Fountain Valley City Council
October 4, 2022

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 63
 Southpark Specific Plan. Thisspecific plan does not currently permit residential development but will be amended to permit up to 1,100 units. The development standards will permit residential development by right (design review only through a precise plan) up to six stories and development standards that promote residential densities commensurate with the Very High Density Residential Multiple Dwelling Zone. The assumed density of 31 units per acre is based on 1,100 units averaged over the 35‐acre opportunity area. Individual projects could, however, exceed that density substantially, easily up to 60 or 8090 units per acre.  Warner/Newhope Specific Plan. This specific plan will be amended to permit up at least an additional 676 units in Planning Areas A and C (up to 812 being evaluated based on the potential adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance and the application of state density bonus provisions). The development standards will permit 100% residential development (design review only through a precise plan), up to six stories and development standards that promote residential densities commensurate with the Very High Density Residential Multiple Dwelling Zone. The assumed density of 45 units per acre is considered moderate given the maximum height allowed and the residential density of individual housing products already built on other parcels within the specific plan (185 units on 2.9‐acre parcel or 63 units per acre in Planning Area B, and 24 units on 0.26‐acre parcel or 93 units per acre in Planning Area B‐2). Individual projects in Planning Areas A and C could easily achieve those densities.

All of the zones listed above allow at least 30 units per acre, with most allowing far higher densities. These zones, therefore, are consistent with the state default density thresholds for determining the adequacy of a zoning district to facilitate lower income housing. While the City has approved projects below maximum density in lower density zoning districts, the density assumptions used in these calculations to determine capacity were confirmed with property owners and the development community, with some expressing a desire to go even higher.  The percentage of lower income capacity assumed for each site used the following assumptions:
 100% capacity. Sites with zoning that is exclusively residential and very high densities.  50% capacity. Sites in the Crossings and Southpark specific plans, based on the significant amount of overall residential capacity to be provided at high and very high densities. These specific plans could more easily accommodate multiple projects from multiple developers/partners, including those seeking to develop 100% affordable projects.  15% capacity. Sites with zoning (current or future) that permits high and very high density housing, but on sites with capacity that is substantially smaller. Beyond the default density threshold, the 15% assumption is also based in part on the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance (see Program 1c).
 0% capacity. One site is zoned for lower density housing (max 10.8 du/ac) and would not be considered a likely candidate for lower income housing.

It is important to note that the assumptions used in the calculations to determine capacity to accommodate the RHNA allocation do not include the application of state density bonus. A footnote is provided in Table H‐22 indicating sites that would likely expand in capacity once the

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 64
City adopts an inclusionary housing ordinance. Discussions with property owners and local residential developers indicated that additional development potential would be sought (near or above the maximum density allowed) on certain sites. Other sites may also seek additional capacity but were considered lesslikely to see a density bonussolely based on the City’s adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.

Development Trends, Constraints, and Incentives
The following discussion highlights a number of factors used to better understand the suitability of the underutilized sites for new residential development. Theis topics listed below apply to all of underutilized sites and is therefore presented as a summary instead of being repeated in the description of each site. Factors include development trends and market conditions, property owner interest and public outreach, environmental or infrastructure constraints, and incentives.

Development Trends and Market Conditions
While the City of Fountain Valley has not grown much in the past few decades, the City is dramatically expanding the opportunity for new housing development in response to state housing law. Interest from property owners and local developers is very high and nearby cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, and Santa Ana all recently approved projects at densities of 50 to 100 units per acre, with some projects exceeding 100 du/ac. Additionally, nearly all local projects have been either 100% residential or mixed‐use with 90% or more residential. This includes the redevelopment of not only commercial and other infill spaces, but also the reuse and transition of larger industrial spaces, such as the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). Irvine adopted a residential overlay for the IBC in 2010 and hassince seen 7,384 high density housing units constructed in the area. As of today, the City indicates that the total number of units that are existing, under construction, approved, and under review now exceeds the original 15,000‐unit cap (as of 2021).

This indicates a strong market for higher density housing products in the central Orange County area. Indeed, even the strong demand for industrial spaces is outpaced by the demand for housing, particularly in communities with strong school districts. The strong performance of Fountain Valley’s school districts is similar to that of Irvine’s. Higher density housing would provide housing not only for families seeking addresses within the City’s school districts, but also for young professionals looking for entry level housing.

On April 5, 2022, the Fountain Valley City Council adopted the Mixed Use 1 (MU‐1) and Mixed Use 2 (MU‐2) general plan designations and associated zoning districts. These new land use designations/zones allow for very high density residential development when integrated into a mixed‐use building with 10‐30% of the indoor, ground floor space occupied by nonresidential uses. The MU‐1 District permits 65 units per acre with 10% nonresidential ground floorspace and the MU‐2 District permits 40 units per acre (averaged over the entire project area) with 20% nonresidential ground floor space and up to 55 units per acre (averaged over the entire project area) with 30% nonresidential ground floor space.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 65
Prior to the adoption of the mixed‐use standards, only 239 multifamily units were built between January 2010 and January 2022 in Fountain Valley. In comparison, the Slater Avenue project alone (270 units) will exceed the past 12 years of multifamily growth. Moreover, the Slater Avenue project involved the redevelopment of existing and actively occupied office and restaurant uses, indicating that the new development standards offer strong incentives that can justify the redevelopment of existing non‐residential uses into mixed‐income, higher‐density mixed‐use. The City also intends to adopt (and apply to the Golden Triangle and 16650 Harbor sites), a new very high density residential zoning district (R5) that will essentially allow the same maximum residential density (65 units per acre) without requiring any amount of nonresidential (exclusively residential zone). The City anticipates that the very high density residential zoning will offer just as much incentive to redevelop existing uses as the mixed‐use zoning.

Both districts require any development to include a residential component at a minimum density of 30 units per acre. Trends observed in mixed‐use development throughout southern California and direct proposals from property owners/developers on sites in this Housing Element indicate that nonresidential typically represents 5% to 10% of total building square footage in mixed‐use projects and residential densities are not being diluted. For example, recently approved projects in Dana Point (where nonresidential is required for the entire ground floor) are able to achieve between 40 and 75 units per acre on only two upper floors (maximum height allowed on these Dana Point properties is three stories). In comparison, Fountain Valley requires less nonresidential space, allows for greater height (5 stories for MU‐1 and 6 stories for MU‐2), while allowing similar residential densities. Based on the City’srecent marketstudy, there isinsufficient demand for retail and office space to justify the redevelopment of an existing use. As stated above, residential demand is extremely high and able to justify redevelopment of an existing, and the City found in its market study that there is also sufficient demand to incorporate roughly 5,000 square feet (for MU‐1) to 15‐20,000 square feet (for MU‐2) of retail space into a mixed‐use project. Accordingly, on a smaller site, the residential space would need to represent the vast majority (90% or more) of building space to justify redevelopment of the existing uses. For a larger site, there is enough residential demand that a site could accommodate more than the minimum nonresidential required (i.e., more than 20% to 30% of the ground floor space) without diluting the site’s ability to accommodate the residential capacity projected on the sites in this Housing Element.

Concurrent with the establishment of these two new designations/zones, the City approved a 270‐unit mixed‐use project (Slater Avenue) on a 3.3‐acre site with a MU‐1 designation/zone. The project included 237 market‐rate units, 33 affordable units, 6,660 square feet of non‐residential uses on the ground floor, and a six‐level parking garage with 541 spaces. The project exceeds the MU‐1 District’s maximum density of 65 units per acre and reaches 81 units per acre through the application of state density bonus provisions. The City granted a waiver (per state density bonus provisions) to allow the project to proceed with 6,660 square feet of local restaurant and art gallery space (9.14% of the total indoor, ground floor area) instead of the 7,290 square feet (10%) that would otherwise be required. The 630‐square feet delta equates to roughly three parking spaces, but the project actually included 177 more parking spaces than required (163 more

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 66
residential and 14 more commercial). This waiver was primarily requested and approved so that the project applicant to retain their desired footprint and floorplan configuration for the residential space on the ground floor, the footprint of the outdoor patio for the restaurant, and the conventional (simple rectangle) shape and capacity of the multistory wrap parking structure.

It is important to emphasize that the nonresidential square footage requirement is only a percentage of indoor, ground floor space. Based on the approved Slater Avenue project and proposed concepts for other sites, well over 90% of the building space would be developed as residential. For the Slater Avenue project (MU‐1 District), the 10% requirement equates to roughly 2% of the total building square footage, leaving about 98% of the remaining building space for residential. In the MU‐2 District, the 20% requirement (for a 40 unit per acre average) would likely represent no more than 5% of the total building space, leaving 95% of the remaining space for residential. To reach 55 units per acre in MU‐2, the 30% requirement would likely represent no more than 8% of the total building space, leaving 92% of the remaining space for residential.

The project was the first in the City to utilize the newly adopted MU‐1 standards and demonstrates the designation’s ability to encourage and support high quality, vertically mixed use products at and even above the stated maximum densities. The MU‐1 and MU‐2 standards will be tested further as more mixed‐use developments are proposed throughout the City, but the initial result is a positive indication of future development. The City has also received interest from property owners and developers to build between 65 and 82 units per acre with 17,600 square feet of ground‐floor commercial uses on the Boomers site, (20% of indoor, ground floor space, MU‐2 zoning, 3.6% of total proposed building space), and 100 units per acre on the Warner Square site with 6,690 square feet of ground‐floor commercial uses (10% of indoor, ground floor space, MU‐1 zoning, 3.5% of total proposed building space). Accordingly, the City did not apply any reduction factor on the ability of the mixed‐use zoned sites to reach the maximum densities, given evidence from the approved Slater Avenue project and conceptual proposalsfrom property owners and developers illustrating that approved and proposed projects are at or even above the maximum densities permitted. Program 3a includes actions to evaluate the minimum nonresidential space requirement in terms of fiscal benefit, market demand, and development feasibility through the next two proposed projects, and to then revise the requirement as appropriate.

Property Owner Interest and Public Outreach
In anticipation of the update process, the City of Fountain Valley compiled a list of 17 opportunity sites representing the areas where land use changes could likely occur over an 8‐year planning period and a longer 20‐year planning horizon. As part of its outreach with the general public and property owners, the City led a physical tour of these sites and published a virtual tour on the City’s website. The City conducted interviews and meetings with property owners to confirm their interest in developing housing and to identify other properties that may be suitable for housing. The property owners of the listed underutilized sites all expressed direct interest in

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 67
creating opportunitiesfor new development, particularly at the higher densities. The City has not received any requests for densities below those identified in the sites inventory.

A number of community members expressed concern about the impact of higher density residential development (e.g., parking and traffic congestion). However, other members of the community indicated that not only wasthe higher density housing required to conform with state housing law, but new housing options were also necessary to serve the younger generations and families.

Environmental Constraints
As stated in the Housing Constraints section, the only environmental constraint of concern is liquefaction. The California Building Code provides standards on soils and foundations to ensure new development mitigatesthe risks of liquefaction zone. The presence of liquefaction can make it more difficult and expensive to build subterranean building / parking structures. Fortunately, the development community has favored the use of a “Wrap” building approach where parking is provided in an above‐ground parking structure with the residential spaces “wrapped” around the outside of the parking structure. Using this method allows a residential development to achieve the assumed and maximum densitieslisted in the Table H‐22, without being impacted by liquefaction hazards.

Infrastructure Constraints
Fountain Valley is fully urbanized and is well supported by water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities. The City conducted technical studies to evaluate the impact of accommodating the RHNA allocation. The studies determined that the City’s existing infrastructure and already planned improvements were adequate to support growth and none of the underutilized sites would be limited by infrastructure constraints. As previously stated in the Housing Constraints section, allsites have accessto stable and reliable electricity, natural gas, and high‐speed internet service.

Incentives
Through rezoning efforts, the City will provide increase the maximum density from 40 to 65 units per acre when a projectzoned R5 reserves 50% or more of the unitsforlowerincome households.

This density increase is before any application ofstate density bonus provisions. In the MU2 Zone, the maximum residential density is increased from 40 to 55 units per acre, averaged over the entire project site, for projects that incorporate at least 30% of the ground floor space as commercial or office uses.

The City already applies the ministerial review process for affordable housing projects, even if the use would otherwise require a conditional use permit. This streamlining option is available for projectsthat provide a proposed housing project with five units or more that meet the criteria of a qualifying density bonus project under state law.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 68
Descriptions of Individual Sites
The following provides an analysis of each vacant or underutilized site; a (parcel‐by‐parcel breakdown to beis provided in future draft as an electronic spreadsheet per state requirements)Appendix A. Site referencesinclude a "V” to indicate entirely vacantsites and a “U” to indicate sites that are partially or entirely occupied by existing uses and are therefore considered underutilized.

U1. 16650 Harbor
This site is a single 3.58‐acre parcel on the
eastern side of the city, adjacent to the Santa
Ana River and the eastern city limit, bounded
by Harbor Boulevard to the west and the Santa
Ana River to the east. Existing uses consist of
an assortment of auto service and repair
service shops.

While the shopping center is currently fully
leased, the court‐appointed receiver and
property manager submitted a letter to the
City requesting that the site be rezoned for multifamily residential development. Even without such strong interests in redevelopment, the buildings (constructed in 1985) are of simple construction and do not cover an extensive amount of the site (27%), meaning the costs of demolishing and disposing of the buildings will not be cost‐prohibitive. Thissite is currently zoned as Manufacturing (M1) but will be rezoned to Very High Density Multiple Dwelling (R5). The R5 Zone designation will permits residential development up to 6065 units per acre. Assuming residential development at a density of 50 units per acre, approximately 179 units could be constructed on thissite. This amount of development potential is considered by the development community to be sufficient to stimulate redevelopment of the site during the planning period.

U2. Boomers
Thissite consists of approximately 6.88 acresin the
northwestern part and along the western edge of
the city, bound by the 405 freeway to the east,
Recreation Circle to the south, and Magnolia Street
to the west.

This site is comprised of five parcels. One owner
controls four parcels (5.87 acres), with one of
those parcels being a 0.04‐acre sliver that would
not remain isolated and unused with the site’s
redevelopment. The fifth parcel (1.01 acres) is
owned by the Orange County Flood Control District. The District‐owned property splitsthe overall site but was used actively (i.e., not set aside for flood control). The site was a former miniature

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 69
golf park that was closed and sold in 2019. Developers representing the property participated in public meetings where they displayed concepts with 65 and 82 units per acre and 17,600 square feet of ground‐floor commercial uses. When discussion of higher development intensities took place for the Warner Square property, the developers argued that this site (U2) was similarly buffered from surrounding neighborhoods and should also be considered for a maximum density of 100 units per acre.

The site is currently zoned General Commercial (C2) and will be rezoned to Mixed Use 2 (MU2), which will permit 40 units per acre with 20% of ground floor dedicated for commercial and office uses, or 55 units per acre with 30% of ground floor dedicated for commercial and office usesa base limit of 65 residential units per acre. When the following condition exists, the maximum residential density may be increased to 100 units per acre: the nearest property line of the perimeter of a mixed‐use zone is either separated by the 405 freeway from or located at least 400 feet from the property line of an R1 Zone in the City of Fountain Valley. While this Ssite U2 meets these criteria, the City is using a conservative estimate of development capacity for the purposes of accommodating its RHNA allocation and and is therefore able to develop at a maximum density of 100 units per acre. Aassuming residential development at a density of 85 40 units per acre, which would yield approximately 585 275 units could be constructed on this site.

While the site’s proposed density (with rezoning) will meet the state default density threshold for lower income housing, the City is only assuming 15% or 88 41 of the 585 275 units could be affordable for lower income households (based on the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance).

While the 585‐unit capacity is projected for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA and excludes the application of a density bonus, the City is currently evaluating the implications of increasing total capacity to 673 units based on the application of state density bonus provisions.

U3. Fountain Valley Crossings
The site is the Workplace Neighborhood District
of the Fountain Valley Crossings Specific Plan in
the southeastern part of the City, just north of
the 405 freeway and adjacent to the city’s
eastern boundary. The 48‐acre site is bounded
by Talbert Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana
River to the east, Euclid Street to the south, and
a floodway to the west.

This site is currently comprised of a variety of
industrial and commercial uses spread across 39
different parcels, of which all but two are between 0.50 and 3.56 acres in size. The two that are smaller than 0.50 acre were not included in the inventory. A number of the sites are controlled by a single property owner, but many are single‐use, single‐owned sites. While such a pattern is

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 70
not typically indicative of reuse potential, this area was recently included as part of the Crossings Specific Plan (adopted in 2018). The Specific Plan is similar to the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) Overlay Zone, which facilitated the reuse of hundreds of acres of industrial development into higher density residential. While the scale of the IBC is very large (the Urban Neighborhood District is over 1,000 acres), the ratio of housing potential to acreage is similar tolike that envisioned in the Crossings Specific Plan.

Like the Crossing’s Workplace Neighborhood District, the Irvine Business Complex’s Urban Neighborhood District accommodates residential development in a mixed use setting. Although the IBC is much larger in scale, the variety and intensity of existing uses in the IBC was like that which is currently found in the Crossings’ Workplace Neighborhood District. The IBC was once home to numerous furniture and interior decorating establishments that occupied sites zoned forindustrial uses, many of which have since become high density residential communities. While the Crossings area was initially envisioned (prior to the specific plan) as a one‐stop, home‐ improvement destination, the market’s shift to online shopping has resulted in higher tenant turnover rates as brick and mortar businesses struggle to compete. The similarities to the IBC were an important factor that gave the City confidence in the Crossing Specific Plan’s redevelopment potential.

The City’s original General Plan designated the land use of what would become the Crossings Specific Plan as industrial and its zoning as Manufacturing (M1). The area filled in with low‐rise light industrial development quickly, building its local streets as small loop roads and cul‐de‐sacs inward from the larger existing arterials. But by the time I‐405 was completed and the district was mostly built out (most buildings constructed from 1970 to 1976), heavier manufacturing had been previously established elsewhere in the Los Angeles metro region. Growth in automation and globalization‐driven offshoring further transformed the region’s manufacturing, and today most manufacturing‐only uses have left the district. Meanwhile, its favorable I‐405 access drew tenants that grew a mixed workplace/commercial district as other formats also occupied its medium to large‐footprint buildings with uses such as showroom wholesale/commercial and office buildings ‐ alongside traditional “light industrial” warehousing and repair uses.

These uses are aging in place and were constructed as conventional business parks: low density and auto‐oriented, inwardly focused, minimally landscaped, and lacking in public space or activity centers. The City found that evolving generational preferences and lifestyles have fundamentally changed how employees, customers, firms, and supply chains interact with each other and with their settings, including a new focus on innovation. The City determined that many existing uses would likely continue but other uses would struggle to transition and adapt to the expectations of future businesses and their employees. Furthermore, there would need to be significant financial investmentsto augment the area with more desirable amenities—financial investments that individual property owners would likely be unable to justify. Accordingly, the City established a specific plan for the area to provide the regulatory and design structure to facilitate a transition to a 21st century workplace. The infusion of residential and compact retail uses is seen as a vital component to achieve a more desirable and competitive employment hub.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 71
One of the stated community objectives “Help Satisfy Unmet Housing Demand” by accelerating the transformation and conversion of the existing buildings to a cluster of walkable retail and residential development. In particular, the Crossings Specific Plan states its intention to promote the infill of new housing to accommodate compact households (such as workers, small families, students, professionals, empty‐nesters, and seniors), and partner with local employers to build workforce housing. While the improvement of the Workplace Gateway and Mixed Industry districts is expected to take place over a longer term, the incredibly strong demand for housing is expected to be the catalyst for a quicker transition of the Workplace Neighborhood District.

The City has received interest from a number of residential developers, but the arrival of the COVID‐19 pandemic less than a couple years after the specific plan’s adoption stalled development activity. The forecasted reduction in demand for office space (locally, regionally, and nationally) created by the pandemic’s stay‐at‐home order and multi‐year remote work experience would likely reduce projected new office space in the specific plan (currently 785,532 square feet). New residential is a likely replacement for the office space.

It may also be that the total amount and intensity of residential currently allowed (491 medium density units) needs to be augmented to stimulate more interest in site acquisition and redevelopment. To accelerate and expand residential development, the City will amend the Crossings Specific Plan to increase the number of units from 490 to 1,100 higher density units in the Workplace Neighborhood District. While the overall average density would be 22 units per acre, the City anticipates the continued presence of some existing uses and the development of over 100,000 square feet of compact retail space. This means that new residential development would be developed on roughly 30 of the 48 acres, resulting in an average density of 37 units per acre. Based on state default density thresholds, the zoning can facilitate lower income housing.

For the purposes of the Housing Element, the projected capacity for lower income units is set at half or 550 units, with the balance addressing the moderate and above moderate RHNA allocation.

U4. Golden Triangle
The site is a 2.34‐acre parcel in the northeast
area of the City, adjacent to the city’s northern
border, bounded by Lilac Avenue to the north,
Mt Carmel Court to the east, Edinger Avenue to
the south, and Richardson Street to the north.

Surrounding the site are residential uses on all
sides; specifically, single family residential uses
to the north and south, and west sides and
apartments to the east.

The site currently serves as a commercial strip
mall that was built in 1966 with a zoning designation of Local Commercial with Overlay (C1‐HO2).

While the shopping center is currently fully leased, the buildings have not been modernized or

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 72
improved since their initial construction 55 years ago, and the property owner is amenable to the potential for residential redevelopment during the planning period. The site was identified in the previous Housing Element as a candidate site but was limited to a density of 30 units per acre.

To stimulate redevelopment, the City will rezone the site from High Density Multiple Dwelling (R4) to Very High Density Multiple Dwelling (R5), increasing the maximum density to 40 units per acre for market rate housing and 65 units per acre for projects that reserve at least 50% of total units for lower income households. The rezoning more than doubles the site’s maximum development potential before the application of state density bonus provisions. The Slater Avenue project proved the market for higher density residential replacing existing commercial businesses. Assuming a density of 50 units per acre, approximately 117 units could be constructed. Based on the site’s density and 100% residential zoning, the site is considered a prime candidate for 100% lower income housing.

As this site was previously included in the 5th cycle housing element, state law requires the City’s zoning for such sites to permit by right housing developments that propose a density of 20 units per acre or more and in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households. The R5 Zone will permit such a housing development by right and therefore meet the requirements of state law.

U5. Harbor Shopping Center
The site consists of approximately 16.69 acres in
the northeastern corner of the city nearthe border
with the City of Santa Ana. The site is bounded by
Lilac Avenue to the north, South Harbor Boulevard
to the east, and Edinger Avenue to the south. The
site is surrounded by residential uses (specifically
apartments to the north and west, with single
family residential units to the south) and
commercial uses to the east on Harbor Boulevard.

