has adopted policies that allow for the provision of preferences for persons in a homeless status in the Section 8 program admissions policies. The following is a list of local preferences offered in their order of selection:
• Special Needs Populations
• The Housing Authority will commit up to 50% of annual new admission vouchers to assist Anaheimbased homeless families who are either:
o Referred by an approved local service provider because they are participating in a local transitional housing program or are receiving other supportive and shelter services from that provider. Providers may be required to verify that applicants had ties to Anaheim prior to entering the shelter and commit to providing appropriate services to the client; or o Participating in a city-funded homeless program and have been referred by the connected service agency.
Applicants must meet all eligibility requirements. Admissions willbeAdmission is on a first come, firstserved basis and is subject to funding availability. Additionally, the Housing Authority must verify any preferences claimedby anapplicant that determined their placement on the waiting list.