The site is comprised of seven parcels, two of
which are owned by a single owner and the others are controlled by individual owners. The site currently serves a strip mall commercial center that was built between 1969 and 1971. The anchor store Curacao sits on the largest parcel (6.07 acres). Two other parcels (1.74 and 3.26 acres) have multiple spaces for inline stores that remain vacant. The parcel structure and nature of the strip center indicates that any development of the site will either take place through redeveloping all or half of the parcels. Overall lot coverage by building space is just over 25%.

The site is currently zoned General Commercial (C1) and will be rezoned Mixed Use 2 (MU2), which permits a density of at least 40 units per acre with 20% of ground floor dedicated for commercial and office uses, or 55 units per acre with 30% of ground floor dedicated for commercial and office uses. At maximum density, the site could accommodate 918 units.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 73
However, given the parcel structure, the City is applying more conservative density of 35 units per acre and a further reduction factor of 40% to generate an estimated capacity of 351 units.

While the site’s proposed density (with rezoning) will meet the state default density threshold for lower income housing, the City is only assuming 15% or 53 of the 351 units could be affordable for lower income households (based on the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance). The 53 units represents approximately 6% of the site’s maximum capacity.

While the 351‐unit capacity is projected for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA and excludes the application of a density bonus, the City is currently evaluating the implications of increasing total capacity to 404 units based on the application of state density bonus provisions.

U6. Los Caballeros Sports Village (Los Cab)
The site is at the eastern edge of the city
adjacent to the city’s border with the city of
Santa Ana. The site is bounded by Warner
Avenue to the north, the Santa Ana River to the
east, Newhope to the west, and Los Caballeros
Village road to the south. To the north is an
apartment complex and a nursing home with
another condominium complex and business
park uses to the south. Additional business park
and office uses are to the west.

The site currently consists of four parcels, all owned by Los Cab. Three parcels (0.28, 0.36, and

11.33 acres) contain outdoor recreational facilities and buildings associated with the Los Caballeros Club (a private sports club). The fourth parcel is 3.05 acres and contains a two‐story professional office building. Discussions with the property owner indicates a desire to redevelop the site with an ongoing softening of club activity and the recent decline in the office market.

Although one of the parcels is larger than 10 acres and two are smaller than 0.5 acres, all three parcels are owned by a single entity who has expressed interest in replacing the existing uses with residential development.

The City will amend the Warner/Newhope Specific Plan to allow up to 676roughly 700 to 800 units in Planning Areas A and C. The current specific plan measured density as an average over the four northern planning areas(332 units on 19.2 acres or 17.2 units per acre), while permitting 185 units on 2.9‐acre parcel (63 units per acre) in Planning Area B, and 24 units on 0.26‐acre parcel (93 units per acre) in Planning Area B‐2. With the addition of the 676 700 to 800 units, the average density for the entire specific plan would increase to 52.5 units per acre.

However, for the purposes of accommodating its RHNA allocation, the City is using a slightly conservative estimate of development capacity and assuming capacity at The 676 663 units is based on an assumed density of 45 units per acre (, which is much lower density than the housing built elsewhere in the specific plan). While the site’s proposed density (with rezoning) will meet

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 74
the state default density threshold for lower income housing, the City is only assuming 15% or 102 99 of the 676 663 units could be affordable for lower income households (based on the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance).

While the 676‐unit capacity is projected for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA and excludes the application of a density bonus, the City is currently evaluating the implications of increasing total capacity to 812 units based on the application of both 15% state density bonus provisions and 25% density bonus provisions contained in the current specific plan for the provision of affordable housing. With that total, the average density for the entire specific plan would increase to 59.6 units per acre.

UV7. Miller Property
The site is a single 18.64‐acre parcel in the
northern part of the city just east of Mile Square
Park. The site is bounded by Euclid Street to the
west and Heil Avenue to the south, with single‐
family residential uses on three sides.

Although the site is currentlywas previously used
for agriculture, the property owner has been
family owned for decades and the owner
expressed their desire to sell redevelop the site
to a residential developer and has ceased all
operations permanently, rendering the site as vacant. Multiple developers have expressed interest in the site and concepts were shared at public meetings. A strong emphasis was placed on maximizing compatibility with the surrounding single family homes through design mechanisms such as buffers, limitations on building height near edges, and placement of higher density produce closer to Euclide Avenue. The proximity to Mile Square Park is a tremendous asset, with future residents able to access a regional park simply by crossing a signal‐controlled street.

The site is currently zoned Single‐Family Residential (R1), which permits single family housing at a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The City will rezone the site to High Density Residential and permit a maximum density of 30 units per acre. Based on the need for transition space or a blended density approach, the City is assuming a density of 22 units per acre, which would produce a total of 411 units. The site’s size (larger than 10 acres) is not considered a limitation based on the level of interest from the property owner and development community.

While the site’s proposed density (with rezoning) will meet the state default density threshold for lower income housing, the City is only assuming 15% or 61 of the 411 units could be affordable for lower income households (based on the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance).

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 75
While the 411‐unit capacity is projected for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA and excludes the application of a density bonus, the City is currently evaluating the implications of increasing total capacity to 471 units based on the application of state density bonus provisions.

U8. Slater Investments
The Slater Investments site consists of three
parcels totaling 3.34 acres in central Fountain
Valley. All three parcels are owned by the same
entity and are over 0.5 acre. The site is bounded
by El Corazon Avenue to the north, Slater
Avenue to the south, and San Mateo Street to
the west. Surrounding uses are commercial and
institutional uses to the west and south and
residential uses to the north and east (duplexes
to the north and apartments to the east).

The site’s existing use is a commercial center with buildings constructed in 1967. A restaurant occupies the corner parcel while a professional office building occupies the other two parcels.

While there is little to no vacancy, the property owner has expressed a desire to redevelop the site into a mixed‐use residential property, shared development concepts at multiple public meetings, and submitted an application that is currently under review. Their application included 8,720 square feet of commercial space, with the balance as residential in a multi‐story, vertically mixed‐use format.

The site is currently zoned Local Commercial (C1) but will be rezoned to Mixed Use 1 (MU1). The MU1 designation will permit mixed use development with a residential density of up to 65 units per acre. Discussions with the property owner indicate that they intend to develop at the maximum density permitted and generate at least 218 units.

While the site’s proposed density (with rezoning) will meet the state default density threshold for lower income housing, the City is only assuming 15% or 33 of the 218 units could be affordable for lower income households (based on the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance).

While the 218‐unit capacity is projected for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA and excludes the application of a density bonus, the City is currently evaluating the implications of increasing total capacity to 250 units based on the application of state density bonus provisions (the property owner already expressed an intent to provide 15% of the units as affordable to gain access to and apply state density bonus provisions).

U98. Smith Farms

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 76
The site consists of a single 4.20‐acre parcel in
the southern part of the city, which is currently
used for agriculture by the long‐time owner. The
site is bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north and
Finch Avenue to the south and is surrounded by
single family residential land uses on all sides.

The site is currently zoned Single‐Family
Residential (R1) but will be rezoned to Garden
Homes(GH) and permit residential development
at a maximum density of 10.8 units per acre.

Assuming residential development at a density of 6 units per acre, approximately 26 units could be constructed on this site. For the purposes of the Housing Element, no assumptions for affordable housing are applied given the project’s size and density.

U10U9. Southpark
The site consists of seven parcels that provide a
total of 35.4 acres, with parcels ranging from

0.83 acre to 12.1 acres (only one parcel is more
than 10 acres). All parcels are owned by the
same entity. The site is in the southeastern part
of the city, bordered by Euclid Street to the west,
Slater Avenue to the north, and Talbert to the
south. While single family residential land uses
are to the west (across the street), the site
directly abuts business park and/or retail uses to
the north, east, and south.

Six of the seven parcels are currently vacant. While some of the vacant parcels have been used intermittently for temporary agriculture in the past, the property owner has no plans for future permanent agriculture on any of the parcels. The property owner is currently in the process of considering phasing and site design for up to roughly 800,000 square feet of non‐residential building space, up to 300 hotel rooms, and up to 1,100 residential units. The City conducted environmental and technical assessments (including traffic analysis) to support this level of development in the General Plan and an update to the Southpark Specific Plan. Residential development is expected to be similar in terms of scale, intensity, and clustering as is currently permitted in the Activity Core District of the Crossings Specific Plan.

Although the site is currently used for agriculture, tThe property owner has expressed support in adding strong interest in redeveloping the parcels for residential development (100% residential and/or as part of a mixed‐use format)entitlement to the site and envisions development scenarios that could involve residential as a stand‐alone use on a portion of the site and/or as part of a mixed‐use approach. The property owner expressed this opinion at public meetings and

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 77
in one‐on‐one discussions with City staff. The property owner sees no issues that would preclude or hinder development based on the size of one parcel that is larger than 10 acres.

The entirety of the site is currently zoned through the Southpark Specific Plan, which was originally adopted in 1987 to serve as a major center or industrial, employment, and commercial uses. The property owner of the housing opportunity sites also controls most of the land within the specific plan boundary. The current specific plan does not permit residential development but will be amended by the City to allow up to 1,100 units together with the anticipated non‐ residential capacity.

While the overall average density would be 31 units per acre, the upper limit of the permitted density for an individual housing project will be higher based in part on an allowable height of six stories(except along Talbert Avenue to align with height limitationsin the Crossings Specific Plan) and other development standards will be structured to accommodate the proposed additional housing together with the existing remaining and future nonresidential development. Based on state default density thresholds, the zoning can facilitate lower income housing. For the purposes of the Housing Element, the projected capacity for lower income units is set at roughly half or 550570 units and assumed to take place on the vacant parcels, with the balance addressing the moderate and above moderate RHNA allocation on the parcel currently used for agriculture.

U11U10. Warner Square
The site is a single 1.84‐acre parcel in central
Fountain Valley, just across the street from the
southern edge of Mile Square Park. The site is
bounded by Warner Avenue to the north, San
Mateo Street to the east, and La Hacienda
Avenue to the south. The site is surrounded by
Mile Square Park to the north, multifamily
residential uses to the south and east, and
commercial uses to the west.

The existing use is a commercial strip center that
was built in 1986. While the buildings are currently fully leased, the property owner has expressed a desire to redevelop the site during the planning period into a mixed‐use residential property. They shared a development concept at public meetings, including 184 units (100 units per acre) and no more than 7,000 square feet of commercial space, in a 4‐ or 5‐story, vertically mixed‐use format.

The site is currently zoned Local Commercial (C1) and will be rezoned to Mixed Use 1 (MU1) and permits mixed use development with a base limit of 65 residential units per. When the following condition exists, the maximum residential density may be increased to 100 units per acre: the nearest property line of the perimeter of a mixed‐use zone is eitherseparated by the 405 freeway from or located at least 400 feet from the property line of an R1 Zone in the City of Fountain

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 78
Valley. Site U11 While thissite meetsthese criteria and istherefore able to develop at a maximum density of 100 units per acre. Based on the property owner’s publicly‐stated intent and development concepts, the City is using a conservative estimate of development capacity for the purposes of accommodating its RHNA allocation and assuming residential development at a density of 100 65 units per acre and a total yield of 184 120 units.

While the 184‐unit capacity is projected for the purposes of accommodating the RHNA and excludes the application of a density bonus, the City is currently evaluating the implications of increasing total capacity to 211 units based on the application of state density bonus provisions.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Like many jurisdictions in southern California, the City of Fountain Valley faces a challenge of accommodating affordable housing on land that is rarely vacant and generally expensive.

Additionally, the City’s aging residents and young adults entering the workforce will struggle to maintain or obtain residence in Fountain Valley due to the ever‐increasing cost of housing. In 2020, the Pew Research Center is reported that a majority (52%) of young adults in the metropolitan and western parts of the United States are living with their parents (a trend not seen since the Great Depression)1, and more California seniors are relocating to live with their adult children. 2 Fortunately, state law recently changed to facilitate the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs, aka second units or granny flats) on any parcel allowing housing units. The confluence of these factors indicates that ADUs should play a role in the City’s strategy to accommodate and realize its 2021–2029 RHNA allocation. 1 Fry, Richard, et al. “A Majority of Young Adults in the U.S. Live with Their Parents for the First Time since the Great Depression.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 9 Sept. 2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/amajority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/. 2 Calmatters, Matt Levin. Meet the PIMBYs: Parents Living in My Backyard; It's a New California Thing. 29 Aug. 2019, www.ocregister.com/2019/05/08/meet-the-pimbys-parents-living-in-my-backyard-its-a-new-california-thing/.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 79
ADUs are known to be a good option for property owners seeking to build space for members of their family or to add an additional source of income by renting a unit to another household (which also increases the overall property value). Also, recent changes in legislation elevated the state’s focus on the use of ADUs as a key tool in achieving a greater supply of affordable housing.

Current Rents
California state laws do not require that ADUs be affordable to lower and moderate‐income households, however; SCAG conducted a regional study in 2020 and found that 73% of ADUs could be affordable to lower income households in Orange County (even assuming a 50/50 mix of 1‐ and 2‐person households).

Moreover, a City survey of homeowners who built or applied for an ADUs, conducted by City staff with 30 responses,showed that locally constructed ADUs are often rent free or affordable to low‐ income households. All of the ADUs surveyed were newly constructed and occupied within the previous three years. The maximum affordable rents of ADUs in the survey responses compare very favorably with the citywide rents for any size3 household earning at least 50 percent of the area median income (AMI)—very low‐ or higher‐income category. Over 90% of ADUs surveyed either did not charge rent (free) or reported rents that could be affordable to a lower income 3 The maximum affordable rent for 3- or 4-person households is relevant due to the large portion (31%) of those responding to the City’s ADU survey indicating a household size of 3 or 4. The maximum affordable rent for a 3-/4-person households is: EL - $866/$961; VL - $1,441/$1,601; L - $2,306/$2,561 M - $2,781/$3,090.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 80
household (adjusted for household size of occupants). At least half of the respondents indicated that no rent was charged, making at least half of the ADUs affordable to extremely low‐income households(30 percent of AMI. Table H‐23 presentsthe results of the City’ssurvey in more detail while Table H‐24 compares maximum affordable rents to market rents for ADUs that charged rent (affordability based on 2020 income limits to match the survey year). In 2021, the City approved an additional 20 ADUs, all of which reported rents affordable to very low income households.

TABLE H‐23

CITY ADU SURVEY RESULTS
Household
Size
# of
Units1
ADU Type2 Rent Charged Average
Rent3
Average
Unit Size
Interest in grant for
20‐year affordability4 Jr Att Det No Yes n/a
1 11 1 5 5 9 2  ‐  $1,550 680 SF 6
2 12 1 5 6 4 5 3 $1,400 761 SF 6
3 3  ‐  1 2 1 2  ‐  $2,500 1,115 SF 3
4 4  ‐  2 2 1 3  ‐  $1,850 1,065 SF 2
TOTAL 30 2 13 15 15 12 3 $1,736 869 SF 17
Source: City of Fountain Valley, Phone Survey of ADUs built since 2018, as of May 2020.

Notes:

1. Out of 96 surveyed, a total of 30 responded to the request for information. Two respondents indicated current vacancy but still provided information on intended rental cost; household size assumed at 2. All ADUs in the survey were intended for occupancy (as opposed to an office or guest house).

2. Jr = junior ADU; Att = attached ADU; Det = detached ADU.

3. For those who reported charging rent.

4. Respondent indicated interest in receiving a grant/low‐interest loan in exchange for a 20‐year term of affordability.

TABLE H‐24

AFFORDABLE VS ADU MARKET RENTS (AFFORDABLE MINUS MARKET RENT) Citywide Central Orange County ADU Rental Rates
Income
Category
Affordable Rent1 600 SF ADU 800 SF ADU 1,200 SF ADU
1 person 2 person Rent2 Delta3 Rent2 Delta4 Rent2 Delta4 Extremely Low $674 $770 $1,257 $583 $1,467 $497 $1,977 $1,207 Very Low $1,121 $1,281 $1,257 $264 $1,467 $214 $1,977 $696 Low $1,794 $2,050 $1,257 ($537) $1,467 ($583) $1,977 ($73) Moderate $2,163 $2,473 $1,257 ($906) $1,467 ($1,006) $1,977 ($496) Notes:

1. Calculated by dividing income limit by 12 (months) and multiplying by 30 percent based on 2020 state income limits.

2. Based on a combination of figures provided by a local ADU developer and City survey for those who charge rent; includes $57 to $77 in monthly utilities, consistent with the Fountain Valley South Island affordable housing project.

3. Based on Orange County income limits for a 1‐person household.

4. Based on Orange County income limits for a 2‐person household.

The pattern of 50% of the ADUs foregoing rent suggests that many homeowners are building ADUs to support relatives or close friends who may not otherwise be able to find affordable housing nearby in Orange County. Evidence from other jurisdictions throughout California

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 81
indicates that between 17 and 50% of ADUs may be rent‐free as the property owners provide housing for their adult children and/or aging parents.

Development Costs
Additionally, based on City building records, the sizes of new construction of detached and attached ADUs built since 2018 range from 300 to 1,200 square feet, with an average size of 830 square feet. According to research from local ADU builders, many homeowners opt for a 600 to 800 square foot floorplan (2 bedrooms) and homeowners with larger propertiestend to gravitate towards 1,200 square foot floorplans. ADUs created through the conversion of existing space (e.g., a garage), averaged 340 square feet in Fountain Valley.

Table H‐25 summarizes construction costs associated with traditional multifamily developments and detached ADUs. A side‐by‐side comparison illustrates the cost differences between conventional multifamily development and detached ADU construction. In this scenario, the cost to develop an apartment unit is more than three times that of a similarly sized, detached ADU.

Further still, a three‐bedroom, 1,200 square foot detached ADU is less than half the cost of a 740 square foot apartment unit. While these examples are not necessarily representative of all development, they accurately reflect the reality of the current situation in Fountain Valley.

The cost difference is due in large part to the multifamily project’s need to acquire land while the ADU requires no such acquisition costs. Additionally, the per unit construction costs for single family is lower, due in part to the added labor costs associated with a subsidized project and the expanded building code requirements of a multifamily project.

TABLE H‐25

DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIFAMILY AND DETACHED ADU Expense
Multifamily1
740 SF
Accessory Dwelling Unit2
600 SF 800 SF 1,200 SF
Land Acquisition/Improvement $128,433 $0 $0 $0
Construction $291,515 $97,500 $130,000 $195,000
City/Agency Fees $24,072 $2,4483 $17,780 $20,248
Other Expenses $143,751 $32,220 $36,294 $39,442
TOTAL $582,373 $103,168 $184,074 $254,690
Notes:

1. Proportional cost per unit of the South Island affordable housing project per Fountain Valley Housing Authority.

2. Upper end figures from local ADU builders for a detached ADU.

3. ADU’s smaller than 750 square feet are exempt from City/Agency Fees except for those levied by school districts.

Trends and Projections
In previous planning cycles, ADUs did not play a substantial role due to the lack of public knowledge and ability to take advantage of the law’s provisions, the availability of other land resources, and the lower costs (relative to today) of building multifamily development. Interest in ADUs has increased substantially since the 2017 laws were enacted.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 82
From 2013 to 2017, the City received 22 applications for Accessory Dwelling Units. Using HCD’s conservative estimate standard, this would project a future capacity for 110 ADUs for the next planning period. Building permit data demonstrates that 96 units were built between January 2018 and May 2020 when the ADU survey was conducted. In the 12 months after the survey (at the peak of the COVID‐19 pandemic), the City received an additional 40 ADU applications, with applications rising in 2021 to 61 (though construction activity slowed due in part to rises in construction costs).
4 While SCAG’sregionalsurvey supports an assumption that 73% of these units could be affordable to lower income households, the City’s survey supports an assumption of over 90% (including a 50 percent assumption for very low and even extremely low‐income households). Using the City’s assumption of 90 percent affordability, the conservative estimate for the City’s ADU capacity for lower income housing is 99 units during the planning period.

Figure H‐2 shows a graph of projected capacity for lower income ADUs in Fountain Valley along with a map of existing (built) ADUs compared to housing resource categories as defined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) [higher resource designations are better]. The city conducted a trendline analysis of ADUs interest in Fountain Valley based on the actual increase in ADU permitsissued between 20183 and 202105 and projectionsthat assume an initial bump as a result of the City’s implementation of its ADU program (Program 1d), followed by a diminishing decrease in the year‐over‐year annual increase of ADU permits. For a comparison of three different projection scenarios (conservative, theoretical maximum, and trend‐based capacity), refer to Table H‐25.

Figure H‐2  Past & Projected ADU Permit Activity to Calculate Lower Income Potential 4 The City is considered above average compared to cities statewide in terms of ADU projects permitted, according to the ADU marketplace Housable. Information retrieved October 7, 2020, from https://www.housable.com/city/fountainvalley-ca-109714 5 The figures for 20210 were included despite the likely suppressive impact of COVID-19.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 83
‐40%
‐20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 20
40 60
80 100
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Lower Income ADUs Moderate Income ADUs
Above Mod Income ADUs % YoY Change
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Lower Income ADUs Moderate Income ADUs
Above Moderate Income ADUs % Increase YOY

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 84
While tThe observed rates of year‐over‐year increase in ADU permitsissued finalized in 2019 and 2020 was 6453% and 7093%, respectively, with 2021 figures dropping due in large part to COVID‐ 19 and a spike in construction costs (e.g., lumber rates). tThe City assumed a 189% year‐over‐ year increase in between 2021 and 2022 with rates dropping rising as the City implements its ADU program (Program 1d) to 21% in 2023 and 2024, and then steadily declining to 713% by 2029. Using these assumptions, the City can project an estimated 720 384 ADUs to be built or issued permits between 2021 and 2029. After applying an 82 81% affordability factor (approximate midpoint between the observed rates in the City’s ADU Survey (90%) and SCAG’s ADU Study for all of Orange County (73%)), the City can project a total of 590 310 ADUs affordable to lower income households between 2021 and 2029 (see Table H‐25). The City estimates that the delta between the projected total and lower income capacities (74130 ADUs) would be affordable to moderate or above moderate income households.

Importantly, this ADU capacity will not be reduced by new development of housing elementsites in the future—a key factor in HCD’s recommendation that jurisdictions zone 15 percent more capacity than required.
6 New market‐rate housing may actually increase the citywide capacity for additional ADUs.

The City understands that ADUs have not been utilized as a primary means of housing in the past housing cycles. The City is committed to actions and programs to incentivize the construction of 6 Division of Housing Policy Development. Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, 22.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 85
ADUs in large numbers. This is no small task, and the City cannot guarantee the construction of ADUs any more than it can guarantee the construction of affordable multifamily housing.

However, the City believes it is vital to advance the role of ADUs, which require little to no financial subsidy, in parallel with expanding capacity on underutilized sites. Providing affordable housing through ADUs can offer distinct benefits, such as distributing growth across entire neighborhoods, which avoids a concentration of lower income housing, reduces the strain on existing roadways, reducesthe need for greater roadway capacity, and increases density in single family neighborhoods toward levels that could better support transit.

TABLE H‐26

ADU CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Conservative Capacity Theoretical Maximum Capacity Trend‐Based Capacity for Affordable ADUs built 2013‐2017 22 Single family parcels 12,575
ADUs permits finalized
2018‐2021   76
Assumption factor x 5 110 Multifamily units 4,296
Projected ADUs 2021‐
20293 720384
Affordability factor1 90% Capacity per state law2 26,224 Affordability factor4 812% Lower income ADUs 99 Capacity at 10% 2,622 Projected affordable ADUs 590310 Notes:

1. The conservative capacity utilized the City’s survey data, which indicates an affordability percentage of 90.

2. One ADU and one Junior ADU per single family parcels, plus 1 ADU for up to 25 percent of existing multifamily units.

3. Based on trends in ADU applications from 20183 to 20210 (note the potential dampening factor of the COVID‐19 pandemic for 20210), and assuming a conservative and then diminishing annual increase of permitted ADUs over the previous year.

4. A recent City survey indicates 90% of ADUs being built are affordable and a SCAG survey across the region indicated 73% are affordable.

The City has opted to use an assumption of 812% that is midway between the City and SCAG survey findings.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 86
Evaluation of Previous Housing Strategies
The previous Housing Element included appropriate goals and policies to encourage affordable housing and meet the requirements of state law. The update to the Housing Element includes the following evaluation of the previous goals, objectives, and policies to better understand how the City can and/or should take stronger action toward providing and maintaining quality affordable and market rate housing in Fountain Valley. Certification of the update is desired not only to meet the intentions of state law, but also to assist the City in implementing programs proposed to meet the housing needs of Fountain Valley residents. Table H‐27 identifies and evaluates all of the housing programs in the 2014–2021 Housing Element, including their level of achievement and recommendations for future activity.

TABLE H‐27
EVALUATION MATRIX OF 2014–2021 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS Program Intent Objective Level of Achievement Evaluation Goal 1: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s existing housing stock

1.a Home
Improvement
Provide grants and rebates to
income‐qualified homeowners
through Home Improvement,
Energy Efficiency, and Green
Rehab programs
16 grants or rebates
per year/10 Energy
Efficiency Grants per
year
Awarded between 15 and
20 grants, rebates, and
loans each year (2020 low
due to COVID‐19);
amended the program
from 1 grant per property
to 1 grant every 10 years
to qualifying properties
Successful;
consider
expanding
advertising and
access to funds

1.b
Infrastructure
Improvement
Coordinate Housing Element,
CIP, and Consolidated Plan to
provide infrastructure for
housing projects
Coordination of
infrastructure
improvements
Staff coordinated
infrastructure
improvements citywide
and for individual
projects, such as Prado
Family Homes
Successful; City
will continue to
coordinate plans
and programs

1.c Lead Based
Paint Hazard
Grant
Provide grant funds for the
testing and remediation of
lead‐based paint hazards in
the home (qualified owner
enrolled in Neighborhood
Revitalization Program and
receiving CDGB funds)
5 grants/year Awarded 3 to 5 grants
each year
Successful; City
will continue
program
Goal 2: Promote and encourage the development of a variety of housing opportunities to accommodate current and projected households

2.a Provision of
Adequate Sites
Provide appropriate zoning for
sites to ensure capacity to
accommodate the City’s 2014‐
2021 RHNA allocation
Monitor adequate
sites
Adopted housing overlay
zones Oct 2013
Successful; but
discontinue and
replace with
more intense
rezoning based
on new RHNA

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 87
TABLE H‐27
EVALUATION MATRIX OF 2014–2021 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS Program Intent Objective Level of Achievement Evaluation

2.b Review
Residential
Development
Standards
Ensure City standards respond
and adapt to market
conditions and facilitate more
housing opportunities
Review and revise
development
standards as
necessary
Standards reviewed and
changes deemed
unnecessary
Successful;
continue based
on new RHNA

2.c Mt. Hope /
Rancho Las
Bolsas
Facilitate affordable rental
units on former RDA site
128 new units
affordable to lower
and moderate
income households
Project cancelled and
property sold (due to title
restrictions); assisted
living facility built on site;
excess funds redirected to
Prado Family Homes
Successful,
pivoted and
used funds from
sale to purchase
and provide a
loan to a
developer for
acquisition and
development of
Prado Family
Homes (49
affordable units)
Goal 3: Conserve and support affordable housing opportunities in the City

3.a Housing
Choice Vouchers
Coordinate with the Orange
County Housing Authority
(OCHA) to assist lower‐income
rental households through
Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers
Assist 460
households per year
Coordinated with OCHA
to assist 445 households
each year
Successful;
continue
program

3.b Affordable
Housing
Monitoring and
Preservation
Monitor and maintain
affordability of assisted units
that could convert to market
rate within planning period
70 affordable
housing units (+ 1
manager’s unit) in
Guadalupe Manor
Guadalupe Manor
affordability extended
through 2038 through
Project‐based Section 8;
current application to add
27 affordable units
Successful;
continue to
monitor at‐risk
units

3.c Support
Homeless
Services
Support local and inter‐
jurisdictional efforts to reduce
temporary and chronic
homelessness, consistent with
the Continuum of Care model
Coordinate with
County of Orange
and other non‐profit
entities to provide a
range of services and
housing options
Assisted Interval House –
Temporary Shelter, which
assisted more than 60
clients each year
Successful;
continue
program

3.d Promotion of
Affordable
Housing
Encourage the production of
affordable housing through
incentives such as incentives
and expedited processing
Assist affordable
projects with
permitting, offsite
improvements, or
state or federal
funding
Amended Harbor Blvd
South Island Specific Plan
in 2017 to allow
affordable housing as a
permitted use; provided
financial assistance for
Prado Family Homes and
eliminated requirement
for separate water meters
and associated fees for
each new address
Successful;
continue
program

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 88
TABLE H‐27
EVALUATION MATRIX OF 2014–2021 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS Program Intent Objective Level of Achievement Evaluation

3.e Explore
Alternative
Funding and
Financing
Sources
Proactively explore alternative
funding and financing sources
such as private funding, joint
development, and public‐
private partnerships
Identify resources to
augment the City’s
limited funding
resources for
affordable housing
Staff researched funding
opportunities
Successful;
funds from sale
of property and
LMIHF financed
purchase and
development of
Prado Family
Homes
Goal 4: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, age, religion, sex, marital status, disability status, ancestry, national origin, or color

4.a Support Fair
Housing Services
Provide community
education, investigation, and
counseling assistance for
redress of alleged violations of
federal and state housing laws
Contract with and
refer inquiries to Fair
Housing Council of
Orange County
(FHC); provide
brochures at key
locations
Partnered with FHC on
educational workshop
and fair housing tenant/
landlord disputes; City
received and referred five
inquiries on fair housing
complaints between 2013
and 2021; four dismissed
based on lack of response
of claimant and one found
to have no valid
discrimination issue
Successful;
continue
program

4.b Monitor
Potential
Constraints
Identify and remove potential
constraint to equal housing
opportunities
Review and update
regulatory provisions
and procedures as
necessary
Established Disability
Modification Grant for
lower income households
to make ADA
improvements; Fair
Housing Council of
Orange County (FHC)
conducted online
monitoring of advertised
rentals in the city to
identify and address
discriminatory content;
FHC conducted systemic
tests for discriminatory
rental housing practices
via telephone and
investigated any alleged
violations
Successful;
continue
program

4.c Support for
Persons with
Developmental
Disabilities
Increase ability of persons
with developmental
disabilities to live in
integrated community
settings
Work with Regional
Center of Orange
County to identify
gaps in housing
needs and promote
opportunities for
supportive living
services
Partnered with Elwyn
California for case
management of disabled
adults; established
Disability Modification
Grant for lower income
households to make ADA
improvements
Successful;
continue
program

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 89
TABLE H‐27
EVALUATION MATRIX OF 2014–2021 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS Program Intent Objective Level of Achievement Evaluation

4.d Accessibility
Modifications for
Persons with
Disabilities
Provide grants to income‐
qualified homeowners to
make necessary accessibility‐
related renovations, based on
available funding
1 grant per year, as
funding allows
Established Disability
Modification Grant for
lower income households
to make ADA
improvements; 2 grants
awarded
Successful;
continue
program
Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs
Government Code Section 65588 requiresthat local governmentsreview the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in the Review of Previous Housing Element Table H‐27, the 2014 Housing Element included several programs that addressed or supported the needs of extremely low‐ income households, senior housing needs, individuals experiencing homelessness, and needs for persons with disabilities. Some of the accomplishments are highlighted below:
 Approved the Prado Family Homes housing development, which will add 50 affordable rental units to the City’s housing supply.
 Partnered with the Orange County Housing Authority to successfully house an average of 445 lower income households each year, of which roughly 70‐75% were extremely low income households.
 Successfully negotiated an affordability extension for 70 lower income units catering exclusively to seniors.
 Collaborated with Interval House to provide housing and social services to an average of 60 homeless individuals each year.
 Established and administrated a Disability Modification Grant to help lower income households make ADA improvements.
2014–2021 RHNA Allocation
The City received an allocation of 142 lower income units for the 5th Cycle RHNA period, which were to be addressed by the Golden Triangle property (69 units) and the Mt. Hope Specific Plan (agreement for 128 affordable units with the Jamboree Housing Corporation). External factors ultimately led to the cancellation of the Mt. Hope project, which required the City to look elsewhere to accommodate the 73‐unit gap. The Harbor Boulevard South Island Specific Plan was selected as a suitable replacement and amended on November 7, 2017, to allow affordable units by‐right due to interest expressed by both property owners and an affordable housing developer.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 90
The amended specific plan mandates that affordable housing be developed at a minimum of 25 units per acre, equating to a minimum of 162 units throughout the 6.5‐acre plan area.

Additionally, every parcel within the specific plan area was(and is) at least 0.75 acre. Accordingly, the rezoning ensured the City complied with state law to permit multifamily development without discretionary review at a minimum density of 20 units per acre, with a site capacity of at least 16 total units (which would require parcels that are at least 0.64 acre).

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 91
Assessment of Fair Housing
State law, enacted through Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an assessment of fair housing consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Final Rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH).

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.”
State law also requires the City to complete incorporate the following into the Housing Element:
 An assessment of fair housing that includes a summary of fair housing issues; an analysis of available federal, state, and local data knowledge to identify patterns of segregation or other barriers to fair housing; and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.  The identification of sites in the land inventory through the lens of AFFH.  A program that affirmatively furthers fair housing and promotes housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes and addresses contributing factors identified in the assessment of fair housing.

Accordingly, the City has completed the following outreach and analysis.

Context
Historical Development of Fountain Valley
The City of Fountain Valley first developed as an agricultural community with an abundantsupply of water, producing crop such as strawberries, cabbage, cauliflower, and squash. Landowners began selling large portions of land in the 1930’s, and in 1957 Fountain Valley officially incorporated into Orange County. From incorporation, Fountain Valley adopted a Master Plan in 1962, and slowly developed from farmland into a community. All major streets ran north to south, and all major avenuesran east to west, and over time the farmlandsslowly developed into mostly residential development, with areas of the City dedicated to commercial, industrial, and business uses. Tract housing began to be constructed to keep up with the growing population, with most of the current housing stock in Fountain Valley being built between the 1960’s and the 1980’s. The area saw population growth of almost 30,000 people from 1957 to 1970, including an influx of Asian American citizens which remains a predominant population on Fountain Valley today. By the early 1990s, Fountain Valley had almost completely developed into the built‐out, suburban residential community of today.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 92
Public Outreach Specific to Fair Housing
In preparing the 2020 Consolidated Plan and the Housing Element, the City conducted a wide range of community engagement efforts. A comprehensive summary of outreach activities is described in “Citizen Participation” section of the Introduction. The following discussion summarizes the outreach efforts pertaining specifically to fair housing issues.

The City published a Community Needs Assessment Survey in mid‐November 2019 that was available online from December 1, 2019, to January 30, 2020. The survey, distributed to 25 public agencies and 6,000 subscribers to the City newsletter, asked respondents to prioritize a variety of program areas to help guide the allocation of CDBG funding. From a list of seven program areas, affordable and special needs housing received 16% and 12% of the votes, respectively, suggesting that the provision of housing for lower income households and vulnerable individuals is important to the community. Within the affordable housing program area, 9% of respondents marked fair housing services as their top priority.

Four public meetings were held virtually between January 11, 2021, and April 22, 2021, that included a discussion of how to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. The meetings specifically addressed potential approaches to meeting the lower income commitment and weighed a combination of land use, zoning, and programmatic components. Attendees were encouraged to contribute during the meetings as well as submitting comments and questions through the online engagement platforms. Numerous members of the public, and representatives from the Kennedy Commission and UC Irvine School of Social Ecology, voiced concern about how the City planned to ensure the production of affordable units. These members of the public recommended the addition of housing opportunity sites, more strategies to facilitate the use ofstate density bonus provisions, and a mandatory inclusionary requirement.

Additionally, the City conducted a virtual workshop in August 2021 to address changes to state law, current housing programs, proposed housing programs, and local housing issues. The workshop summarized relevant updates to housing element law and how those changes impact programs currently administered by the City. A large portion of the workshop was reserved for open discussion, which allowed the public ample opportunity to provide input on proposed programs and ask any clarifying questions.

To gather ongoing local input and data and encourage all residents to participate in planning processes, the City has included Program 6a to meet annually with fair housing providers to discuss local fair housing issues and concerns, offer translation services to improve accessibility for all residents, conduct targeted outreach to underrepresented groups, and meet with service providers for special needs and underrepresented groups.

Technical Assessment of Fair Housing
State law requiresthe City of Fountain Valley to analyze disparitiesin accessto opportunity, areas ofsegregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disproportionate housing

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 93
needs, including displacement risk. The State (HCD) released a technical memorandum and compliance checklist in April 2021 to guide jurisdictions on addressing this requirement in housing elements.

HCD’s checklist identifies the following five areas that must be analyzed using local and regional patterns/trends, local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors followed by a conclusion and summary of issues.
 Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
 Segregation and integration
 Racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP)  Access to opportunity
 Disparate housing needs and displacement risk
A foundational set of local and regional data is the opportunity area maps prepared by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). A discussion of these maps for the City of Fountain Valley and the surrounding region is presented prior to the five areas of discussion.

TCAC Opportunity Area Maps
The TCAC opportunity area map identifies areasin every region of the state 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. Specifically, TCAC uses a composite score based on education, economic, and environmental indicators to categorize areas as highest resource, high resource, moderate (rapidly changing) resource, moderate resource, low resource, and areas with high segregation and poverty.

According to the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Area Map (Figure H‐3), Fountain Valley contains a mixture of highest, high, resource, and low resource areas. This map identifies areas in every region of the state 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. TCAC Opportunity Maps use a composite score based on education, economic, and environmental indicators to categorize areas as “high resource,” “moderate resource,” and “low resource.” For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels refer to the geographic proximity and ease of access to resources such as low‐cost transportation, jobs, and high‐quality schools, with low‐resource areas having the most limited access.  Highest resource areas. Fountain Valley’s highest resource area is in the southwest corner of the City, west of Brookhurst street and south of Talbert Avenue. The area is characterized by being predominantly residential single family homes, with access to the Orange Coast Medical Center at the corner of Talbert Avenue and Brookhurst Street, and both Fulton Middle School and Hisamatsu Tamura Elementary school along Magnolia Street. This area is

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 94
the closest to the coast and contains the censustractsreporting the highest median incomes, which, when combined with good access to education and high value of single family homes contribute to its designation as a “highest” resource area.  High resource areas. The City’s high resource areas are concentrated in the central portion of the City, predominantly north of Talbert Avenue and west of Ward street. This resource area includes a greater variety of housing, including several multifamily apartments along Brookhurst street, as well as access to Fountain Valley High School and Urbain H. Plavin Elementary School. The high resource area of the City also encompasses Mile Square Regional Park, which provides residents with access to substantial outdoor green space and recreational opportunities.
 Moderate resource areas. The City’s moderate resource area falls east of Ward Street and largely south of Warner Avenue, with one census tract included in the moderate resource area north Warner Avenue, between Euclid Street and New hope Street. This area reports lower educational scores compared to higher resource areas and is closer to some of the more environmentally challenged areas in Santa Ana. The moderate resource area contains census tracts reporting very low median incomes (with some tracts reporting income below that reported in census tracts in the City’s low resource area). Land uses in the moderate resource area are predominantly manufacturing and commercial office buildings, with areas of single family residential neighborhoods located around Fountain Valley Regional Hospital.

The area also includes Coastline Community College Administrative Offices and several public schools within Fountain Valley School District.
 Low resource areas. Fountain Valley has one census tract designated as a low resource area.

This census tract lies in the northeastern corner of the City, north of Warner Avenue and east of Newhope streetStreet. As with much of Fountain Valley, this area is predominantly made up of a mixture of single‐family and multifamily residential homes, with a small section of commercial business along the eastern City border. Los Amigos high school is within the census tract, located along Newhope street at Heli Avenue. The low resource designation of this area could be is due, in large part, to low educational and environmental domain scores influenced by proximity to lower‐performing schools and high‐impact uses in neighboring jurisdictions. The nearest school within the City’s boundary, Monroe Elementary, is performing well, with student performance consistently scoring higher than the state average. This census tract directly borders the Santa Ana River, which is designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as having identifiable sources of pollution, likely contributing to this area’s low environmental domain scores (even though proximity to the storm drainage channel does little to increase exposure to pollution for residents in Fountain Valley).
 High segregation and poverty. The City does not contain any areas designated as an area of high segregation and poverty, where at least 30 percent of the population is below the federal poverty level ($26,500 annually for a family of four in 2021), and patterns of racialsegregation exist.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 95
 Regional comparison. Compared to the Orange County region (see Figure H‐3), Fountain Valley contains a blend of resource levels, with more high and highest resource areas compared to cities to the north and east. As one would expect, nearby coastal cities contain more Highest resource areas. Fountain Valley has no areas of high segregation and poverty unlike neighboring jurisdictions and other areas in the northern part of the county.

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Composite Score (Tract)
Resource Category
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Missing/Insufficient Data
Date: 9/24/2021
TCAC Opportunity Areas
(2021) - Tract Level
AFFH Analysis
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-3

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 97
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City of Fountain Valley complies with allstate and federal lawsrelated to fair housing. Federal fair housing laws, including the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA) and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), protect residents from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex/gender, handicap/disability, and familial status. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and arbitrary discrimination in addition to the groups protected under federal fair housing legislation.

The City reviews data related to public housing buildings, the use of housing choice vouchers, and reported fair housing and equal opportunity inquiries to evaluate fair housing issues and enforcement and outreach capacity in Fountain Valley. The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC), which was established in 1965, provides fair housing service to multiple cities including Fountain Valley. Fair housing services include discrimination counseling, intake, investigation, and resolution, landlord/tenant fair housing counseling, mediations and training, certificate management training, community outreach, and fair housing education. These services provided by the FHCOC for the City of Fountain Valley meet or exceed HUD requirements concerning Fountain Valley’s annual CDBG certification of taking action to truly affirmatively further fair housing.

Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic of 2020, the City of Fountain Valley hosted Fair Housing workshops at City Council chambers, where residents could meet with a representative from the Fair Housing Council of Orange CountyFHCOC. During the 2022‐23 fiscal year, the City and FHCOC expects to conduct six community education presentations or outreach activities and hold two housing rights and obligations workshops, one primarily for tenants and another primarily for housing providers, at accessible locations within Fountain Valley. Approximately 500 information packets or other pieces of literature covering a wide array of housing related topics will be distributed either by mail or at presentations to Fountain Valley households. Additionally, 5th and 6th grade classes at Fountain Valley schools will be invited to participate in our annual poster/essay contest about the topic of fair housing.

Fair Housing Inquiries and Complaints
The office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) within HUD is responsible for administering and enforcing federal fair housing laws. Reports of discrimination covered under fair housing laws can be filed with local and regional HUD offices. When filed, all reports are reviewed as fair housing inquiries. A HUD official reviews each inquiry to determine if an inquiry will then be converted into an official fair housing discrimination complaint. While not all inquiries are converted into fair housing discrimination complaints, they can provide a resource for jurisdictions to identify concerns of potential discrimination.

The City analyzed fair housing inquiries provided by the Region Nine HUD office from 2013 to March 2021. In that time frame, Fountain Valley received five total FHEO inquires. Of those five

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 98
inquiries, four were related to a general discrimination factor and one inquiry was related to discrimination based on familial status. Of the five total cases, one was found by HUD to have no valid discrimination issue, and four were dismissed due to lack of response by the filer.

As a ratio, from 2013 to 2021 there were 0.08 FHEO inquiries filed per 1,000 people in Fountain Valley, which is comparable to the region at large.  Similar rates of FHEO inquiries are shown in Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Westminster, and Buena Park, while cities like Irvine, Tustin, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach show higher rates (see Figure H‐4).

During the 2020‐21 fiscal year in Fountain Valley, the FHCOC assisted 111 lower income households (of which 86 were extremely low), with counseling and resources to address a wide variety of housing related issues, inquiries, or disputes. Another four clients with incomes above CDBG limits were assisted. Roughly 20% of households assisted were elderly (age 62 and older) and roughly 7% (with some overlap) were disabled. About 9% of households were headed by a single female. The racial backgrounds of households served were approximately 60% white, 10% Asian, 3% black, and 27% other racial backgrounds. About 38% of households were of Hispanic background.7
The FHCOC received three allegations of possible housing discrimination in Fountain Valley, two of which were meritorious enough to cause the opening of a case file. FHCOC investigated and resolved both cases to the satisfaction of the tenant without referral to outside agencies or services. FHCOC also conducted four systemic rental tests of multifamily rental properties in Fountain Valley as a means of identifying possibly discriminatory housing practices. No discriminatory practices were detected at the four locations tested. Finally, FHCOC assisted two disabled Fountain Valley residents to obtain reasonable accommodation for improvements to their homes. The FHCOC anticipates similar levels of activity in the 2022‐2023 fiscal year and throughout the planning period.

Housing Choice Voucher Use
The percent of rental households using housing choice vouchers, a HUD program which provides financial assistance to certain eligible populations, is moderate with an average of 14% citywide and rates as high as 24% in a high resource area on the western edge of the city, and rates as low as 7% in a low resource area the northeastern portion of the city (Figure H‐5). Larger, denser cities in northern Orange County such as Westminster and Garden Grove experience higher use of housing choice vouchers than Fountain Valley.

Fountain Valley has similar rates of housing choice voucher use to larger cities in central Orange County like Irvine and Santa Ana. The areas of higher use of housing choice vouchers coincide with the City’s areas of high rates of overpayment for renters, particularly along the northern border of the City West of Miles Square Park. This could indicate that renters in these areas face a higher payment burden and could indicate a lack of a range of housing types and range of prices 7 The numbers were projected to be similar for the 2021-22 fiscal year (which had not been completed at the time of this Element’s publication).

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 99
available to renters in these areas. Program 2a, Housing Choice Vouchers, commits the City to continued collaboration with the County of Orange on the administration of the program.

Conclusion and Summary of Issues
Although Thethe City relies upon coordinationcoordinates with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County for outreach and enforcement related to fair housinghousing, Program 6a, Support Fair Housing Services, describes how the City will help further the FHCOC’s mission. The use of housing choice vouchers is moderate, with vouchers used by 14% of rental households on average (maximum of 24% and minimum of 7% in any given census tract). The northeastern part of the City is a logical area of focusfor the City to increase voucher use. The number of complaints of housing discrimination is very low (0.08 inquiries per 1,000 people), lower than many of the surrounding communities and the overall county. Public input received during outreach activities indicates strong community support to eliminate housing discrimination and continue working with the Fair Housing Council.

Huntington
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Westminster
Stanton
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Tustin
Orange
North
Tustin
Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
Valley View St Katella Ave
S Harbor Blvd
Ball Rd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Total Inquires per One-Thousand People
< .25 Inquiries
< .5 Inquiries
< 1 Inquiry
Greater than 1 Inquiry
Date: 9/24/2021
FHEO Inquiries (2020)
- by City
AFFH Analysis
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-4

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
HCV Public Percent
0 %
≤5 %
≤15 %
≤30 %
≤60 %
≤100 %
No Data
Date: 9/24/2021
Use of Housing Choice Vouchers
by Renters (2020) - Tract Level
AFFH Analysis
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-5

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 102
Patterns of Segregation and Integration
To assess patterns ofsegregation and integration, the City analyzed four characteristics: race and ethnicity, income, linguistic isolation, familial status, and disability status as of 2019 (2018 data related to the racial diversity index). This information is displayed in Figures H‐6 to H‐14.

Racial and Ethnicity
According to the ESRI Diversity Index,racial diversity in the City of Fountain Valley has  maintained or increased in block groups across the City since 2010. The index shows the likelihood that two people, chosen at random from the same area, belong to different race or ethnic groups. The index rangesfrom 0 (no diversity) to 100 (complete diversity). In 2010, the area of lowest diversity in Fountain Valley still had a diversity of score of 51, indicating a variety of racial diversity (see Figure H‐6). In 2018, this area of lowest diversity in the City actually increased to a diversity score of 55 and falls within the highest resource category. In 2018, the area of highest diversity had a diversity index score of 91 and is within the only designated low resource census tract within the City, north of Warner Avenue and east of Newhope Street (see Figure H‐7).

Diversity tendsto increase moving north across the SCAG region, into larger population citieslike Buena Park. Cities in southern Orange County demonstrate the lowest diversity index scores regionally. As highlighted in the community profile, racial demographic information from the U.S.

Census shows that the predominant racial ethnicity in Fountain Valley is those who identify as White‐only at 54% of residents, followed by 35% of residents who identify as Asian. While the variety of races and ethnicities may be low in Fountain Valley, the high Diversity Index scores indicate that the community is racially integrated.

The primary non‐White ethnicity in Fountain Valley is Vietnamese ancestry. After the fall of South Vietnam to the Provisional North Vietnamese government in 1975, the United States accepted a substantial number of Vietnamese refugees. A large number congregated in Orange County, particularly near Bolsa Avenue in Westminster—an area that became known as Little Saigon and expanded to portions of Westminster, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana. First and second generation Vietnamese‐Americans also settled in Fountain Valley and grew to represent 20% of the City’s population in 2010. As of 2016, Fountain Valley was home to the 18th largest number of Americans with Vietnamese ancestry in the United States (other areas with more include Garden Grove, Westminster, Santa Ana, and Anaheim in in Orange County). Within Fountain Valley, however, there is a fairly even distribution of Americans reported as Asian across census tracts:
typically 35% to 55%, with one as low as 28% and one as high as 61%.

Income
Median Income
Overall, the median income in Fountain Valley is above averagehigh, with the majority of householdsfalling at or above the 2020 state median income of $87,100 (see Figure H‐8). Median income levels generally vary between 55,000 and $125,000, with no firm pattern throughout

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 103
Fountain Valley. Only oOne block group in Fountain Valley has a median income that falls below the State median$55,000: the area bordering the Santa Ana River that coincides with the City’s area designated for commercial and manufacturing area. This block group contains very few residents (four apartment complexes) and is within a designated moderate resource area.

Median income is relatively high throughout the city and is distributed in different areas of Fountain Valley. The concentration of the highest median income is in two block groups in the southwestern corner, which is an area of predominantly single family homes, with accessto Roch Courregas Elementary School and Courregas Park. This area is in a designated highest resource area. Similar income distributions are seen in neighboring jurisdictions like Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Irvine, with higher average median incomes seen in southern Orange County jurisdictions like Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel. Median income begins to drop significantly in higher density northern Orange County cities like Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and Stanton, with more block groups in these areas falling below the state median income.

Poverty
Poverty rates within the SCAG region follow a similar pattern of extremely low incidence of poverty in coastal communities with high median incomes. Poverty rates increase in higher density cities within northern Orange County such as Santa Ana and Anaheim, with more than 30% of the population in some block groups experiencing poverty. In Fountain Valley, rates of poverty are low citywide. While poverty rates have increased between 2014 and 2019 (see Figures H‐9 and H‐10), there are no census tracts where more than 15% of the population experiences poverty. The census tract with the highest rate of poverty in the city is between Brookhurst and Bushard street, north of Talbert Avenue and south of Warner Avenue, and is within a high resource are of the City. All other census tracts in Fountain Valley show low rates of poverty (as little as 4% in some areas).

Linguistic Isolation
The City uses data from CalEnviroScreen version 4.0 mapping the percentage of households with limited English speaking abilities (Figure H‐11) to understand patterns of linguistic isolation.

According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5‐year estimates, approximately 11% of Fountain Valley households were reported as limited English‐speaking households. Of the 1,988 households with limited English‐speaking skills, 1,512 speak one of many Asian or Pacific Island languages (primarily Vietnamese).

While most census tracts indicate rates of limited English‐speaking households below 10%, rates for tracts along the eastern boundary were estimated to be between 13% and 16%. While the censustractsin the northeast (13% rate) are estimated to have median incomesin 2019 between approximately $87,000 and $118,000, the median income for the census tract to the southeast is estimated to be just over $74,000 (roughly $86,000 for family households and $47,500 for nonfamily households). In the southeastern census tract (16%) rate, there are a large number of age‐restricted and independent living facilities, with retired and fixed‐income residents likely contributing to the lower median incomes and limited English‐speaking households.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 104
While there is some evidence of linguistic isolation along the city’s eastern boundary, the rates are not much higher compared to ratesfound in many other censustracts. The City employsstaff that speak English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and regularly produces public materials in different languages.

Familial Status
Fountain Valley is a predominantly family‐oriented community, with approximately 77% of households reported as residents living as a family (see Table H‐9 in the Community Profile section). Citywide, less than 20% of the adult population identifies as living alone. For families with children, more than 60% of children live in married couple households (see Figure H‐12).

This pattern of familial status is not uncommon in areas that contain a large number of single family homes. Similar rates of married couple households are seen in communities with similar economic demographics such as Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa. Denser urban areas such as Anaheim and Fullerton have a wider array of population demographics, and demonstrate higher rates of adults living alone, as well as higher rates of single parent, female‐headed households.

The rezoning efforts to be done to accommodate the RHNA allocation (Program 1a) could yield a large number of multifamily units that are more accessible (financially) and desirable to non‐ family households.

Disability Status
The percentage of people in Fountain Valley that identifies as having a disability is low, with 11% of residents identifying as having a disability (see Table H‐12 in the Community Profile section).

People with a disability are distributed throughout the city with no patterns of isolation based on disability status. The overall rates and distribution have not changed substantially since 2015 (see Figures H‐13 and H‐14). Rates and distribution of disability increased and spread farther in northern Orange County cities like Westminster and Garden Grove. Similarly low rates and distribution of disability are seen in neighboring Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa as well as Irvine, Laguna Niguel, and Aliso Viejo. While Fountain Valley does not have a large percentage of residents with a disability, it is worth considering whether there are factors, such as transit access, cost, or ADA accessible units, that tend to preclude disabled individuals from residing in central Orange County jurisdictions. The City is implementing Program 6c, Support for Persons with Disabilities, to better serve residents with a disability.

Conclusion and Summary of Issues
There is no significant evidence of segregation or concentration of households based on race, ethnicity, familial status, or disability status, and rates are either consistent with or better than regional figures. However, there is evidence that a cluster of lower income households live in apartment complexes adjacent to the Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and light industrial uses.

The low incomes are influenced by the large number of retired individuals living on fixed incomes in age‐restricted or independent living facilities. Overall, however, the area is designated as a moderate resource area and is within walking distance to primary and secondary schools, a community college, local and regional parks, a regional hospital, and a grocery store.

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Diversity Index 2010
(Block Group)
Lower Diversity
Higher Diversity
Date: 9/24/2021
Diversity Index
(2010) - Block Group Level
AFFH Analysis
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-6

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Diversity Index 2018
(Block Group)
Lower Diversity
Higher Diversity
Date: 9/24/2021
Diversity Index
(2018) - Block Group Level
AFFH Analysis
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-7

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Median Income
< $30,000
< $55,000
< $87,100 (HCD 2020 State Median Income)
< $125,000
Greater than $125,000
Date: 9/24/2021
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-8
AFFH Analysis
Median Income
(2015 - 2019) - Block Group Level

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of
Population whose
income in the past
12 months is below
poverty level
< 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 30%
30% - 40%
> 40%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-9
AFFH Analysis
Poverty Status
(2010-2014) - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of
Population whose
income in the past
12 months is below
poverty level
< 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 30%
30% - 40%
> 40%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-10
AFFH Analysis
Poverty Status
(2015-2019) - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Limited English
Speaking Households
Less than 5%
5% - 10%
10% - 15%
15% - 20%
Greater than 20%
Date: 9/24/2021
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-11
AFFH Analysis
Linguistic Isolation
(2018) - Tract Level

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Children
in Married-Couple
Households
< 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-12
AFFH Analysis
Percent of Children in Married
Couple Households
(2015-2019) - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Population with a Disability
< 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 30%
30% - 40%
> 40%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-13
AFFH Analysis
Population with a Disability
(2014) - Census Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Population with a Disability
< 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 30%
30% - 40%
> 40%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-14
AFFH Analysis
Population with a Disability
(2019) - Census Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 114
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To help identify areas with racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, HUD developed a definition for racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, or R/ECAPs. HUD defines a R/ECAP at the census tract level, as an area in which the poverty rate exceeds 40 percent or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. In addition, the area must have a non‐white population of 50 percent or more. Census tracts with this poverty rate, that also satisfy the racial/ethnic concentration threshold, are deemed R/ECAPs.

Using this methodology, the City of Fountain Valley does not have any census tracts identified as a R/ECAP. There are few R/ECAP areasin the region at large, with only two jurisdictionsin Orange County (Santa Ana and Irvine) containing census tracts identified as R/ECAPs. Santa Ana and Irvine are both larger and more diverse jurisdictions compared to Fountain Valley and other southern Orange County cities.

Another method of evaluating patterns of income concentration along racial lines is to identify racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). While there is no regulatory definition for identifying RCAAs, HUD published an article in 2019 titled “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation”. In this article, the authors found that while “low‐wealth communities of color have been thoroughly… portrayed as the most recognizable example of racial and income segregation in the United States, relatively little attention has been given to the other side of the segregation dynamic—the affluent, White community.” The authors hypothesized that, in the same way that there can be disadvantages for people of color that are living in poverty and are isolated/concentrated, there can be distinct advantages for people living in neighborhoods that are extremely affluent. They also cited previous research indicating that areas of significantly higher affluence that are racially mixed or primarily non‐ White exhibited a more even distribution of advantages (e.g., good schools and higher property values). In comparison, very affluent areasthat are almost or entirely White in racial composition tend to concentrate advantages more intensely.

The authors sought to mirror the dimensions and methods that make up the R/ECAP definition and to think of both R/ECAPs and RCAAs as two ends of the same continuum. Accordingly, they defined an RCAA as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income that is roughly double that national median (in their study $125,000 was about double the 2016 national median household income of $60,309). Based on a median household income in 2019 of $77,774 for the Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Anaheim metropolitan statistical area, an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of $155,000.  Using this metric, there are no census tracts that qualify as an RCAA in Fountain Valley, no such census tracts throughout the entirety of Orange County, and few throughout the entire SCAG region. Some evidence of concentration begins to emerge once an RCAA is defined as a census tract where both:

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 115
 the percentage of White population is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total White population for all census tracts in the SCAG region (48% vs 32%); and  the median household income is 1.5 times higher than the median household income for the SCAG region ($122,268 vs $81,512).

It is important to note that this definition is consistent with methodology preferred by HCD, in which a location quotient (1.50 times higher than the average) provides better baseline of comparison across the entire SCAG region and helps to control for extreme outliers compared to a flat rate percentage (80% or greater or more than 200% higher).

There is only one census tract in Fountain Valley that meets these criteria and can be considered a RCAA (see Figure H‐15). This census tract is within a designated highest resource area and 55% of the population identifies as White (2020 Census) and a median income of $142,333. It is important to note, however, that this 64% of the population identified as White alone in the 2010 Census, indicating that the area is becoming more diverse and perhaps transitioning out as an area of concentrated race and affluence. Additionally, according to the 2020 Census, this census tract is 35% Asian, somewhat diminishing the significance of a clustering (55%) of people identifying as White. The majority of this census tract is existing single‐family homes with some of the highest values in Fountain Valley. Other uses include Courreges Element School, a number of parks, a couple of townhome tracts, the historic Courreges Ranch, and two neighborhood commercial areas that are performing well.

While there are no opportunities for multifamily infill residential development, the City’s opportunity for integrating housing for various economic levelsin this censustract isthe addition of ADUs on existing lots, as sites in these census tracts are already occupied by existing single‐ family housing that is unlikely to turn over into a more traditional style of multifamily housing.

The addition of ADU’s to existing single family lots within these RCAAs provides an opportunity for the City to increase housing opportunities to a more racially and economically diverse population.

Regionally, there are multiple RCAAs identified throughout Orange County. The highest concentration of RCAAs is seen in southern Orange County, and in coastal jurisdictions throughout the county. This trend mimics spatial patterns identified in distribution for median income and percent of non‐white population, as expected for the defined criteria of a RCAA.

South Orange County and coastal jurisdictions tend to have larger concentrations of residents who identify as White, as well as larger median incomes than larger and more dense jurisdictions to the north, in large part due to the historical discrepancy in housing values between coastal communities and non‐coastal communities.

Conclusion and Summary of Issues
While there are no R/ECAPs, the southwest corner of the city demonstrates some potential concentration of residents who are both White and affluent. This area, however, contains 55% White and 35% Asian residents, and patterns indicating growing diversity.

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
0 - Not a RCAA
1 - RCAA
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-15
AFFH Analysis
Racially Concentrated Areas
of Affluence - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 117
Access to Opportunity
Jobs Proximity
The City enjoys above average access and proximity to jobs, according to the HUD 2017 Jobs Proximity index scores (see Figure H‐16). Higher Index scores indicate a residential neighborhood’s proximity to jobs and job centers within a given core‐based statistical areas, with larger employment center weighted more heavily. The City’s moderate resource area, located along the Santa Ana River on the eastern border of the City boasts a job proximity index score of

91. This high index score is likely based on proximity to a large regional employment hub in and around Irvine. Areas in north and western Fountain Valley see lower index scores, but only drop to a proximity index score of 41 in the lowest scoring areas, still considerably higher than other areas in the region such as Garden Grove and Anaheim, where proximity scores drop to a value as low as 3. Communities in the central Orange County region see more block groups with high proximity scores, with those communities again centered around the regional employment hub in Irvine. In 2019, the mean travel time to work for a commuter in Fountain Valley was 27.7 minutes, just slightly lower than the Orange County average commute time of 28 minutes. Below average commute times may be another factor in the above average jobs proximity index scores in Fountain Valley.

Environmental Burden
In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen (CES), a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community’s environmental scores. A census tract with a high CES score has higher levels of pollution and other negative environmental indicators, while the inverse is true for low CES scores. The CES tool combines over 21 pollution and population factors to create individual and composite CES scores. Those census tracts that are in the upper quartile (75th percentile) compared to all census tracts in California are considered disadvantaged from the perspective of environmental justice.

Most census tracts in Fountain Valley received CES composite scores well below the 60th percentile, with those along the Santa Ana River Channel showing scores between the 55th and 60th percentile. No census tract in Fountain Valley was close to qualifying as a disadvantaged community (75th percentile). One census tract with a score at the 56th percentile correlates with the City’s only low resource area and an area of high diversity. Land uses in this census tract are a mix of single and multifamily housing, a high school, and commercial and auto service centers.

The primary reason for the 56th percentile score for the census tract in Fountain Valley is proximity to a census tract within Santa Ana across the channel. The census tract in Santa Ana contains multiple sites that have been documented to handle and/or have spilled hazardous chemicals, which increases the potential risk of exposure to pollution for nearby residents.

Without proximity to the uses in Santa Ana, the CES composite score for the census tract in Fountain Valley would likely be below the 50th percentile. Additionally, the Santa Ana River Channel serves as a substantial buffer between the two cities and likely decreases the pollution risk for census tracts in Fountain Valley (this buffering is not factored into the CES methodology).

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Jobs Proximity Index
< 20 (Furthest Proximity)
20 - 40
40 - 60
60 - 80
> 80 (Closest Proximity)
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-16
AFFH Analysis
Job Proximity Index
(2017) - Block Group Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 119
Access to Education
Each year, the California Department of Education publishes performance metricsfor each school in the state, including student assessment results for English Language Arts and Mathematics as they compare to the state on meeting grade‐level standards. Reporting of educational indicators were suspended in 2020 due to the COVID‐19 pandemic; therefore, 2019 is the more recent data available.

Schools are fairly well distributed throughout the City with no areas of dramatically lower access or proximity to schools at the elementary level and at all levels for English Language Arts (see Table H‐28). Fountain Valleys’ highest performing schools (Ethan B. Allen Elementary, Vista View Middle School, and Fountain Valley High School) are located in high resource areas with low rates of poverty, higher rates of home ownership, and higher median incomes, suggesting residents attending these schools may have more economic and housing stability than residents of low resource areas.

Fountain Valley’s lowest performing school (Mamie L. Northcutt Elementary) is located in a low resource area. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities had the highest rate of chronic absenteeism (missing more than 10 percent of instructional days) and suspension rate, further indicating the role of housing security in student performance and engagement at school. While most schools in the district perform similarly, there is not a significant difference in access to schools based on proficiency. Overall, addressing housing security and availability may improve educational opportunities for all students, and particularly studentsresiding in low resource areas. Programs 2a, Housing Choice Vouchers and 2c, Nonprofit Development, address housing security and availability concerns, and may improve educational opportunities for all students, and particularly students residing in low resource areas.

TABLE H‐28
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE METRICS, 2019
Scores  ▲ above standard | ▼ below standard % Prepared
School English Language Arts Mathematics College/Career Prep Statewide Average ▼ 2.5 ▼ 33.5 44.1%
School Districts
Fountain Valley Elem. ▲ 60.2   ▼ 56.5   n/a
Garden Grove Unified   ▲ 23.8   ▼ 1.3   56.8%
HB Union High   ▲ 64.2   ▼ 9.0 55.3%
Ocean View ▲ 26.7   ▲ 13.8   n/a
High Schools
Fountain Valley   ▲ 94.3   ▼ 39.1   68.2%
Los Amigos   ▲ 2.9   ▼ 74.3   41.6%
Middle Schools
Harry C. Fulton 6‐8 ▲ 74.7   ▼ 66.6   n/a
Kazuo Masuda 6‐8 ▲ 52.2   ▼ 58.5   n/a
Vista View 6‐8 ▲ 14.3   ▲ 9.0 n/a
Elementary Schools
Ethan B. Allen K‐6 ▲ 106.5 ▲ 88.1 n/a

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 120
TABLE H‐28
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE METRICS, 2019
Scores  ▲ above standard | ▼ below standard % Prepared
School English Language Arts Mathematics College/Career Prep Hisamatsu Tamura K‐5 ▲ 67.2 ▲ 71.2 n/a
James H Cox K‐5 ▲ 37.2 ▲ 42.1 n/a
James Monroe K‐6 ▲ 4.6 ▲ 25.8 n/a
Mamie L. Northcutt K‐6 ▲ 1.2 ▲ 16.7 n/a
Robert Gisler K‐5 ▲ 45.0 ▲ 24.2 n/a
Roch Courreges K‐5 ▲ 63.7 ▲ 63.8 n/a
Urbain H. Plavan K‐5 ▲ 63.9 ▲ 59.9 n/a
Source: California School Dashboard, 2019
Access to Transit
Fountain Valley Residents are served by the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) bus system for public transportation, with local bus route and community bus routes and stops throughout Fountain Valley. Routes that operate in Fountain Valley include community route 172 east/west along Garfield Avenue, and local routes 70, 72, and 76 east to west along major throughfares including Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue, and Talbert Avenue. Local routes 33, 35, 37, and 43 operate north to south along Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Harbor Boulevard.

Local route 70 operates east to west along Edinger Avenue and provides an opportunity for Fountain Valley residents to connect to the Goldenwest Transportation Center in Huntington Beach, where riders can connect to regional bus lines to the Buena Park Metrolink Link Transportation Station. There are no lines within Fountain Valley that offer 15‐minute weekday rush hour frequency (offered in north and west Orange County). Standard fare for OC Bus is $2 to board and $5 for a one‐day pass(unlimited transfers). Seniors, individuals with disabilities, and youth are eligible for discounted fares; and unlimited 30‐day passes are available for $69.

Rail service is provided by Metrolink, a train system offering connections across southern California, with service Monday through Friday from roughly 4 AM to 8 PM and a reduced schedule on weekends. The nearest Metrolink train stations are the Santa Ana Metrolink Station and the Buena Park Metrolink Station. Metrolink stations offer additional access to destinations and employment centersthroughout southern California. Discounts are available for a seven‐day ($42) and monthly ($168) pass, as well asthose who are seniors,students, youths, active military, disabled, or on Medicare. Given that a large number of routes and stops are available to residents, particularly in the City’s only low resource area, access to transit is not considered a barrier to fair housing in the City.

Conclusion and Summary of Issues
Overall, all areas in Fountain Valley have good access to economic, education, and transit opportunities. Every part of the city is within close driving distance to nearby employment hubs,

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 121
although the eastern half has somewhat better access (including the low resource areas). There are no significant environmental hazards affecting any part of the city, with the only potential pollution hazards essentially a reflection of a census tract in the adjacent city that is separated from Fountain Valley by a drainage channel. Access to high quality education facilities is distributed across the city, though some of the highest performing schools are clustered in the northern part of the high resource area. Access to public transit is best in the low and moderate resource areas, both for local service and access to regional transit hubs.

Disparate Housing Need and Displacement Risk
Overcrowding
As discussed in the housing needs assessment, overcrowding of households is not a prominent issue in Fountain Valley, affecting less than 2% of all households in the City (see Figure H‐17).

While the data provided by the state reflects the 2006‐2010 time period, data from the 2015‐ 2019 time period indicates similar numbers. When rates are broken down by tenure, it appears that rental households experience a higher rate of overcrowding at 8%. In the northeast corner of the city, the only censustract designated as a low resource area, overcrowding decreased from approximately 10% in 2010 to 5% in 2019.

Overcrowding increased in the Green Valley Park neighborhood (census tract north of Talbert Avenue and west of Euclid St), from below 8% in 2010 to 13% in 2019. Median incomes in this census tract, however, are very high at just over $100,000 (moderate to above moderate income given an average household size of 2.5 for renters and 3.4 for homeowners in the census tract).

It is likely that some residents chose to locate in smaller housing units in this area so that their children can walk to Cox Elementary School, Masuda Middle School, and Green Valley Park. Given the income levels in census tracts with higher rates of overcrowding, overcrowding is not considered an issue. Even in the low resource area, median incomes are between $87,000 and $118,000 (at least moderate income given an average household size of 2.7).

Fountain Valley experiences lower rates of household overcrowding; in 2019, 3.9% of all households are considered overcrowded, approximately 7.8% of renter households and 3.3% of owner‐occupied. This is lower compared to neighboring cities like Santa Ana (29.9%), Garden Grove (14.8%), but higher than Huntington Beach (3.7%). Orange County has a 9.1% overcrowding rate higher than the statewide average of 8.2% and a little over two times higher than the City. Rates of overcrowding for rental households countywide is 15.6%, almost two times higher than the City (7.8%), but significantly lower than Santa Ana (40.7%) and Garden Grove (21.6%).   Extremely low‐income and very low‐income residents have the highest rates (14.6%) of overcrowded households countywide.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 122
Overpayment
Approximately 63% of renter and 42% of mortgage‐holding households in Fountain Valley experience some level of overpayment. The pattern of homeowners who are spending more than 30% of their income on housing is relatively even in distribution (see Figure H‐18), with few spending more than 50% of their income on housing. This is not unexpected as homeowner households tend to earn much higher incomes and can afford to overpay somewhat due to the tax benefits of homeownership and the amount of discretionary income these households still have even after paying for housing.

In contrast, the vast majority (70%) of the City’s renter households that earn less than $50,000 spent over half of their income on rent, with roughly two‐thirds of such households paying at least $1,500 per month in rent. In some areas of the City, up to 78% of all renters are cost burdened. The dispersion of renter cost burden follows a unique patten, with areas of highest cost burden concentration appearing in the designated high and highest resource areas of the City, as well as the City’s only designated low resource census tract (see Figure H‐19). The high quality of school districts serving Fountain Valley likely increases market rents for rental housing, and it is likely that some residents are willing to overpay for rental housing within the city boundaries so that their children can attend schools in Fountain Valley. Programs 2a, Housing Choice Vouchers, and 2e, Homebuyer Assistance, address the overpayment condition experienced by rental and ownership households.

Fountain Valley exhibits both higher rates of overpaying renter and owner households compared to the City of Irvine (48% renter, 33% owner). This City was used for comparison as it also served by a highly‐rated school district that attracts families who are willing to overpay to live in the school district boundaries. According to the 2016‐2020 ACS, the median income for Irvine ($108,318) is substantially higher compared to Fountain Valley ($89,924), while the median rent ($2,425 for Irvine, $2,100 for Fountain Valley) is more similar. Countywide, approximately 57% of renter households are spending more than 30% of their income on rent alone, which is lower than Fountain Valley’s rate of renter overpayment.

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Overcrowded Households
< 8.2% (Statewide Average)

8.3% - 12%

12.01% - 15%

15.01% - 20%
> 20%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-17
AFFH Analysis
Overcrowded Households
(2006-2010) - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Owner
Households with
Mortgages whose
Monthly Owner
Costs are 30.0
Percent or More of
Household Income
< 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-18
AFFH Analysis
Overpayment by Homeowners
(2015-2019) - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Percent of Renter
Households for
whom Gross Rent
(Contract Rent Plus
Tenant-Paid
Utilities) is 30.0
Percent or More of
Household Income
< 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
> 80%
Date: 9/24/2021
Figure H-19
AFFH Analysis
Overpayment by Renters
(2015-2019) - Tract Level
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PlaceWorks 2021

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 126
Substandard Housing
In December 2019, City staff conducted a windshield survey of the city to assessthe maintenance and rehabilitation needs of the City’s housing stock. Only 475 housing units were identified by staff that showed obvious deferred maintenance issues, all of which could be repaired if the owner had the resources and desire to do so. There were not any properties with deferred maintenance so great they would not be able to be repaired. The great majority of the City’s housing stock was in good or excellent condition. Each of the 475 properties identified were sent information regarding the City’s Home Improvement Program. By comparison, the County documented approximately 300 units that had fallen into various states of disrepair throughout the unincorporated areas, of which 29 required extensive rehabilitation or wholesale replacement to be considered safe for occupation.

The presence of lead‐based paint can also be a hazardous housing condition, but the City estimates the total number to be very low. Since testing began in 2002, only two homes of over 100 tested contained any lead‐based paint hazards, both of which were minimal amounts.

Programs 4a and 4c, Home Improvement and Lead Based Paint Hazard Grant Programs, are intended to improve the condition of housing throughout the City.

Homelessness
Persons experiencing homelessness, or atrisk of becoming homeless, are typically extremely low‐ income and are displaced from housing due to inability to pay or other issues. There areIn 2022, the Point‐in‐Time Count recorded approximately 28 38 unsheltered homeless persons living in the City of Fountain Valley. Thisis approximately one percent of the total countywide unsheltered population, which has a total of 3,057 persons. Compared to the region, the City has a smaller percentage of its population that is homeless than most central Orange County cities, like neighboring Santa Ana (508), Huntington Beach (188), and Costa Mesa (150). The 2019 point‐in‐ time survey estimates that homeless population in Fountain Valley makes up less than 1 percent of the total countywide unsheltered population. While there are several shelters and homeless resources throughout the region are available to homeless residents of Fountain Valley (Table H‐ 14), there are limited services available inside city limits. The City currently contracts with City Net, a regional non‐profit, to assist with outreach and provision of homeless services. Program 5b, Support for Homeless Services, describes the City’s commitment to serving persons experiencing homelessness. In order to facilitate the construction of emergency shelters, the City has included Program 3e to allow low‐barrier navigation centers in all zones that allow mixed‐ use and non‐residential zones that allow multifamily uses.

Displacement Risk
The City of Fountain Valley weighed several criteria to determine the displacement risk of vulnerable populations at the census tract level. A tract’s population was considered vulnerable to displacement if more than 20 percent of households are in the low income category and

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 127
satisfied two or more of the following criteria: at least 40 percent of households are renters; at least 50 percent of residents are people of color; or the proportion of severely rent‐burdened, very‐low income households is higher than the county median.

Using the criteria described above, the City identified six eight tracts wholly within its boundary with populations vulnerable to displacement (see Figure H‐20). Four of the six eight tracts span almost the entire width of the City along its midline, with a small protrusion into the southeast corner. Collectively, this central band contains most the City’s multifamily residential developments. The easternmost tract in this band contains a significant portion of the City’s non‐ residential uses, a large single family development, and several multifamily communities. The three adjacent tracts in the center contain many of the City’s large multifamily developments.

The final two tracts with populations vulnerable to displacement are in the northwestern and northeastern corners of the City. Both tracts contain a mix of older single family neighborhoods and multifamily communities. All six census tracts report a history of renter overpayment combined with higher rates of households living below the federal poverty line. Program 2a, Housing Choice Vouchers, includes comprehensive outreach in lower income neighborhoods to promote the availability of the County‐administered Section 8 program.

Conclusions and Summary of Issues
Housing in Fountain Valley is uncrowded and in good condition, though attention may be needed to ensure those homes that are aging are well maintained. It is expensive to live in Fountain Valley, particularly for those households with incomes below the state median average. While there are many rental householdsthat may choose to overpay for housing (perhaps to accessthe school districts), there are likely many other rental households who struggle while spending 30 percent or more on housing costs. New housing opportunities, if affordable, will benefit such households, while new market‐rate housing may lead to increased risk of displacement for those rental households spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Homelessness remains an issue facing the City of Fountain Valley as well as the greater southern California region, however the City’s recent action to pursue a jointly developed low barrier navigation center aims to alleviate the strain on homeless individuals.

Pacific Ocean
South
Lake
Pond
WLa Veta Ave
Euclid St
W Ball Rd
N Tu
stin
Ave
Main St
Bristol St S Bristol St
Orange Ave
W 1st St
Irvine Blvd
E Chapman Ave
E Ball Rd
E 17th St
Newport Ave
Campus Dr
S Harbor Blvd
E Collins Ave
Westminster Blvd
Harbor Blvd
Baker St
Main St
Walnut Ave
Ha
rva
rdAve
E Edinger Ave
E Katella Ave
Goldenwest St
Lampson Ave
E Yale
Loop
Westminster Ave
Yorktown Ave
Hewes Ave
W Warner Ave
S18
Newland St
E Warner Ave
S Euclid St
N Main St
C
a
n
no
n
S
t
Springdale St
N Bristol St
E Santa Ana Blvd
Prospect
S t
N Harbor Blvd
N Euclid St
Warner Ave
Garden Grove Blvd
W Yale Loop
Magnolia St
Culver Dr
Edinger Ave
1st St
N
G
rand
Ave
Valley
View St
Jamboree Rd
W Chapman Ave
Adams Ave
Villa Park Rd
Fairview Rd
Chapman Ave
Edinger Ave
1st St
S M
agn
olia Ave
W Taft Ave
E 4th St
E 1st St
S Anahei
m
B
l
v
d
Ellis Ave
N Glassell St
Red Hill Ave
S State College Blvd
Ball Rd
Knott St
S Fairview St
Bolsa Ave
Cerritos Ave
BallRd
E Dyer Rd
K
nott Ave
N Tu
sti
n St
Tustin Ranch Rd
Katella Ave
17th St
Barranca Pky
Irvine Center Dr
Garfield Ave
W Macarthur Blvd
W 17th St
W Katella Ave
Ward St
Jeffrey Rd
N
Hewes
S
t
17th St
W Edinger Ave
Michelson Dr
P
al ce
ntia
Ave
S Tustin St
S
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
S
Hew
es
S
t
The
C
i
ty
Dr
Newport Blvd
Talbert Ave Brookhurst St
Alton Pky
S Main St
Harbor Blvd
Magnolia St
5 405
57 55
261
22 73
72 39
1 ORANGE
Huntington
Beach
Newport
Beach
Irvine
Fountain
Valley
Costa Mesa
Los Alamitos
Westminster
Stanton
Cypress
Buena
Park
Garden Grove
Midway
City
Santa Ana
Villa Park
Tustin
Orange
Anaheim
North Tustin
Fountain Valley City Limits
County Boundary
City Boundary
Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement
Date: 9/24/2021
Vulnerable Communities
(2017) - Tract Level
AFFH Analysis
0 0.5 1
Mi
0 8,000
Ft
Source: Urban Displacement Project, PlaceWorks 2021
Figure H-20

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 129
Site Inventory and Fair Housing Factors Analysis
The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have accessto opportunity. Thisis particularly important for lower‐income households.

AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the location of lower‐income sites in relation to fair housing factors to determine whether the sites inventory further entrenches existing fair housing issues. When patterns of fair housing issues do overlap with sites identified in the inventory (parcels with pipeline projects, ADUs, parcels that are vacant, and parcels that are considered underutilized), the City is obligated to establish strategies to mitigate and improve conditions contributing to fair housing issues. What follows is an analysis of the distribution of the City’s sites inventory by income category compared to citywide patterns, in the context of the fair housing issues discussed earlier in the Fair Housing Assessment. Figure H‐ 21 illustrates the distribution of the sites inventory.

Factors with no Concentration with or without Sites Inventory The City confirmed that the following fair housing factors either exhibited no particular pattern or evidence of significant concentration across the city at the census tract or block group level (as analyzed) either in general or in regard to the location of housing sites identified to address the City’s RHNA allocation.
 TCAC Opportunity Areas
 Public housing & housing choice vouchers
 Fair housing and complaints
 Race and ethnicity
 Linguistic isolation
 Familial status
 Disability status
 Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
 School performance
 Transit access
 Economic/employment opportunities
 Environmental conditions
 Overpayment
 Overcrowding
 Substandard housing

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 130
Factors with Evidence of Concentration and Comparison to Sites Inventory
The remaining fair housing factors of income and displacement risk demonstrate some type of significant pattern or degree of concentration that have the potential to be exacerbated by the sites inventory. The following charts and narrative presented below is used by the City to guide the creation and implementation of housing strategies that strive to improve conditions related to the fair housing factor. These strategies are presented in the discussion of contributing factors and/or in the City’s Housing Strategy.

As in many cities along the coast of Orange and Los Angeles counties, Fountain Valley is essentially built out and will experience growth through the reuse of existing sites.

Accommodating the RHNA allocation while viewed through the lens of affirmatively furthering fair housing requires the City to seek out sites that would provide new residents with the best access to resources, as well as sites that are developable during the planning period. With the exception of a proposed 27 single family development near Ellis Avenue and Brookhurst (Smith Farmssite), all potential housing opportunity sites have the properzoning to accommodate a mix of lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income housing units.

Income
To better understand how the City’s sites inventory compares to existing patterns of income distribution, the City refined the income data provided by HCD and presented in the technical assessment in the prior pages. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.91, the City used the median income threshold of $92,251 (HCD income limits) for a three‐person household and determined that roughly two‐thirds of census tracts in Fountain Valley have a median income that could be considered lower income. It should be noted that Orange County is assigned a higher threshold for lower income by HCD (greater than 50% of area median income) due to high housing costs. This information is displayed as the top bar in Chart H‐2, with the lower bars illustrating the distribution of census tracts by median income that contain the sites listed in the City’s inventory to address the RHNA allocation.

The majority (90%) of lower income capacity is planned for censustracts below the state median, as these tracts contain the sites most suitable for affordable housing development in the future.

This is evidenced by the fact that nearly all of the moderate (81%) and above moderate income (87%) capacity is also planned predominantly in tracts that fall below the state median.

There are benefits and drawbacks to focusing the majority of sites that could support housing that is affordable to lower income households in areas with a median income that is categorized as lower income. For example, in areas that that contain lower income renters that are currently overpaying for housing, new affordable units may directly help reduce rates of overpayment and enable a resident to obtain affordable housing while remaining within their current neighborhood. However, if existing renters do not occupy the new lower income units and lower

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 131
income housing sites are not offered throughout the community, the existing patterns where lower income households are concentrated will only become more concentrated.

Chart H‐1  Income: Comparison of RHNA Capacity Distribution and Citywide Distribution Per Policy 6.7 in the Housing Strategy, the City will actively advertise new income‐restricted units to eligible rental households in Fountain Valley (especially those living within the same census tract as the new units), in part to ensure that new affordable housing built in lower income parts of the City are beneficial and do not exacerbate current patterns. Per Policy 6.8 in the Housing Strategy, the City will encourage and facilitate mixed‐income housing developments to promote more diversity throughout all parts of Fountain Valley.

TAdditionally, through Program 1c, the City will introduce an inclusionary housing provision to ensure that at least 15% of new units built are reserved for lower income households.

Additionally, tThrough Program 1d, the City will actively promote and facilitate the development of ADUs, which have been demonstrated to be affordable to lower income households at market rates, throughout the city’s residential neighborhoods, including those designated as high and highest resource areas by TCAC. Together these policies and programs will facilitate a greater mix of income levels across the potential housing opportunity sites and reduce the concentration of units available to any one income level in a one part of the city.

Displacement
90%
81%
87%
87%
68%
3%
2%
1%
2%
16%
7%
17%
12%
11%
16%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Lower Income Capacity
Moderate Income Capacity
Above Moderate Income
Capacity
Total RHNA Capacity
Census Tracts in Fountain
Valley
Less than or equal to
$92,250 (Lower Income)
$92,251 to $111,250
(Moderate Income)
$111,251 or Greater
(Above Moderate Income

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 132
Chart H‐2 illustrates the proportion of census tracts identified as containing rental housing and tenants that could be at risk of displacement citywide (top bar), with the lower bars illustrating the vulnerability assessment for census tracts that contain the sites listed in the City’s inventory to address the RHNA allocation. Approximately 89% of the new housing sites are in census tracts that may have a higher risk of displacement for renters. This is due primarily to the fact that the sites that are best positioned to be rezoned and support new housing are in areas that already contain a large amount of multifamily rental housing. This is evidenced by the fact that nearly all of the moderate (81%) and above moderate income (87%) capacity is also planned predominantly in tracts that may have a higher risk of displacement for renters.

Per Policy 6.7 in the Housing Strategy, the City will actively advertise new income‐restricted units to eligible rental households in Fountain Valley (especially those living within the same census tract as the new units), in part to ensure that new affordable housing built in lower income parts of the City are beneficial and do not exacerbate current pattern of displacement risk.

Chart H‐2  Displacement Risk: Comparison of RHNA Capacity Distribution and Citywide Distribution
As in many cities along the coast of Orange and Los Angeles counties, Fountain Valley is essentially built out and will experience growth through the reuse of existing sites.

Accommodating the RHNA allocation while viewed through the lens of affirmatively furthering fair housing requires the City to seek out sites that would provide new residents with the best access to resources, as well as sites that are developable during the planning period. With the exception of a proposed 27 single family development near Ellis Avenue and Brookhurst (Smith Farmssite), all potential housing opportunity sites have the properzoning to accommodate a mix of lower income, moderate income, and above moderate income housing units. 89%
81%
87%
87%
61%
11%
19%
13%
13%
39%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Lower Income Capacity
Moderate Income Capacity
Above Moderate Income Capacity
Total RHNA Capacity
Census Tracts in Fountain Valley
Vulnerable
Not
Vunerable

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 133
Through Program 1c, the City will introduce an inclusionary housing provision to ensure that at least 15% of new units built are reserved for lower income households. Additionally, through Program 1d, the City will actively promote and facilitate the development of ADUs, which have been demonstrated to be affordable to lower income households at market rates, throughout the city’s residential neighborhoods, including those designated as high and highest resource areas. This mix of income levels across the potential housing opportunity sites will help prevent a concentration of units available to any one income level in a one part of the city or resource area. The potential housing opportunity sites are distributed across Fountain Valley, with potential housing sites spanning across all resource areas.

Low resource area. Three potential housing sites are in the City’s designated low resource area, north of Warner Avenue. Swaths of existing multifamily development around these sites demonstrate they are well positioned for potential use as residential redevelopment, from their current use as commercial businesses. Residents in this area enjoy access to OCTA bus line 70, which connects directly to the Goldenwest Transit Center in Huntington Beach. Residents in the low resource area are also within a mile walk of Mile Square Regional Park. As there appears to be a concentration of renters who overpay for housing costs in the low resource area, the City will work to ensure that the development of new housing in this area does not further displacement risk for existing renters through Program 5a.

Moderate resource area. The majority of the proposed housing sites are a located within the designated moderate resource area along the easter border of the city, south of Warner Avenue (see Figure H‐21). Housing in this moderate resource area has more significant access to transit than housing in the high and highest resource areas of the City and provides residents with more immediate access to resources like grocery stores, and commercial businesses, and high performing public schools like Cox Elementary School.

High and Highest resource areas. Additional potential housing sites are spread throughout the City’s remaining high and highest resource areas. Housing opportunity sites off Warner Avenue provide access to OCTA bus route line 72, as well as high performing public schools. The housing opportunity site in the city’s highest resource near Ellis Avenue and Brookhurst Street is a planned single family home residential project, with the homes projected to be moderate income or above moderate income levels. While the high resource and highest resource areas have higher economic, environmental, and educational scores than the low income areas, residents living in other resource areas have access to well performing public schools, outdoor recreation areas, and public transit.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 134
Contributing Factors
Based on public outreach and the technical assessment of fair housing in Fountain Valley, Table H‐29 identifies the factors that contribute or are the most likely to contribute to fair housing issues. Aside from the issues identified in the technical analysis, potential contributing factors include community opposition to affordable housing, lack of regional cooperation, and lack of public or private investment in affordable housing options.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 135
TABLE H‐29

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
Disproportionate Need & Displacement
Contributing Factors (High Priority)
OverpaymentStigma associated with Housing Vouchers: A large percentage of rental households in Fountain Valley spend more than 30 and 50 percent of household income on monthly rent and utilities. While this may be due in part to residents being willing to pay more for access to high performing school districts, Tthere may also be a stigma associated with the use of Housing Vouchers, both by property owners and tenants.

Meaningful Actions, Metrics, and Milestones
See Goals 2 and 6 as well as programs:
- 2a Housing Choice Vouchers
- 2e Homebuyer Assistance
- 5a Affordable Housing and Preservation
- 6b Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Through activities associated with the above programs, the City will work to decrease rates of overpayment and displacement risk, and break down the stigma, expand awareness of benefits, and expand usage of housing vouchers (both for tenants and landlords). Actions to be done as part of implementing programs 2a, 2e, 5a, and 6b based on the timeline and metrics listed below.

Timeline
2022:   Coordinate with OCHA to generate a detailed understanding of where overpayment rates are highest in the city (as of latest available Census data), where vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants could potentially qualify at each multifamily property in target areas 2022:   Update Development Code consistent with state law and produce residential project flow‐chart and/or informational sheets, consistent with SB 35 and SB 330 2023: Initiate coordination with Guadalupe Manor on potential funding resources and other steps needed to extend affordability through at least 2058
2023:   Coordinate with OCHA to develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits of vouchers
2023: Complete study of options to augment/adjust affordable housing preservation program for possible application of funds for those overpaying
2024:   Distribute outreach materials through means that reach target populations (e.g., those receiving subsidized school lunches). Conduct direct outreach to five properties (tenants and owners) in census tracts illustrating high rates of rental overpayment
2029: Secure extended affordability for Guadalupe Manor through at least 2058 Metric(s)
- Expand voucher use by 50 tenants by 2024
- Extend affordability term of 70 units in the Guadalupe Manor an additional 20‐30 years (by 2029)

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 136
TABLE H‐29

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
Disproportionate Need & Displacement
Contributing Factors (Medium Priority)
Displacement risk: The introduction of new housing into census tracts where renters overpay or severely overpay for housing could increase the risk of displacing existing lower income rental households.

Meaningful Actions, Metrics, and Milestones
See Goals 2 and 6 as well as programs:
- 2a Housing Choice Vouchers
- 2e Homebuyer Assistance
- 5a Affordable Housing and Preservation
- 6b Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Through activities associated with the above programs, the City will work to decrease rates of overpayment and displacement risk, and break down the stigma, expand awareness of benefits, and expand usage of housing vouchers (both for tenants and landlords). Actions to be done as part of implementing programs 2a, 2e, and 6b, based on the timeline and metrics listed below.

Timeline
2022:   Coordinate with OCHA to generate a detailed understanding of where displacement risks are highest in the city (as of latest available Census data), where vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants could potentially qualify at each multifamily property in target areas 2023:   Coordinate with OCHA to develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits of vouchers
2023: Complete study of options to augment/adjust affordable housing preservation program for possible application of funds for those at risk of displacement
2023: Coordinate with Heil Park to extend affordability through 2053 2024:   Distribute outreach materials through means that reach target populations (e.g., those receiving subsidized school lunches). Conduct direct outreach to five properties (tenants and owners) in census tracts illustrating high rates of rental overpayment
Metric(s)
- Preserve 24 at‐risk affordable units by 2023

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 137
TABLE H‐29

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factors (Medium High Priority)
Additional Lack of additional housing options. Fountain Valley developed as a suburban community dominated by the single family lifestyle throughout the 1960’s, 1970’s, and into the early 1980s. Members of the public and City Council readily acknowledge that the City’s primary appeal is its suburban character and have worked to preserve the features that residents find so desirable. Since the end of the 1980s, the housing supply, number of households, and total population have remained consistent and are evidence that the City has not focused on growth. The City’s location puts it in the middle of a substantial amount of regional pass‐ through traffic, which has become a sticking point for many. High density development is thought to exacerbate traffic, as well as parking issues and is the primary concern for those opposed to higher density multifamily products and the addition of ADUs into existing single family neighborhoods. As such, the City’s housing supply has not increased at a rate commensurate with regional demand, driving costs higher and limit housing choices for existing residents looking to remain in Fountain Valley (adult children eager to move out of their parent’s house and older adults looking to downsize) and potential new residents looking for more affordable options in Fountain Valley.The City lacks suitable housing sites in moderate / high opportunity areas.

Meaningful Actions, Metrics, and Milestones
See Goal 1 as well as programs:
- 1a Rezone to Accommodate RHNA
- 1c Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
- 1d Accessory Dwelling Units
- 6b AFFH
Through activities associated with the above programs, the City will work to expand the number of sites available in Moderate and High resource areas, reduce rates of overpayment, and reduce risks of displacement.

Actions to be done as part of implementing programs 1a, 1c, and 1d, based on the timeline and metrics listed below.

Timeline
2022:   Initiate coordination with OCCOG REAP effort to evaluate and identify appropriate pre‐vetted ADU site plans
2022: Evaluate options to apply Policy 6.7 and Program 6b (affirmative advertising) to income‐restricted units in the Slater Avenue project
20232:   Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
2023: Establish procedures and requirements that will ensure Policy 6.7 and Program 6b (affirmative advertising) is applied to and conducted for all future income‐restricted housing developments. 2022:   Initiate coordination with OCCOG REAP effort to evaluate and identify appropriate pre‐vetted ADU site plans
20232: Adopt 2045 General Plan
2023: Adopt appropriate pre‐vetted ADU site plans
Metrics
- Permit 100150 ADUs affordable to lower income households in High and Highest resources areas by 2024 (as measured from June 30, 2021)
- Adopt General Plan in first quarter of 2023by 2022

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 138
TABLE H‐29

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
- Policy 6.7 and Program 6b (affirmative advertising) applied to Slater Avenue units (if possible) and regulations in place to apply this policy to future income‐restricted units

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 139
TABLE H‐29

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
Additional Contributing Factors
Contributing Factors (High Priority)
Lack of regional coordination and lack of public/private investment. Fountain Valley and surrounding cities generally address the need and solutions for affordable housing and homeless shelters in an independent manner, which causes them to compete against one another for funds and eliminates opportunities to pool resources.

Potential community opposition. While there is little community opposition to a proposed affordable project (e.g., there was community support for Prado Homes), additional regional collaboration can help to mitigate community opposition that may arise in the future (whether an affordable housing project or homeless shelter).

Meaningful Actions, Metrics, and Milestones
See Goal 6 as well as program:
- 2b.6 Orange County Housing Finance Trust
- 3e Low Barrier Navigation Centers
- 5b Support Homeless Services
- 6b.2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Through activities associated with the above programs, the City will work to provide critical gap funding for the development of affordable housing, homeless housing, and supportive services solutions for those in need that reside, work, or go to school in in Fountain Valley and throughout the county. Actions to be done as part of implementing programs 2b.6, 3e, 5b, and 6b.2, based on the timeline and metrics listed below.

Timeline
2021:   Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and initiate efforts to jointly develop a low barrier navigation center
2022: Enter into a memorandum of understanding with Westminster and Garden Grove to jointly develop a low barrier navigation center; participate in evaluation of candidate sites 2022:   Coordinate through the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT) on the use of funding sources (e.g., REAP) and potential to apply for additional funding 2022:   Coordinate through OCHFT on year two notice of funding availability (NOFA), and subsequent NOFAs for years three, four, and five; advocate for the use of funds in Fountain Valley as appropriate and in surrounding jurisdictions when such location would yield better benefits (more units, deeper level of subsidy, more target populations)
2023: Finalize site selection for low barrier navigation center 2023:   Evaluate potential use of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding and other partners to rehouse unsheltered homeless need
2024: Assist host city in developing and opening low barrier navigation center 2024: Assist in the update of the OCHFT five‐year strategic plan Metric(s)
- New low barrier navigation center opened by 2024
- 2,700 new permanent supportive housing units by 2025 (countywide) - 38 people experiencing homeless rehoused into permanent homes by 2025

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 141
Housing Strategy
The City’s Housing Strategy is based on an evaluation of the City’s existing housing conditions, current and future needs, constraints and opportunities, and community input presented and discussed in other sections of the Housing Element. The Housing Strategy consists of a set of goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address the six categories cited in state law (Government Code Section 65583) for the 2021‐2029 planning period.

1. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing

2. Assisting in the development of affordable housing

3. Removing governmental constraints if necessary

4. Conserving the existing stock of affordable housing

5. Preserve assisted housing developments at‐risk of conversion to market‐rate

6. Promoting equal housing opportunity
For each topic areas, implementing programs are described in the following detail:
 Brief statement of action, including specific City responsibilities for implementation  Agency or department responsible for action implementation  Targeted financing or funding source
 Quantified objectives (where applicable)
 Schedule for implementation
Program Category #1: Adequate Housing Sites
The purpose of this program category is to describe the actions that the City will take to ensure that a variety of housing types can be accommodated, including multifamily rental housing, factory‐built housing, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. The City’s Land Use Element, Development Code, and specific plans regulate the housing types permitted in the community.

Goal 1: Promote and encourage the development of a variety of housing opportunities to accommodate current and projected households.

Policies

1.1 Promote the construction of additional dwelling units to accommodate Fountain Valley’s share of regional housing needs in accordance with adopted land use policies.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 142

1.2 Provide a variety of housing opportunities for all income levels through different land uses and densities.

1.3 Coordinate new residential development with the provision of infrastructure and public services.

1.4 Locate higher density residential development close to public transportation.

Program 1a: Rezone to Accommodate RHNA
The City shall amend the General Plan and Development Code to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s 2021‐2029 RHNA allocation and to require a minimum of 20 and allow 30 dwelling units per acre or greater on all sites listed in the sites inventory. This rezoning will ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 2,093 units affordable to lower income households, 834 units affordable to moderate income households, and 1,912 units affordable to above‐moderate income households. The City is currently in the process of amending the General Plan Land Use map and text and will update the Development Code and relevant specific plans concurrent with the adoption of the 2045 General Plan. While the adoption process will require time beyond the October 15, 2022 deadline, the City will be able to use the EIR associated with the updated General Plan to provide CEQA clearance for the revised zoning.

As Site U4 was included in the previous Housing Element cycle as an underutilized site, state law requires that it be rezoned to permit, by right, housing developments that propose a density of 20 units per acre or more and in which at least 20% of the units are affordable to lower income households. Upon the creation of the R5 Zone, the City will permit such a housing development by right and therefore meet the requirements of state law.

As rezoning is required to address a shortfall of sites, the City is committed to meeting the following requirements for all sites intended to accommodate the lower income RHNA shortfall:
 Permit owner‐occupied and rental multi‐family uses by‐right for projects with 20% or more units affordable to lower income households
 Permit a minimum density of 20 units per acre
 Allow a minimum of 16 units per site
According to state law, if the City relies upon underutilized land for more than 50% of its lower income RHNA allocation, then the City must accommodate at least 50% of the lower income need on sites designated for residential use only. With the recent permanent termination of all agricultural operations on the Millersite (V7), the City can accommodate at least 50% of itslower income RHNA allocation through pipelines projects, ADU capacity, and vacant site capacity (see list below).
 50% of lower income RHNA allocation: 2,093/2 = 1,047 units

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 143
 Pipeline projects, ADU capacity, and vacant site capacity: 1,052 units o Pipeline projects: 111 lower income units
o ADU capacity: 310 lower income units
o Vacant sites
 V7. Miller: 61 lower income units
 U9. Southpark (vacant portion only): 570 lower income units In addition, the City will work to identify surplus housing sites to accommodate between 100 and 500 additional units. This effort will be undertaken to reduce the likelihood that the City’s capacity will fall short during the planning period and provide greater flexibility for other opportunity sites.

If during the planning period, the City’s capacity to meet its RHNA allocation for lower and moderate income units falls below 100%, the City will rezone sites and evaluate potential incentives and flexibility in development standards to encourage new housing construction.

Objective: Maintain capacity to accommodate the unmet RHNA allocation on developable, adequately zoned sites throughout the entire planning period. Complete a general plan update to expand opportunities to build new housing choices and expand affordability in high resource areas.

Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund; SB2 / LEAP grants
Timeframe: Update Development Code and General Plan in 2022 for Zoning Districts/Land Use Designations; Revise specific plans by first quarter of 2023 concurrent with adoption of an updated General Plan and certification of the General Plan EIR October 15, 2022; identify surplus sites to accommodate 100‐500 additional units by first quarter 2024.

Program 1b: Residential Density Bonus
Update the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with recently adopted state law, along with additional updates as necessary in response to new state law. Encourage future housing projects to leverage density bonus provisions and provide affordable housing. Incorporate provisions consistent with state law (enacted through Senate Bill 2556, 2016) that would render a proposed project that would replace existing housing that is occupied by lower income households (whetherformally/contractually restricted or marketrate), asineligible for a density bonus unless aforementioned units are replaced either on‐ or off‐site. Until the Density Bonus Ordinance is updated, the state density bonus will apply.

Objective: Update Density Bonus Ordinance
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 144
Funding Source: General Fund; SB2 / LEAP grants
Timeframe: Update Code in 2022; ongoing updates and promotion of new lower income units throughout planning period
Program 1c: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City will adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance to ensure the provision of affordable housing units in all new residential developments with 10 or more units. This process will include an evaluation of ordinances adopted by jurisdictions in the greater Southern California region.

The City is targeting a 15 percent inclusionary requirement.

Objective: Adopt inclusionary housing ordinance
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Adopt inclusionary housing ordinance in 2022 Program 1d: Accessory Dwelling Units
In March 2020, the City updated its Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to comply with state law.

This program proposes additional updates to further encourage development of ADUs citywide.

The program consists of the following components:

Education and awareness. A recent study from the UC Berkeley Turner Center for Housing Innovation noted that education and information are crucial to the success of ADU adoption. The City currently provides an information pamphlet to homeowners who are interested in learning more about ADU development and plans to expand its educational efforts to include active property owner outreach. Marketing and promotional materials will be prepared to inform eligible homeowners of ADU programs as they are adopted and launched. Active participation in County educational efforts is anticipated to occur through REAP Grant funding, producing materials such as educational videos. The City will also establish an ADU ombudsman to serve as a central point of information and resource for enhancing awareness.

ADU ordinance update. The City will amend its ADU ordinance to ensure it is consistent with the latest changes in state law. The City submitted its current ordinance in April 2020 but has not yet received confirmation or guidance from HCD regarding compliance with the latest state law.

Once direction is provided by HCD, the City will revise the ordinance and submit the adopted ordinance to HCD.

Amnesty. Part of the initial outreach push will include appealing to owners with unreported or non‐compliant ADUs to bring their units into compliance through an amnesty program. Owners of unreported units would be offered reduced or waived processing fees to come forward and register with the City. For ADUs that do not comply with building codes, participating

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 145
homeowners would have access to grants or loans (see City Funding and Financing below) set aside to help bring units into compliance. In addition to improving the records of ADUs in the City, an amnesty program can also improve tenant safety by ensuring the units are up to code.

Reduced fees and pre‐approved site plans. The City will waive building permit and City impact fees for income‐restricted ADU rental units. The City will also leverage the work funded by the SB 2 and LEAP grants throughout the state to evaluate standardized and pre‐vetted site plans for ADUs to increase approval certainty, reduce development timelines, and eliminate the dauting task of securing independent design and architectural services. The County of Orange is also evaluating the use of REAP funding to develop an ADU plan clearinghouse with a cost estimator function. These efforts will lower the entry cost to building an ADU and streamline its production.

City funding and financing. Fountain Valley staff will evaluate the feasibility of independently facilitating a construction loan program utilizing moneys from the City’s Low Moderate‐Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF). By offering loans at competitive (or reduced) rates, the City would enable developers and homeowners to access financing mechanisms that are otherwise unavailable through traditional avenues. With complete autonomy over the program, the City could direct funds in a way that uniquely meets the needs of the community. Comparable programs can be found throughout California, such as the Small Homes, Big Impact program coordinated by Housing Trust Silicon Valley Housing. The program, led by the County of Santa Clara and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, offers loans up to $200,000 on a 36‐month term in exchange for two years of guaranteed affordability. Taking the route of loans would enable the City to continually replenish the LMIHF, providing a consistent stream of ADU development moving forward.

As an alternative to the traditional construction loan program, the City will also consider a forgivable loan program funded by the LMIHF. Instead of recouping the principal and interest, the City could forgive the entirety of the loan in exchange for 20 years of guaranteed affordability.

Should a property owner fail to rent the unit in compliance with the low‐income restriction, the loan would be required to be immediately repaid in full (principal + interest). The property owner could opt out of the agreement at any time by repaying the loan in full. The County of Santa Clara hassuccessfully implemented a forgivable loan program, offering homeowners up to $40,000 for eligible costs related to ADU development. The City of Napa Valley administers a similar program for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units offering up to $75,000 for Junior ADU development. Although the loans are forgivable, a home sale during the contract period would require an opt out from the agreement, which could allow the City to recoup the majority of its investments.

The City will also advocate for change to state and federal grant and loan programs, which currently focus largely on conventional multifamily housing, to incentivize and dedicate substantial funding to support the construction and affordability of ADUs.

Monitoring and reporting. The City will monitor the interest in and production of ADUs on an ongoing basis, providing updates to HCD (through the annual progress reports) and to the public via an biannual report. In these reports, the City will summarize the level of interest expressed

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 146
through the number of initial and approved applications and the number of constructed units (along with occupancy statistics of affordable units). The City will also report on and evaluate the effectiveness of its ongoing and new ADU‐related programs and identify potential changes based on ongoing outreach with property owners and the development community.

In July 2023, the City will ascertain whether the rate of ADU permitting and affordability is on pace to match the projected trendline of 109 48 lower income ADUs built or permitted annually (as measured between June 29, 2021 (start of RHNA projection period) and June 30, 2023 (an average of 36 every 12 months). If the rate of construction/permitting is substantially below the trendline, the City will revise its projections and, if necessary, update its programs to and further incentivize and fund ADUs within six months. Potential adjustments include offering grants instead of loans and strengthening partnerships with ADU developers. Also, if shown necessary, the City will rezone land to accommodate a shortfall in capacity based on the revised projections by October 15, 2024. Monitoring will continue every two years thereafter.

Additional program options. The City islooking to other jurisdictions for inspiration on programs and policies that encourage ADU development. The City of Los Angeles recently partnered with a non‐profit architecture and design firm to spearhead The Backyard Homes Project. In collaboration with various public and private partners, the City of Los Angeles is offering homeowners a complete menu of wraparound services, including project management, financing (four to six homeowners), design, permitting, construction, and leasing assistance. The program is currently limited to 10 properties and will guarantee the construction of ADUsreserved for low income households for a minimum of five years. Despite the restriction on the number of participants, the program will explore the viability of public‐private partnerships in affordable ADU development. Fountain Valley staff will closely monitor the programs progress and evaluate the possibility of implanting a similar program in the City.

Objective: Permit 590 310 lower income ADUs by 2029 (an average of 49 per year through 2024 increasing to an average of 76 per year through 2029); evaluate and identify appropriate pre‐ approved ADU site plans. Continue to track affordability during the permitting stage. Monitor affordability production and trends on a biannual basis, revising targets (and rezoning other land resources as needed) based on ADU trends and City’s remaining land resources to accommodate its unmet lower income RHNA allocation. Update ADU ordinance to maintain compliance with state law.

Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund; SB2 / REAP grants; Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF)
Timeframe: Prepare additional education and awareness materials in 2022 and 2023, reduce/waive ADU fees by 2022, coordinate through OCCOG REAP effort to evaluate and identify appropriate pre‐approved ADU site plans by 2023, establish City funding and financing by 2023, and monitor and support throughout planning period. Update ADU ordinance as necessary based

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 147
upon HCD guidance, and submit revised ordinance to HCD for review within six months of adoption.

Program 1e: Alternative Housing Sites
Should the City’s affordable housing capacity fall short early in the planning period, the City may coordinate with appropriate entities to identify existing multifamily housing that could be converted from market‐rate housing to permanent lower income housing (including permanent supportive housing). The City may also seek funds that are substantial enough to make the targeted units available for occupancy within two years of the execution date of an agreement.

See the Timeframe parameters below for said units to count toward the City’s lower income RHNA allocation.

Objective: Identify two sites (targeting housing in census tracts with the highest rates of overpayment and lowest median incomes); identify potential partners and evaluate and pursue available funds
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund and external funds as available Timeframe: If necessary, identify candidate sites by the end of 2022; ifsuitable sites and partners are identified and adequate funds are available, enter into a legally enforceable agreement by October 15, 2024, and ensure units are available for occupancy within two years of the execution date of an agreement
Program 1f: Senate Bill 330
The City will ensure compliance with state law enacted through Senate Bill 330 and prohibit amendments to the general plan or zoning of properties in a manner that would reduce residential density compared to the designation/district in effect as of January 1, 2018, without concurrent upzoning of equal capacity on property elsewhere in the City.

Objective: Maintain consistency with state law
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: N/A
Timeframe: Throughout the planning period (subject to sunset provisions in state law, which is currently January 1, 2030)
Program Category #2: Housing Production
The City’s existing needs include 63% of renter and 42% of mortgage‐holding households that are cost burdened, expending more than 30% of their income toward housing. The City’s new

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 148
construction need includes 2,093 lower, 834 moderate, and 1,912 above moderate‐income units, which can be supported by vacant and underutilized land.

Goal 2: Assist in the provision of housing affordable to lower income households.

Policies

2.1   Promote infill housing development through the adaptive reuse of underutilized parcels.

2.2   Promote and encourage the use of innovative construction methods, design standards, lot configurations, and energy conservation techniques that will facilitate the production of quality, affordable, and attractive new housing which varies in type, design, form of ownership, and size, and is compatible with abutting development.

2.3   Encourage new housing construction for rental and ownership housing in a mixture of price ranges.

2.4   Promote development of compatible mixed‐use projects with residential components at higher densities within commercial designations.

2.5   Continue to utilize planned unit developments and specific plans to allow and promote a variety of lot sizes and housing types in new development.

Program 2a: Housing Choice Vouchers
The City will continue to coordinate with the Orange County Housing Authority to assist lower‐ income households in renting housing units in the City through the use of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The City will refer persons interested in participating in the Section 8 program, either as tenants or landlords, to the County and work with the County to ensure continued availability of the program.

The City will focus outreach efforts in neighborhoods where there is a higher percentage of households report income below the federal poverty level and/ or high rates of overpayment alongside lower median incomes.

Objective: Assist 460 households each year, with 75% targeted for extremely low income households
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department; Orange County Housing Authority Funding Source: N/A
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 2b: Orange County Housing Finance Trust

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 149
In 2019, the City of Fountain Valley joined the Orange County Housing Finance Trust as a founding member. As a member, the City makes annual contributions to the trust, which in turn is used to provide critical gap funding for the development of affordable housing, homeless housing, and supportive services solutions throughout the county.

Objective: Make annual contribution to support the development of affordable housing, homeless housing, and supportive housing throughout the county. Represent the interests of the City in discussions about the siting of proposed developments.

Responsibility: Planning and Building Department; City Manager’s Office Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 2c: Nonprofit Development
The City will continue to engage in partnerships with nonprofit developers (like Related California) to assist the development of housing affordable to extremely low‐, very low‐, and low‐ income households. Every one to two years, the City will periodically invite nonprofit developers to discuss the City’s plans, resources, and development opportunities. As appropriate, the City will select a nonprofit developer to pursue development opportunities, assist in the application for state and federal financial resources, and offer a number of incentives such as fee deferrals, priority processing, and relaxed development standards.

Objective: 500 lower income units
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: Various (General Fund, LMIHAF, CDBG, etc.) Timeline: Initiate contact with nonprofit development community in 2022; ongoing discourse throughout remainder of planning period
Program 2d: Explore Alternative Funding and Financing Sources The City of Fountain Valley currently has limited funding and financing sources for the provision of new affordable housing and to reduce displacement. The City will proactively explore alternative funding and financing sources such as private funding, joint development, public‐ private partnerships.

Objective: Explore and report to City Council on efforts to identify and secure $1 million for affordable housing development
Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division Funding Source: General Fund

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 150
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 2e: Homebuyer Assistance
The County of Orange administers two programs that provide assistance for homebuyers:

Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) and Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP).

The MCC program is a Federal Income Tax Credit program administered by the County of Orange.

The MCC program increases the loan amount offered to a qualifying homebuyer and reduces federal income taxes by 20% of the annual interest paid on the home mortgage. Home buyers seeking to participate in the program must apply through a participating lender. The program requires the buyer to purchase a single‐family detached home, condominium, or townhouse within the program boundaries, including the City of Fountain Valley. The buyer’s household income and home purchase price cannot exceed limits established by the County.

The Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP) provides silent second loans to assist very low and low income first‐time homebuyers. The 3% simple interest, deferred payment loan has a term of 30 years or upon sale or transfer of property and a maximum loan amount of $40,000. The buyer must purchase a single‐family home, condominium, or home within a planned unit development to occupy as a primary residence. The buyer must contribute a minimum 1% of the purchase price. The buyer’s household income and home purchase price cannot exceed limits established by the county.

Objective: Connect qualified homebuyers with the County of Orange MCC and MAP Program Administrator
Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division Funding Source: General Fund; County allocated funds
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program Category #3: Remove Governmental Constraints
The City can best address the removal of governmental constraints for housing in its Development Code, development processes, and by implementing state law such as density bonus provisions. Facilitating the development of housing is critical to reduce costs and time needed to build and maintain housing, ensuring the purchase prices and rental rates are as low as possible for both market‐rate and affordable housing.

Goal 3: Address and, where possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing,

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 151
including housing for people at all income levels, as well as housing for people with disabilities.

Policies

3.1 Encourage regulatory incentives that streamline the development and maintenance of housing, with additional incentives for to develop and retain affordable housing.

3.2 Adopt new City requirements with the intent of reducing costs for housing. When new City requirements would increase costs, seek alternative options, and provide exemptions for affordable housing.

3.3 Implement the City’s Development Code to permit the development of single room occupancy units, accessory dwelling units, and transitional, supportive, and emergency housing (including low barrier navigation centers) in specified zones.

Program 3a: Update Residential Development Standards and Processes In response to recentstate legislation (such as Senate Bill 9) and changing market trends, the City will review and revise the existing Development Code, including residential development standards. The City shall evaluate modifications and or revisions that further increase the feasibility of residential development as appropriate.

Objective: Review and revise residential development standards and regulations as necessary to reflect changes in state law and market trends, and to reduce costs and other constraints on the cost and supply of housing.
 Employee housing. Update the Development Code to explicitly permit employee housing in compliance with the Employee Housing Act.
 Mixed‐use nonresidential requirements. During the next two mixed‐use development applications, evaluate the 10‐30% ground flood nonresidential space requirement in terms of fiscal benefit, market demand, and development feasibility, revising as appropriate to facilitate residential development while retaining fiscal sustainability. Also evaluate other standards that are cited as required waivers or concessions for proposals that would leverage state density bonus provisions with the inclusion of affordable units.  Conditional use permit for multifamily. Review standard and other potential conditions, both objective and subjective, applied to multifamily development in the R2, R3, and R4 zones, and evaluate the impact on development feasibility. Eliminate unnecessary conditions and convert subjective conditions to objective conditions, as feasible and appropriate, in order to remove constraints for multifamily development.  Design Review. Assess the design review requirements and processes applied to housing projects and evaluate the impact on cost and approval timeline. Eliminate unnecessary approvals and requirements in order to remove constraints for multifamily development.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 152
 Inclusionary housing. Evaluate the impact of the inclusionary housing ordinance upon the cost and supply of residential development in Fountain Valley after two years of implementation.
 Short‐term rental housing. Evaluate the impact of short‐term rentals on the cost and supply of rental housing, including consideration of the application of or lack of local regulations.

Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: 2021‐2029 as necessary; update the Development Code for employee housing in 2022; evaluate MU‐1/MU‐2 nonresidential space requirement, CUP requirements for multifamily, and Design Review process by 2024; evaluate the impact of short‐term rental housing in 2025; evaluate the impact of inclusionary housing in 2025 Program 3b: Review Development Fees
Development fees are critical to ensure that public services and standards associated with the creation of new housing are adequately funded and maintained. The level of such services and standards desired by the community, however, can increase costsfor new housing. The City must strike a balance to ensure a high quality of life and standard of living in Fountain Valley without creating unnecessarily burdensome development fees. The City will periodically conduct a study to ensure that development fees are reasonable and identify possible reductions for special needs housing projects. The City will evaluate the option of fee waiversfor lower income housing and evaluate other options to further reduce costs for affordable housing in periodic updates, including options to facilitate more affordable housing in high resource areas.

Objective: Regularly update the City’s schedule of fees Responsibility: Finance, Public Works, Fire, and Planning and Building Department Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Conduct a development fee periodically or as needed Program 3c: Streamline Residential Project Review
New laws (Senate Bills 35 and 330) were enacted to streamline review times for residential applicationsin an effort to stimulate and facilitate the construction of market rate and affordable housing.

While the RHNA allocation identifies the state’s projection of new housing needed for the planning period, the City does not build housing directly and must rely upon property owners and other entities from the development industry (private and not‐for‐profit) to construct new

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 153
housing. In 2018, new provisions of state law were enacted through Senate Bill 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4), to facilitate the construction of housing in jurisdictions where housing production falls below the pace projected by the RHNA allocation. For Fountain Valley, these provisions will take effect any time the rate of housing production/permits falls below the following rates by the end of each year listed:

Income
Threshold
Cumulative total by reporting period (units constructed or permitted) 2021‐2024 2025‐2029
Lower 1,046 1,047 or the balance of 2,093
Above Mod 956 956 or the balance of 1,912
The City will update its Development Code consistent with state law to provide for a streamlined and ministerial process (projects to be reviewed against existing objective standards rather than a discretionary process) for projects that provide:
 At least 15% affordable to lower‐income households if proportional housing production and permitting levels fall below those listed above for above moderate income housing  At least 50% affordable to lower‐income households if proportional housing production and permitting levels fall below those listed above for lower income housing Other requirements for a project to be eligible for such streamlining include:
 Contain at least two multifamily units
 Provide a specific level of affordability
 On an eligible site in an urbanized area or urban cluster  Comply with residential and mixed‐use general plan or zoning provisions  Comply with other requirements, such as locational and/or demolition restrictions SB 35 streamlining does not apply to projects located in places a floodway or floodplain without a no‐rise certification, or if the new development would require the demolition of affordable housing or a listed historic structure.

Senate Bill 330 (Government Code Section 65941.1, et al.), provided a second set of streamlining provisions, including a limitation of a jurisdiction’s ability to change development standards, zoning, and fees applicable to the project once a preliminary application has been submitted. The changes in law also limit jurisdictions on the number of public hearings and length of the overall entitlement process. This streamlining applies to all development independent of the provisions enacted through Senate Bill 35.

Until the Development Code is updated to reflect the above, the City will apply state law.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 154
The City will also evaluate its overall approval development process and identify requirements and processes that are unnecessary and/or duplicative to streamline residential applications and reduce costs.

Objective: Update Development Code consistent with state law and produce residential project flow‐chart and/or informational sheets, consistent with SB 35 and SB 330 by 2023; evaluate and revise as necessary the overall development approval process to further streamline residential development applications by 2023
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Update Development Code and produce flow‐charts/info sheets by 2022 Program 3d: Transitional and Supportive Housing
The City currently permits transitional and supportive housing by right in all existing residential, mixed use, and zonesnon‐residential zones that allow multifamily (pursuant to AB 2162, 2018).

The City will amend its Development Code to permit transitional and supportive housing in accordance with state law in all new zones created as a part of the rezoning program and during the update to the General Plan.

Objective: Amend the Development Code per state law
Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeline: Update Development Code by 2022
Program 3e: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
The City will amend its Development Code to permit low barrier navigation centers by right in nonresidential zones that permit multifamily and mixed use zones (per Government Code Sections 65660–65668, enacted through AB 101). Low barrier navigation centers provide temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessnessto income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low barrier navigation centers reduce barriers to use by those seeking shelter by allowing for pets and storage of possessions and by providing increased privacy and security.

The City also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the cities of Garden Grove and Westminster to jointly develop a low barrier homeless navigation center. While a location has not yet been selected, the cooperating agencies are currently evaluating the viability of areas in Westminster and Garden Grove.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 155
Objective: Amend the Development Code per state law; jointly develop a low barrier navigation center in coordination with Garden Grove and Westminster Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Update Development Code by 2022; evaluate sites in 2022 and 2023 with an intent to finalize site selection in 2023 and develop center in 2024 Program Category #4: Housing Maintenance and Improvement The emphasis of this program category isthe maintenance and improvement of Fountain Valley's existing affordable housing supply. Another purpose of this program category is to describe actions that will mitigate the loss of housing to both the housing market and the residents of the existing dwelling units. Many of the City's current activities satisfy the requirements of this program category: for example, code enforcement and infrastructure improvement.

Goal 4: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s existing housing stock.

Policies

4.1 Concentrate proactive code enforcement and rehabilitation efforts in areas with deteriorated housing conditions.

4.2 Encourage private efforts to rehabilitate the existing housing stock.

4.3 Provide rehabilitation assistance to ensure maintenance of the older housing stock.

4.4 Continue to enforce health, safety, and development codes to eliminate conditions that are detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of residents.

4.5 Provide public services and improvements that enhance and create neighborhood stability.

Program 4a: Home Improvement Program
The City will continue to provide grants, rebates, and low‐interest, deferred payment loans to income qualified homeowners to make needed repairs to owner‐occupied single family and mobile homes. The City will continue to promote the Home Improvement Programs through information on the City’s website and by distributing information to homeowners receiving code violation notices.

Objective: 156 Home Improvement grants, rebates, and low‐interest, deferred payment loans per year
Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division; Code Enforcement

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 156
Funding Source: CDBG
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 4b: Infrastructure Improvement Program
Adequate infrastructure and community facilities support housing through the development of complete neighborhoods. The City will coordinate the annual Capital Improvements Program and Consolidated Plan processes with the Housing Element policies and programs to ensure infrastructure is available to support current and projected housing needs and identify areas for improvements.

Objective: Coordination of infrastructure improvements
Responsibility: Public Works Department
Funding Source: General Fund, CDBG
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 4c: Lead Based Paint Hazard Grant Program
The City will continue to provide grant funds for the testing and remediation of lead based paint hazards in the home. This program is utilized when a qualified homeowner is enrolled in the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and is receiving CDBG funds for their project.

Objective: 5 grants per year
Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division; Code Enforcement Funding Source: CDBG
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 4d: Code Enforcement
The Code Enforcement Division promotes, maintains, and enforces ordinances and laws to preserve, protect, and enhance the quality of life in Fountain Valley. Code Enforcement officers actively work with community members and neighborhood organizations in assuring the City remains a healthy and welcoming place to live, work, and visit. The City recognizes the importance of community wide code compliance and has made it one of the focuses of the latest strategic plan update.

Objective: Ensure compliance with City codes, with a focus on substandard housing in low resource areas, which includes garage conversions and unpermitted additions; provide technical assistance and information to address code violations to 50 households / property owners

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 157
Responsibility: Code Enforcement
Funding Source: CDBG Fund
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program Category #5: Affordable Housing Opportunities
The purpose of this program category is to describe actions that the City will take to preserve the affordability of existing housing units that are eligible to change from low income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. "Assisted housing developments" include: federally assisted projects; state and local multifamily revenue bond–financed projects; developments assisted by CDBG and local in‐lieu fees; and density bonus units. In addition, this program category describes other actions of the City to preserve the affordability of the existing housing supply.

Goal 5: Conserve and support affordable housing opportunities in the City.

Policies

5.1   Promote and expand affordable home ownership opportunities for lower and moderate income households in the City.

5.2   Pursue available housing funds provided by federal, state, private, and/or local sources to preserve affordable housing.

5.3   Continue to support innovative public, private, and non‐profit housing development organizations’ efforts in the provision of affordable housing, particularly for special needs groups.

5.4   Address the long and short‐term needs of those who are experiencing homelessness through continued support of local private and non‐profit groups that provide shelter and services.

5.5   Conserve the existing stock of affordable rental housing. Limit the proportion of multifamily housing units permitted to convert to owner‐occupied status.

5.6   Provide regulatory incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing.

Program 5a: Affordable Housing and Preservation
There are currently 24 housing units (Heil Park) in Fountain Valley that are at‐risk of converting from affordable, deed‐restricted units to market‐rate units during the planning periodin late 2023. However, these units are owner occupied and the current owners will be able to sell the units at market price and receive the full equity of the sale. Accordingly, while the units will likely transition out of the City’s housing stock as income‐restricted units in late 2023, the current owners (who are all occupants) will not be displaced or face higher housing costs. The cost of

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 158
preserving these units, even if the City or other entity were able to convince a current owner to sell, would be extremely high. Additionally, as all of the current occupants are also the property owners, the State Preservation Notice Law does not apply.

Therefore, the City will instead focus on extending the affordability of Guadalupe Manor, which contain 70 units that could expire by 2038. While 2038 is still in the somewhat distant future, the project‐based Section 8 funding was only secured for a 20‐year term in 2018. The City will work with the current property owners to seek an extension of this term beyond 2038 using funds from various sources. The City will continue to monitor these units and provide technical assistance for owners of these units to extend and/or renew deed restrictions and/or covenants.

The City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements and provide for tenant education when a notice of conversion is received.During the next housing element cycle, the City will ensure this property owner’s compliance with the State Preservation Notice Law.

Objective: Monitor and preserve Extend affordability for 24 at‐risk 70 units at Guadalupe Manor Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division Funding Source: To be determined; possible sources could include LMIHAF, CDBG, etc.

Timeframe: Ongoing monitoring; replacement as needed; coordinate with property owners of Heil Park in 2022 and 2023 to facilitate preservation through 2053 (or longer) and, if preservation is not possible, to ensure tenant notification and education requirements are being followed Program 5b: Support Homeless Services
The City will continue to support local and inter‐jurisdictional efforts to reduce temporary and chronic homelessness. The City will continue to promote a comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness consistent with the Continuum of Care model.  The City shall coordinate with non‐profit entities, the County of Orange, and other applicable organizations to provide a range of services and housing opportunities for homeless persons in Fountain Valley. The City will leverage its projected Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding from the state through 2023 to fund homeless outreach services, partner with an experienced homeless services provider to offer resources, and ultimately find housing, for the City’s homeless population
Objective: Support homelessservices and rehouse 28 to 4238 people experiencing homelessinto permanent homes
Responsibility: Police Department
Funding Source: CDBG, PHLA
Timeframe: 2021‐2029

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 159
Program Category #6: Equal Housing Opportunities
Goal 6: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, age, religion, sex, marital status, disability status, ancestry, national origin, or color.

Policies

6.1 Promote fair housing practices throughout the City.

6.2 Promote a variety of housing types to meet the special needs of persons with disabilities, elderly households, and others who may need assisted living.

6.3 Minimize the displacement of lower income and special needs households.

6.4 Continue to require compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act standards in all new residential developments and continue to enforce the building code provisions requiring accessible design.

6.5 Continue working with various organizations and agencies that assist those with special needs, such as persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, low income households, and elderly persons.

6.6 Monitor, on an annual basis, the effectiveness of current City regulations that permit emergency shelters/homeless services and adjust development standards, incentives, and approval processes, as appropriate, to ensure existing policies continue to provide opportunities for homeless and transitional housing in Fountain Valley.

6.7 Advertise the availability of new income‐restricted housing, with a particular focus on reaching eligible residents living in the same census tract as the income‐restricted units.

6.8 Encourage and facilitate housing developments that provide units affordable to a mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate income households.

Program 6a: Support Fair Housing Services
The City will continue to contract with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, or another fair housing service provider, to provide community education, investigation, and counseling assistance for redress of alleged violations of federal and state housing laws. In order to reach out to the community more effectively, the City will provide informational brochures at City Hall, the Center at Founder’s Village, and other locations frequented by the public. The City will continue to refer inquiries to the Fair Housing Council.

Objective: Refer persons in need of housing assistance to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County and other community housing resources.

Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: CDBG Fund

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 160
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 6b: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Guided by state law enacted through Assembly Bill 686 (2018), the City will develop a plan to affirmatively further fair housing efforts. The City acknowledges that significant disparities exist in housing need and opportunity and will work to promote equitable access for all persons protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, persons identified by Section 65008, and applicable federal and state housing and planning laws. The City will develop and implement an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Plan that incorporates the following actions.

Relevant housing programs are listed in parentheses to further inform the nature of the actions and opportunities for parallel, complementary, and supportive activities.  Target community revitalization through place‐based programs, enhancing mobility between neighborhoods, and developing strategies to reduce displacement risk in areas of higher concentration of lower‐income households and overpayment; and facilitating affordable housing in places close to transit, parks, job opportunities, and essential shops and services, as well as high resource areas (Programs 1c, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; 1d, Accessory Dwelling Units; 2a, Housing Choice Vouchers; 3b, Review Development Fees).  Seek annual funding to provide rehabilitation efforts in low resource areas and prioritize place‐based revitalization (Programs 4a, Home Improvement Program; and 4b, Infrastructure Improvement Program).
 Work with Fair Housing Council of Orange County (coordinated with Program 6a, Fair Housing Services, with other programs listed as appropriate) to:
o Educate the community about fair‐housing and equal housing opportunities, providing housing counseling services and family resource information and referral. Topics include, but are not limited to tenant rights, legal resources, rehabilitation grants and loans, first‐ time homebuyer programs, and Section 8 programs. Distribute materials in English and Vietnamese through City Hall, City libraries, City websites, and the Fair Housing Council website.
o Track fair housing issues and identify patterns in the City, including meeting annually to check on the status of active cases.
o Promote fair housing opportunities through various financial assistance initiatives and affordable housing/neighborhood revitalization programs (Programs 4a, Home Improvement Program; and 4b, Infrastructure Improvement Program). o Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods in low resource areas to serve or participate on boards, committees, and local government bodies. o Encourage more affordable housing through ADUs and multifamily housing in high resource areas (Programs 1d, Accessory Dwelling Units; and 3b, Review Development Fees).

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 161
o Expand assistance efforts such as those conducted in other cities with Orange County United Way to promote improved educational outcomes for lower income and underserved students at schools in or serving Fountain Valley. o As part of the City’s Housing Element Annual Report, continue to annually monitor development regulations to ensure compliance with fair housing laws. o Develop a marketing and outreach program to advertise new income‐restricted units to eligible rental households. Efforts will be multilingual (English, Vietnamese, and Spanish) and will include additional efforts to reach rental households within the same census tract as the proposed units.

Objective: Develop and implement the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Plan Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Develop AFFH plan by 2023 and implement actions within the planning period Program 6c: Support for Persons with Disabilities
The City will work with the Regional Center of Orange County to identify the gaps the housing needs of persons served by the Center, promote opportunities for supportive living services and support effortsincrease the ability of persons with developmental disabilitiesto live in integrated community settings.

Objective: Assist in the development or rehabilitation of up to 20 housing units for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities. Coordinate with the Regional Center for Orange County to establish relationship with interested developers.

Responsibility: Planning and Building Department
Funding Source: General Fund
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 6d: Accessibility Modifications for Persons with Disabilities The City will continue to provide grants to income‐qualified homeowners to make necessary accessibility‐related renovations, based on available funding. Accessibility‐related renovations may include exterior and interior modifications such as ramps, grab bars, and other alterations that allow for functional use of the dwelling.

Objective: 3 grants per year, as funding allows
Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 162
Financing Source: CDBG
Timeframe: 2021‐2029
Program 6e: Development Code Updates for Persons with Disabilities The City will review its developmentstandards, terms, and approval processes and evaluate their impact on the ability to ensure barrier‐free housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.  Reasonable accommodation. Evaluate and remove subjective standards and findings regarding whether the accommodation will create a substantial adverse impact on surrounding land uses.
 Definition of family. Evaluate whether any changes are needed to the City’s definition of “family” to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.
 Residential care homes for seven or more persons. Evaluate the City’s conditional use permit process, including the requirements to identify and remove constraints to the production of residential care facilitiesserving seven or more persons. The evaluation will include interviews with current operatorsin the Orange County region and a specific focus on the current condition that granting the conditional use permit would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety or welfare, or injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property islocated. To ensure that this condition is not an unreasonable requirement, the City will evaluate the CUP process for a group home or residential facility serving more than six people as a constraint and remove unreasonable conditions of approval or other requirements.

Objective: Eliminate unnecessary constraints potentially created through definitions, subjective standards, and the discretionary conditional use permit process. Establish new objective development standards to eliminate subjective components of the discretionary conditional use permit process and ensure barrier‐free housing choices for persons with disabilities.

Responsibility: Housing and Community Development Division Financing Source: General Fund
Timeframe: Conduct evaluation of terms, standards, and processes in 2023; update Development Code based the findings in 2024

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 163
Quantified Objectives
Overall, the City’s planned/entitled units, remaining vacant lands, and underutilized parcels are of sufficient number, zoning, and size to accommodate the potential growth for all income levels forecasted in the City’s RHNA. However, HCD provides guidance on its website that indicates the construction objectives do not have to equal the RHNA allocation. For different figures to be cited, the Housing Element must describe the analysis used to establish different quantified objectives.

Based in part on stakeholder input, SCAG staff worked diligently and developed a recommended RHNA allocation methodology, which was introduced in September 2019 at a public workshop, subsequently reviewed and approved by both the SCAG RHNA Subcommittee and the SCAG Community, Economic and Human Development Committee, and recommended for SCAG Regional Council approval before submittal to HCD. Under this recommended methodology, the proposed RHNA allocation for the City of Fountain Valley was 1,372 units. This figure represents a 383% increase over the 5th cycle RHNA allocation and would still require that Fountain Valley take unexpected and extraordinary measures to plan for new housing units.

A substitute motion was introduced by an inland county jurisdiction at the November 7, 2019, meeting of the SCAG Regional Council. This recommendation was not based on local input or growth forecast data but was instead based on a policy recommendation to shift growth away from developing areas in jurisdictions in Riverside and San Bernardino counties to largely coastal areas such as Orange County. A modified RHNA that was based on that late, substitution motion increased the City’s allocation to 4,827 (increased to 4,839 after reallocation based on two successful RHNA appeals, with either number over 350% larger compared to the previously recommended RHNA allocation).

Accordingly, while the City will rezone property to ensure that there is the capacity to accommodate the final RHNA allocation (4,839), the City believes that the methodology derived from SCAG staff’sfinal recommendation (1,372) is a more accurate reflection of growth potential.

Additionally, special programs for housing assistance, rehabilitation, and preservation will help meet the City's existing and future housing needs during the 2021–2029 planning period. A summary of quantified objectives is provided in Table H‐30 below.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 164
TABLE H‐30

QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES BY INCOME CATEGORY
Activity/Program
Extremely
Low1
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
New Construction
Planned/Entitled  ‐  45 31  ‐  94 170
Vacant Land  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐
Underutilized Land 113 122 138 212 437 1,022
ADUs 73 20 54 25 8 180
TOTAL 186 187 223 237 539 1,372
Rehabilitation
4a. Home Improvement 2112 9450 9350 ‐8 ‐  208120
4c. Lead Based Paint Hazard   ‐  15 20 5 ‐  40
4d. Code Enforcement ‐  5 15 15 15 50
6c. Support for Persons with
Disabilities 2 9 9  ‐  ‐  20
Assistance, Conservation, or Preservation
1e. Alternative Housing Sites 5 5 10  ‐  ‐  20
2a. Housing Choice Vouchers 115345 11560 23055 ‐  ‐  460 5a. Affordable Housing and
Preservation 2 11 1170 ‐  ‐  2470
5b. Homeless Services 38 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  382
6d. Accessibility Mods for
Persons with Disabilities ‐  6 6 6 6 24
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1d. Accessory Dwelling Units 50 50 50  ‐  ‐  150
2b. OCHFT (aggregate total
throughout all member jurisdictions) 2,700    ‐  ‐  2,700 Notes:

1. While the RHNA methodology and allocation does not provide a figure for extremely low income households, state law directs the City to address the existing and future housing need for extremely low‐income households. Future need can be estimated at one‐half of the City’s very low‐income housing allocation (adjusted above to reflect total quantified objective for new construction of 1,372).

2. Figure represents number of individuals successfully placed into permanent/long‐term transitional housing.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 165
Appendix A Sites Inventory by Parcel

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 166
This page intentionally left blank.

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 167
TABLE HA‐1

SITES INVENTORY BY PARCEL
Location
APN
Consolidated
Group
Ownership
Group
Future
GP/Zoning
Min Density
Assumed Density
Max Density
Acres
Existing Use
Existing Units
Environmental
Constraints
Infrastructure
Available
Publicly‐Owned
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Vacant or
Nonvacant
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total Capacity
Other Information
16650 HARBOR BLVD. 144‐251‐32 U1 A VHDR/R5 20 50 65 3.58 Commercial and Services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 179 0 0 179 Rezoning 9063 RECREATION 143‐301‐31 U2 B MU2/MU2 20 5040 10055 0.89 Commercial and Services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 7 13 24 44 Rezoning9063 RECREATION 143‐294‐02 U2 B MU2/MU2 20 5040 10055 0.04 Commercial and Services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 0 1 1 2 Rezoning9063 RECREATION 143‐294‐01 U2 B MU2/MU2 20 5040 10055 3.27 Commercial and Services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 25 49 90 164 Rezoning9063 RECREATION 143‐301‐37 U2 C MU2/MU2 20 5040 10055 1.01 Commercial and Services 0 No Yes Yes No Nonvacant 8 15 28 51 Rezoning9063 RECREATION 143‐301‐32 U2 B MU2/MU2 20 5040 10055 1.67 Commercial and Services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 13 25 46 84 Rezoning 18300 EUCLID ST 156‐171‐32 U3 D SP/SP 20 22 N/A 2.08 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 24 5 19 48 Rezoning18250 EUCLID ST 156‐171‐41 U3 X SP/SP 20 22 N/A 3.56 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 41 8 32 1 Rezoning 11200 CONDOR AVE 156‐171‐23 U3 T SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.90 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 21 5 17 44 Rezoning 11152 CONDOR AVE E 156‐171‐24 U3 E SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.99 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 11 2 9 22 Rezoning 11070 CONDOR AVE 156‐171‐40 U3 AC SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.66 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 19 5 15 39 Rezoning 18170 EUCLID ST 156‐171‐51 U3 R SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.58 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 7 1 5 13 Rezoning 11065 CONDOR AVE 156‐171‐50 U3 AB SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.55 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 6 1 5 12 Rezoning 18124 MOUNT
WASHINGTON ST 156‐171‐14 U3 W SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.82 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 9 2 7 18 Rezoning 11185 CONDOR AVE 156‐171‐12 U3 Z SP/SP 20 22 N/A 2.18 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 25 5 20 50 Rezoning11165 CONDOR AVE 156‐171‐34 U3 L SP/SP 20 22 N/A 3.14 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 36 7 28 71 Rezoning11115 CONDOR AVE 156‐171‐33 U3 M SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.50 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 6 1 5 12 Rezoning 18090 NEWHOPE ST 156‐171‐63 U3 Q SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.27 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 14 3 12 29 Rezoning18093 NEWHOPE ST 156‐171‐56 U3 Q SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.94 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 10 2 8 20 Rezoning 18085 EUCLID ST 156‐161‐16 U3 AD SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.74 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 8 2 7 17 Rezoning

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 168
TABLE HA‐1

SITES INVENTORY BY PARCEL
Location
APN
Consolidated
Group
Ownership
Group
Future
GP/Zoning
Min Density
Assumed Density
Max Density
Acres
Existing Use
Existing Units
Environmental
Constraints
Infrastructure
Available
Publicly‐Owned
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Vacant or
Nonvacant
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total Capacity
Other Information
18100 MOUNT
WASHINGTON ST 156‐171‐16 U3
O SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.84 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 9 2 8 19 Rezoning 18095 MOUNT SHAY
ST 156‐164‐09 U3
Y SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.13 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 13 3 11 27 Rezoning 10865 KALAMA RIVER
AVE 156‐161‐17 U3 AD SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.07 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 12 2 10 24 Rezoning 10835 KALAMA RIVER
AVE 156‐161‐18 U3 AD SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.27 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 14 3 12 29 Rezoning 10925 KALAMA RIVER
AVE 156‐161‐06 U3 F SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.05 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 12 2 10 24 Rezoning 10885 KALAMA RIVER
AVE 156‐161‐08 U3 F SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.05 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 12 2 9 23 Rezoning 18060 MOUNT
WASHINGTON ST 156‐171‐03 U3 S SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.97 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 11 2 9 22 Rezoning 18060 EUCLID ST 156‐171‐53 U3
K SP/SP 20 22 N/A 2.43 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 28 5 22 55 Rezoning 18065 MOUNT SHAY
ST 156‐164‐10 U3 AD SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.81 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 9 2 7 18 Rezoning 18065 EUCLID ST 156‐161‐15 U3 AD SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.90 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 10 2 8 20 Rezoning 18030 NEWHOPE ST 156‐171‐66 U3
Q SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.97 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 22 4 19 45 Rezoning
18030 MOUNT
WASHINGTON ST 156‐171‐45 U3
V SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.79 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 20 4 17 41 Rezoning
11240 TALBERT 156‐171‐26 U3
N SP/SP 20 22 N/A 2.89 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 33 6 26 65 Rezoning 11180 TALBERT AVE 156‐171‐20 U3
H SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.02 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 11 2 9 22 Rezoning 18010 NEWHOPE ST 156‐171‐65 U3
Q SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.55 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 6 1 5 12 Rezoning 18011 NEWHOPE ST 156‐171‐54 U3
Q SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.98 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 11 2 9 22 Rezoning 11060 TALBERT AVE 156‐171‐28 U3 J SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.75 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 8 2 7 17 Rezoning 18030 EUCLID ST 156‐171‐09 U3
U SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.8 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 9 2 7 18 Rezoning AD2022AA202210910

TALBERT AVE
156‐161‐19 U3 AE SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.57 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 19 4 14 37 Rezoning
10870 TALBERT AVE 156‐161‐12 U3 AD SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.18 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 13 3 11 27 Rezoning

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 169
TABLE HA‐1

SITES INVENTORY BY PARCEL
Location
APN
Consolidated
Group
Ownership
Group
Future
GP/Zoning
Min Density
Assumed Density
Max Density
Acres
Existing Use
Existing Units
Environmental
Constraints
Infrastructure
Available
Publicly‐Owned
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Vacant or
Nonvacant
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total Capacity
Other Information
10840 TALBERT AVE 156‐161‐11 U3 G SP/SP 20 22 N/A 1.18 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 13 3 11 27 Rezoning10810 TALBERT AVE 156‐161‐10 U3 I SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.73 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 8 2 7 17 Rezoning10770 TALBERT AVE 156‐164‐11 U3 P SP/SP 20 22 N/A 0.53 Commercial and industrial 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 6 1 5 12 Rezoning 11701 EDINGER AVE 144‐162‐02 U4 AF VHDR/R5 20 50 65 2.34 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No Last cycle ‐  underutilized Nonvacant 117 0 0 117 Rezoning 16225 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐12 U5 AG MU2/MU2 20 35 55 0.51 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 2 3 6 11 Rezoning16201 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐14 U5 AH MU2/MU2 20 35 55 2.65 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 8 17 31 56 Rezoning16181 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐16 U5 AI MU2/MU2 20 35 55 3.26 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 10 20 38 68 Rezoning16141 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐15 U5 AJ MU2/MU2 20 35 55 1.84 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 6 11 21 38 Rezoning16123 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐17 U5 AI MU2/MU2 20 35 55 1.74 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 6 11 20 37 Rezoning16111 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐18 U5 AK MU2/MU2 20 35 55 0.61 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 2 4 7 13 Rezoning16111 HARBOR BLVD 144‐241‐20 U5 AK MU2/MU2 20 35 55 6.07 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 19 3839 7170 128 Rezoning 17272 NEWHOPE ST 169‐421‐11 U6 AL SP/SP 20 45 N/A 3.05 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 21 41 79 141 Rezoning17272 NEWHOPE ST 169‐422‐46 U6 AL SP/SP 20 45 N/A 0.36 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 2 5 10 17 Rezoning 2017272 NEWHOPE
ST 169‐421‐29 U6 AL SP/SP 20 45 N/A 11.33 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 769 155 27282 50518 Rezoning 16300 EUCLID ST 144‐111‐01 U7V7 AM HDR/R4 20 22 30 18.64 AgricultureVacant 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 621 122 2278 411 Rezoning 10201 SLATER AVE 169‐122‐02 U8 AN MU1/MU1 20 65 65 0.68 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 7 13 25 45 Rezoning10201 SLATER AVE 169‐122‐07 U8 AN MU1/MU1 20 65 65 1.18 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 12 23 43 78 Rezoning10201 SLATER AVE 169‐122‐08 U8 AN MU1/MU1 20 65 65 1.48 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 15 28 53 96 Rezoning 9736 ELLIS AVE 157‐033‐40 U89 AO LMDR/GH 5 6 10.8 4.2 Agriculture 1 No Yes No No Nonvacant 0 9 17 26 Rezoning 11049 SOUTHPARK
AVE 169‐223‐02 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 9.97 VacantAgriculture 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 17555 31 124 31290 Rezoning

Fountain Valley Housing Element
Public Review Draft | August 2022 170
TABLE HA‐1

SITES INVENTORY BY PARCEL
Location
APN
Consolidated
Group
Ownership
Group
Future
GP/Zoning
Min Density
Assumed Density
Max Density
Acres
Existing Use
Existing Units
Environmental
Constraints
Infrastructure
Available
Publicly‐Owned
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Vacant or
Nonvacant
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity
Total Capacity
Other Information
11049 SOUTHPARK
AVE 169‐221‐10 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 2.59 VacantAgriculture 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 40 8 32 80 Rezoning 11049 SOUTHPARK
AVE 169‐221‐09 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 0.89 VacantAgriculture 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 14 3 11 28 Rezoning 11230 GRACE AVE 169‐221‐16 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 12.13 Agriculture 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 189 38 151 378 Rezoning11230 GRACE AVE 169‐224‐05 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 3.98 VacantAgriculture 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 62 12 50 124 Rezoning11230 GRACE AVE 169‐224‐02 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 3.24 VacantAgriculture 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 50 10 40 100 Rezoning11230 GRACE AVE 169‐224‐01 U910 AP SP/SP 20 31 N/A 2.55 VacantAgriculture 0 No Yes No No NonvVacant 40 8 32 80 Rezoning 10130 WARNER AVE 169‐041‐24 U101 AQ MU1/MU1 20 65 10065 1.84 Commercial and services 0 No Yes No No Nonvacant 18 365 667 120 Rezoning Note: Sites U2 and U10 would, upon rezoning, be permitted to reach a maximum of 100 units per acre, however, the City is only considering the maximum of 55 units per acre for the purposes of calculating RHNA capacity.

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN

VALLEY APPROVING A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 22-02 (GPA22-02) FOR THE 2021-2029

GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 65588, each local government is required to periodically review and update its housing element. The current housing element cycle covers the planning period of 2021-2029; and WHEREAS, in accordance with state law, the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) found that the City’s share of the region’s housing need for the 2021- 2029 projection period was 4,839 units (“RHNA Allocation”); and WHEREAS, the City must identify sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA Allocation; and
WHEREAS, the City may amend its General Plan pursuant to Government Code Sections 65350 et seq. and Fountain Valley Municipal Code Chapter 21.34; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its General Plan to incorporate a Housing Element Update (which consists of an updated Housing Plan and Community Profile) that would bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with the requirements of state housing element law for the 2021-2029 planning period and would reflect its goals for satisfying its most recent RHNA Allocation (the “Housing Element Update”); and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2021, February 25, 2021, August 7, 2021 and May 19, 2022, the General Plan Advisory Committee conducted a public meeting, discussed provisions of the Housing Element Update and accepted comments from all interested members of the public regarding the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2021 and May 22, 2021, the City of Fountain Valley City Council and Planning Commission held public meeting briefings to discuss the summary of housing needs, affordable housing strategies, future housing needs, opportunity sites, ADUs, inclusion housing ordinances, new state law and density bonus law as they pertain to the Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2022, the City of Fountain Valley Planning Commission held a study session to review the Housing Element Update, including a presentation from City Staff and public comments; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2021, the Draft Housing Element was submitted for review to HCD pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65585(b); and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021, HCD issued a letter reporting its findings on the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65585(d); and WHEREAS, on August 5, 2022, the Draft Housing Element was resubmitted for review to HCD pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65585(b); and

WHEREAS, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been revised to address the findings of HCD; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the proposed Project and has determined that it is Categorically Exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections Section 15061 (Common Sense Exemption and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also considered GPA22-02 in a separate action, as contained in Resolution No. 22-26, at its noticed public hearing on September 14, 2022; and WHERAS, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 22-02, in Resolution No. 22-26 by a vote of 5-0 at its noticed public hearing on September 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 22-02 has been publicly noticed in accordance with State Law and the Fountain Valley Municipal Code; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley does hereby resolve as follows:

SECTION 1
The City Council finds that due notice of the public hearing on October 4, 2022, conducted in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 10200 Slater Avenue, was given as required by the FVMC, Title 21, and the Statutes of the State of California.

SECTION 2
The City Council determines that GPA 22-26 is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements per Section 15061, Review for Exemption of the CEQA Guidelines.

Specifically, Section 15061(b)(3) states, in part, that a project is exempt from CEQA if “the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.” The 2021-2029 Housing Element would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. The Housing Element Update is strictly a policy document and does not provide entitlements to any specific land use projects. The Housing Element Update does not make any changes to the Fountain Valley General Plan land use map and would not modify any land use designations, allowed densities, or land use intensities established by the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15061.

SECTION 3
Pursuant to Fountain Valley Municipal Code section 21.34.050 the City Council does hereby find as follows:

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with the actions, goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, and would not create any inconsistencies with Title 21, in the case of a title amendment.

State planning law requires the Housing Element to be consistent with other General Plan elements. The Housing Element most closely relates to the Land Use Element and is consistent with all elements of the General Plan. Development policies contained in the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, density, and distribution of local land uses, including housing, most directly relate to the Housing Element. The Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element amendment is consistent with:
a. The Housing Element: The proposed Housing Element amendment replaces the existing Housing Element in its entirety. All policies and program recommendations within this Housing Element have been analyzed to determine the appropriateness of retention and/or implementation. b. The Land Use Element: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the Land Use Element for the following reasons:

The General Plan’s Land Use Goal (2.1) seeks to promote high quality development in the City which includes mixed used development and encourage variety and quality in land use practice. This amendment to the Housing Element advances this goal by identifying housing opportunity sites that promote mixed use development and a variety of housing types that meet the current and future needs of residents.

2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety or welfare of the city. The proposed update to the Housing Element analyzes city demographics, access to fair housing, constraints to the development of housing and opportunity sites for the development of housing at all income levels.

3. The proposed amendment has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city’s environmental review procedures as addressed in Section 2 above.

SECTION 4
The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection per Government Code Section 65357.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.

ATTEST:

Rick Miller, City Clerk Patrick Harper, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM

HARPER & BURNS LLP
Colin Burns, Attorneys for the City
ATTACHED: “EXHIBIT A”

“Exhibit A”
Housing Element Update (provided under separate cover)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 13, 2021
Brian James, Director
Planning and Building Department
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Dear Brian James:

RE: City of Fountain Valley’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Fountain Valley’s (City) draft housing element received for review on October 14, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on December 9, 2021, with the City’s consultant, Colin Drukker from Placeworks. In addition, HCD considered comments from The Kennedy Commission and Chuong Vu pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation, including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Brian James, Director

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Sohab Mehmood, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Enclosure
Senior Program Manager

City of Fountain Valley’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 December 13, 2021

APPENDIX

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The element must provide a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement: While the element includes some analysis related to fair housing enforcement complaints, it must also describe the City’s compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and include information on fair housing outreach capacity.

For additional information, please see pages 28-30 on HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.

Disproportionate Housing Needs: While the element included an analysis of patterns and trends within the City, it must also analyze and compare the City with regional trends and patterns related to substandard housing conditions, households that are cost burdened and overcrowded, and persons experiencing homelessness.

Sites Inventory: While the element includes a general analysis of some sites relative to low and high resourced census tracts, it must analyze whether sites for all income categories improve or exacerbate each of the fair housing issue areas including segregation and

City of Fountain Valley’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 December 13, 2021
integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.

Local Knowledge and Data: The element should incorporate local data and knowledge of the jurisdiction into the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) section. To assist in meeting this requirement, the element should provide local data not captured in regional, state, or federal data analysis such as information on resident’s lived experiences, and comments from community and stakeholder meetings.

Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors: The element needs to clearly identify fair housing issues based on the analysis, discuss the factor that contributed to the issue and link programs and actions toward overcoming the contributing factors. For example, the element states that overpayment contributes to disproportionate housing needs (p. 113).

However, overpayment is considered the fair housing issue and the element should indicate what contributed to high proportion of renter households overpaying for housing (e.g., lack of affordable housing options). An additional example is that the element indicates that City lacks suitable housing options in high to moderate resourced areas (p. 115), however did not describe what factors may have contributed to that issue.

Goals, Actions, Milestones and Metrics: While the element included some programs to address fair housing issues, programs and actions may need to be revised or modified based on a complete list of fair housing issues and contributing factors. In addition, goals and actions must be significant and meaningful to overcome identified contributing factors.

At minimum, actions must have specific commitment, milestones and metrics and should, based on the outcomes of the analysis, enhance housing mobility, provide new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, and place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization.

2. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of overpaying households, it must quantify the number of lower-income households overpaying households by tenure (i.e., renter and owner).

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Unaccommodated Need from the 5th Cycle Planning Period: The City had a shortfall of 162 units to accommodate its lower-income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) from the previous planning period. While the element notes the City completed rezoning through an overlay (p. 71), it must demonstrate the rezoning comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, the element must demonstrate the rezoned sites have a site capacity of at least 16 units, permit rental

City of Fountain Valley’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 December 13, 2021
and owner multifamily development without discretionary review at minimum densities of 20 dwelling units per acre. The element must also demonstrate the sites were rezoned during the prior planning period which ended October 15, 2021. (Gov. Code, §§ 65585 and 65588.) If the element does not demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements, it must include analysis and programs to accommodate the unaccommodated need from the prior planning period.

Realistic Capacity:
• Nonresidential Zoned Sites: The element indicates that certain sites will be rezoned to permit mixed-use development and that depending on the zoning, 10-30 percent of the ground floor must be reserved for commercial. The element should discuss and analyze how capacity calculations considered this requirement. Additionally, if the City permits 100% nonresidential uses then the element must analyze and account for the likelihood of residential development in zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses.
• U8 Slater Investments Site: The element includes a site-by-site discussion on capacity assumptions and generally assumes 50-80 percent of maximum densities for most sites. However, the element is assuming that the U8 site will be developed at 100 percent of the maximum allowable densities based on the owners’ interest (p. 62). The element should still consider other relevant factors such as typically built densities, existing uses, mixed-use zoning, and whether development standards will facilitate reaching maximum allowable densities.

Additionally, the element should discuss whether the capacity calculations including the consideration for nonresidential uses.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must provide analysis for the potential of redevelopment on the U3 and U4 sites. Specifically, the element stated that the U3 site would have similar development trends to the Irvine Business Complex developed in the neighboring city. The element should analyze how the Irvine Business Complex is similar to the U3 site. For example, the element can discuss the type of existing uses, age of uses, lease agreements, or other relevant factors. Additionally, the element could discuss owner or developer interest and additional actions that will incentivize redevelopment.

Lastly, the element should provide an analysis for the U4 site. It could discuss owner or developer interest, existing uses, or other relevant factors. Lastly, given the City’s strong reliance on nonvacant sites and lack of experience in redeveloping site to high density residential, the City should consider developing programs and incentives to encourage residential development on nonvacant sites.

The sites inventory consists of all nonvacant sites. For your information, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower income households, the element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation.