Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-15
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation (Fullerton and Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim Region)
Fullerton Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region
Race 1990 2000 2010 Current 1990 2000 2010 Current
Non-White/White 25.53 31.16 30.52 34.31 55.32 55.50 54.64 56.94 Black/White 30.60 31.84 26.53 38.26 72.75 68.12 65.22 68.85 Hispanic or Latino/White 33.72 39.98 38.28 35.48 60.12 62.44 62.15 63.49 Asian or Pacific
Islander/White
30.41 33.48 35.24 31.01 43.46 46.02 45.77 49.78
Source: HUD, 2023, Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends Figure E-5 shows the predominance of white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian American/Pacific Islander populations in the city. The southern portion of the city has a sizable or predominant proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents, particularly the neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. The AFFH Data Viewer also shows the neighborhood of E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd in northern Fullerton as also having a predominant proportion of Hispanic Latino residents; however, this data is based on the residential units within the neighboring cities of La Habra and Brea. The portion of this census tract located within the City of Fullerton is comprised of entirely commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units. The western section of the city, particularly in Emery Park, has a predominant Asian American/Pacific Islander population. The central and northern portions of the city have a sizable white majority population.
Areas with higher percentages of non-white residents are primarily located on the outer edges of the city, particularly within the south and western portions of the city (Figure E-4). These are also the densest areas of the city, with smaller lot sizes and more commercially zoned areas. Neighborhoods in northeastern and central Fullerton has higher percentages of white, non-Hispanic populations compared to other areas of the city. The northeastern and central portions of the city are less dense than the southern area of the city, and contain several golf courses and the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve, which does not contain any housing.
H-E-16 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-3 Neighborhood Segregation (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-17
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022.
H-E-18 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-5 Predominant Populations (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-19
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.5.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice if there are not sufficient housing units with these accessibility features.5
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.6 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.
Regional Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, 276,827 Orange County residents had one or more disabilities, or 8.8 percent of the total population. Figure E-7 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities throughout Orange County. The northwestern area of the county and the urban centers of cities had higher concentrations of persons living with one or more disabilities than other areas of the county.
Local Trends
Approximately 13,617 residents (nearly 10 percent) of Fullerton’s population live with one or more disabilities. According to 2021 ACS estimates shown in Figure E-6, independent living difficulty was the most common disability reported by Fullerton residents.
5 HCD, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 6 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
H-E-20 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-6 Disability by Type (Fullerton)
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2021), Table S1810 Figure E-8 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract. The percentage of residents reporting living with one or more disability ranged between zero and 20 percent. The neighborhoods in the city where disability ranged between 10 to 20 percent include Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Sunny Hills, E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isle Dr, Byerrum Park, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl. These neighborhoods are scattered throughout the city. The remainder of the city has less than 10 percent of residents reporting a disability. The neighborhood with the highest percentage of residents reporting a disability is S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, located south of Valencia Drive and north of State Route 91, between Euclid Avenue and Richmond Avenue. This area is primarily comprised of low-density residential uses.
2.4%
1.6%
4.1% 4.0%
2.4%
5.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
With a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With an
independent living
difficulty
Percentage of Adult Population Reporting Disability
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-21
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (OrangeCounty)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-22 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-8 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-23
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.5.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Examples of differential treatment include limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining households with children to a specific location are potentially discriminatory. Single parent households are protected by fair housing law. A 2016 HUD study studied the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status. The study found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.7 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.
Regional Trends
Orange County had 1,057,592 households in 2021. According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, households with children present comprise 23 percent of the total households in Orange County. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table E-5. Married couple families with children comprise the largest share of owner- and renter-occupied households with children. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised approximately eight percent of renter-occupied households, but only two percent of owner-occupied households.
Table E-5 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Orange County) Household Type
Owner-
Occupied
Percent of
Total Owner-
Occupied
Renter-
Occupied
Percent of
Total Renter-
Occupied
Married Couple Family, with Children Present 146,405 24.3% 97,736 21.5% Single-Parent, Male Householder, no Spouse Present 6,933 4.3% 14,628 3.2% Single Parent, Female Householder, No Spouse Present 13,116 2.1% 37,771 8.2% Total Households with Children Present 166,454 27.6% 80,831 17.8% Total Households 602,440 100% 455,152 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2017-2021 Estimates.
The majority of Orange County has a relatively low percentage of households characterized as female- headed, single-parent households, as shown in Figure E-9. There are small pockets with higher proportion of households with children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households, such as portions of the cities of Laguna Woods, Newport Beach, Irvine, and Orange. The urban areas in the northwest portion of the county tend to have higher proportions of female headed households than the southeastern part of the county. The patterns amongst married couple households with children are very similar, as shown in Figure E-10.The urban areas in the northwest portion of the county tend to have lower proportions of married couples with children under 18 than the southeastern part of the county.
7 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.
H-E-24 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Local Trends
According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, households with children present comprised 30 percent of the total number of households in Fullerton, which was higher than the county. An overview of household tenure by type for households with children present is provided in Table E-6. Similar to regional trends, married-couple families in Fullerton comprised the largest share of households with children present, and married-couple families were more likely to own than rent. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised nine percent of renter-occupied households and only one percent of owner-occupied households. The homeownership rate for single-family, female-headed households is slightly lower in Fullerton (1.2 percent) than the county (2.1 percent).
Table E-6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Fullerton) Household Type
Owner-
Occupied
Percent of
Total Owner-
Occupied
Renter-
Occupied
Percent of
Total Renter-
Occupied
Married couple family, with Children Present 6,060 24.6% 4,447 20.4% Single-Parent, Male householder, no spouse present 350 1.4% 950 4.4% Single-Parent, Female householder, no spouse present 297 1.2% 1,849 8.5% Total Households with Children Present 6,707 27.2% 7,246 33.2% Total Households 24,629 100% 21,805 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2017-2021 Estimates.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-25
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-9 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-26 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-10 Children in Married-Couple Households (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-27
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-11 shows the percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households in Fullerton, which ranges from less than 20 percent to less than 40 percent. The neighborhoods that have a higher percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households compared to the rest of the city include La Habra Southeast, Independence Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, California State University Fullerton, and Bradford Park. These neighborhoods are scattered throughout the city. However, none of the neighborhoods in Fullerton have an extremely high percentage of single, female-headed households.
Figure E-12 shows the percentage of children in married-couple households across Fullerton. Most census tracts in the city had over 60 percent of children living in married-couple households, according to 2015- 2019 ACS estimates. Several of the areas that have the highest percentage of married couple households overlap with the areas with a predominant white, non-Hispanic or Asian American population. These include the neighborhood of West Coyote Hills, Emery Park, Amerige Heights, Sunny Hills, The Fox Block, Acacia Park, Brea West, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, and Craig Park. Additionally, the neighborhoods of Gilbert Park, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, and Nicolas Park have high percentage of married couple households with children. The area with the lowest percentage of married-couple households with children is the neighborhood of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St .
Neighborhoods that have lower rates of children in married-couple households are more likely to contain higher density residential development, smaller lot sizes, and industrial and commercial land uses compared to neighborhoods with higher rates of children in married-couple households.
H-E-28 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-11 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-29
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-12 Children in Married-Couple Households (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
H-E-30 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.5.4 Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have actual choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.
This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low or moderate income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of low or moderate income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the AMI.
Regional Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, Orange County has a median household income of $100,559, which is much higher than the SCAG regional income of $77,430 Figure E-13 displays median household income by block group for Orange County using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. However, there are some gaps in data across the county (as shown in white), which may skew the median income ranges within the county.
Median household income tends to be higher in communities located in southwest Orange County.
Generally, households in the urban core of cities, such as Santa Ana, Westminster, Placentia, and Anaheim have a lower income than rural or suburban areas. Communities with the lowest median household incomes are concentrated in the urban areas in the northwest portion of the county.
LMI populations by census tract for Orange County are displayed in Figure E-14. Census tracts within the cities of Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Anaheim contain the highest percent of LMI populations in Orange County. LMI populations are in communities with a relatively greater percentage of children living in single- parent, female-headed households (Figure E-9) and a greater percentage of non-white populations (Figure E-11).
Local Trends
Geographically, median household income varies throughout Fullerton. According to 2021 ACS estimates, Fullerton has a median household income of $95,431, which is approximately five percent lower than the median income for Orange County but 19 percent higher than the SCAG region’s median income of $77,430. Fullerton’s median income is slightly lower to other cities in northern Orange County, such as Buena Park, Orange City, and Brea ($101,346, $103,045, and $108,721 respectively) Figure E-15 provides an overview of median household income by block group in the city. The lowest median household income areas are in the southern portion of the city. The block group with the lowest median household income is the location of California State University Fullerton. It is likely that the prevalence of students in this neighborhood lowers the median household income.
In contrast, the neighborhoods of West Coyote Hills, Amergie Heights, Sunny Hills, E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, and Acacia Park neighborhoods in the central and northern areas of Fullerton have higher median household incomes. These areas also have predominant Asian and White, non-Hispanic residents, as shown in Figure E-16. The neighborhood with the highest median income is Sunny Hills with a median income of $184,018.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-31
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
LMI populations in Fullerton are concentrated in the southern portion of the city, as shown in Figure E-17.
The Rancho La Paz, Woodcrest Park, and Valencia Park neighborhoods had a higher percentage of LMI populations (between 75 and 100 percent of the population). In contrast, neighborhoods in the center and northern portion of the city tend to have lower percentages of LMI populations. West Coyote Hills, Acacia Park, Byerrum Park, and Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl have the lowest percentage of LMI populations (less than 25 percent of the population). Neighborhoods with higher rates of LMI populations tend to overlap with areas of the city that have predominantly Hispanic/Latino populations.
Poverty rates in Fullerton have shifted slightly over time. Poverty rates increased from 12 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2021. This is on par with the poverty rates in the larger Southern California region (13 percent). Figure E-18 displays the percentage of the population earned an income that was below the poverty line.
H-E-32 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-13 Median Household Income (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-33
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-14 Low and Moderate Income Population (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-34 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-15 Median Household Income (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-35
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-16 Median Household Income and predominant Racial/Ethnic Population (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-36 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-17 Low to Moderate Income Population (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-37
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-18 Poverty Status (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-38 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-7 displays income level by household type. According to 2017-2021 ACS data, married-couple families within Fullerton have significantly higher incomes than nonfamily households, which consist of people who live alone or share a residence with unrelated individuals. Given the location of California State University Fullerton, many of the nonfamily households within Fullerton may be comprised of students, which may impact the median incomes of that household category. Approximately 63 percent of married couple families make above $100,000 per year, compared to 25 percent of nonfamily households and 47 percent of total households.
Table E-7 Income Level by Household Type (Fullerton)
Income Level Total Households Married-Couple Families Nonfamily Households Less than $10,000 4.4% 0.9% 10.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 2.8% 1.0% 6.0%
$15,000 to $24,999 4.4% 1.9% 6.3%
$25,000 to $34,999 6.0% 4.1% 8.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 9.0% 6.5% 12.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 15.1% 11.9% 20.0%
$75,000 to $99,999 11.1% 10.3% 12.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 19.1% 22.5% 12.8%
$150,000 to $199,999 12.5% 17.3% 6.4%
$200,000 or more 15.6% 23.6% 5.4%
Median income $92,718 $129,862 $58,271
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table S1901, Income in the Past 12 Months (Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), 2017-2021 Estimates E.5.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-white population of 50 percent or more in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The income threshold is based on areas of “extreme poverty,” where 40 percent or more of households earn incomes at or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets both thresholds for racial or ethnic concentration and “extreme poverty” is considered a R/ECAP.
E.5.6 Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
In Orange County, R/ECAPs are present in neighborhoods in the urban cities in the northern portion of the county, including in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Placentia. These areas are shown with hash marks in Figure E-19.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-39
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-19 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
H-E-40 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Local Trends
While R/ECAPs were not identified within Fullerton, there are areas where lower household income and racial and ethnic concentration overlap. The neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park, California State University Fullerton, and Deepark Dr/Sherwood Ave had the highest poverty rates within the city. However, the high percentage of students surrounding CSUF likely affects at least some of this data. The southern portion of the city had higher percentage of the population below the poverty line than the northern portion of the city, with the majority of neighborhoods south and immediately north of Commonwealth Avenue having between 10 and 20 percent of the population below the poverty line. The neighborhood of Woodcrest Park has a poverty rate between 20 and 30 percent.
E.5.7 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. RCAAs are defined as affluent, white communities.8 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been adopted by HCD or HUD. Therefore, this assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas, as described in Section 4.4, Household Income.
Regional Trends
The areas characterized as RCAAs in Orange County are shown in Figure E-20, which are concentrated in the southeastern portion of the county and along the coast, such as Laguna Beach, San Clemente, Newport Beach, and non-urbanized areas. Generally, cities with higher median incomes such as the Laguna Beach and San Clemente have relatively larger concentrations of white residents compared to jurisdictions with lower median incomes such as the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana and Buena Park, as shown in Figure E-2 and Figure E-13.
Local Trends
Similar to trends occurring in Orange County, areas with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of white residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes.
Neighborhoods in the northeast corner of Fullerton had a predominately white population and the highest median income levels in the city, as shown in Figure E-21. In Fullerton, the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park are defined as RCAAs.
Most RCAA designated neighborhoods in northeast Fullerton are comprised primarily of single-family homes. Less than 10 percent of structures are comprised of two or more units. This is much less than the neighborhoods in the southern half of the City, where between 20 and 35 percent of the housing stock is comprised of multifamily homes in most areas. Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park neighborhoods have a lower percentage of older units than other neighborhoods in the cCity, with
8 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-41
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
less than 20 percent built before 1960. In the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr and Craig Park, between 20 and 40 percent of units were built prior to 1960. This is much lower than the southern portion of the city, where between 40 and 80 percent of units were built prior to 1960. RCAAs in Fullerton have lower rates of overcrowding,. Most residents in RCAAs do not have walkable access to High Quality Transit Stops.
A survey conducted in May 2024 to gather stakeholder input provided local knowledge on the patterns of RCAA designated neighborhoods in northeastern Fullerton. Five survey respondents indicated that RCAAs are characterized by large parcels, large single-family homes, greater setbacks, and hilly terrain. The large, single-family homes are affordable to higher-income residents who are typically well-educated professionals. The area also has abundant parkland and high performing schools. It was noted that RCAAs in Fullerton have minimal multifamily zoning and opportunities for diverse housing typologies, which limits opportunities for low or moderate-income households. It was also noted that while some residents in RCAAs may support constructing an ADU for a family member, they are generally opposed to additional density, citing infrastructure constraints. The lack of diverse housing opportunities in RCAAs has created and perpetuated racial and economic segregation within the city.
While most of the RCAAs are built out, the City has prioritized strategies to increase density and diversify housing types in these areas:
• Providing adequate sites for housing development, targeting higher density development in northeastern Fullerton (Policy Action 1.1)
• Facilitating infill development in high resource areas, particularly on religious sites (Policy Action 1.3) • Targeting ADU outreach in high resource areas (Policy Action 1.6) • The Site Inventory identifies 1,008 housing units in RCAAs, including 368 lower-income units and, 311 moderate-income units, to provide diverse housing opportunities and increase opportunities for economic integration. The City will also implement Policy Action 1.4 to support the development of a variety of housing types and greater densities, as well as Policy Action 1.6 to support ADU development in northern Fullerton.
H-E-42 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-20 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-43
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-21 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-44 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far- reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.9 This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
HUD’s Opportunity Indices were created to inform communities about racial/ethnic segregation and disparities in access to opportunity.10 Table E-8 provides opportunity indicator index scores (ranging from 0-100, with 100 representing the most positive outcomes) for Fullerton for each race/ethnicity, as described by the AI. Measured at the neighborhood level, the index scores are intended to inform communities about segregation and disparities in access to opportunity in their jurisdiction and compare the opportunity indicators rankings across racial/ethnic groups. Generally, higher index scores are indicative of greater access to opportunity. For example, the “low poverty index” captures the poverty rate within a given neighborhood; the higher the index score means the less exposure to poverty. A higher “jobs proximity” score means that residents have greater accessibility to employment locations within the larger region.11 Each index is measured using the following variables:
• Economic Opportunity Index: a composite of poverty rate by census tract, percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, percentage of adults employed, and number of jobs for persons without a bachelor's degree that fall within a given radius of each census tract. • Environmental Opportunity Index: exposure to pollution burden shown in CalEnviroScreen. • Educational Opportunity Index: the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood.
• Transit Index: How often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation.
In Fullerton, Asian/Pacific Islander and white, non-Hispanic residents have greater accessibility to areas with greater economic opportunity, lower environmental pollutants, educational opportunity, lower transportation costs. In comparison, Hispanic/Latino residents and, Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino populations had greater access to public transit, but lower economic and educational opportunities, and the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns. Most opportunity scores were lower for residents earning an income below the federal poverty level compared to the total population in Fullerton.
Residents who earned an income below the poverty level in Fullerton had lower economic and education opportunities, greater exposure to environmental health concerns, but lower transportation costs.
9 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 10 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 11 Urban Institute, 2018. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98674/place_and_opportunity_brief_3.pdf
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-45
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander residents earning below the poverty line had greater access to public transit.
Table E-8 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Fullerton) Total Population
Economic
Opportunity
Index
Environmental
Opportunity
Index
Educational
Opportunity
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Transit
Index
White, Non-Hispanic 55.78 26.03 58.12 38.56 36.36
Black, Non-Hispanic 43.93 23.39 50.62 43.17 39.78
Hispanic 37.14 20.28 43.05 41.48 39.47
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.09 25.70 65.77 35.43 35.37 Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.61 22.90 48.14 41.21 38.35 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.62 23.49 50.72 45.41 10.98
Black, Non-Hispanic 26.27 20.02 37.49 50.76 44.32
Hispanic 29.84 19.52 38.35 43.06 41.15
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 57.70 27.73 64.75 42.01 39.39 Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.26 22.70 51.35 38.76 34.99 Source: County of Orange AI, 2020
An overview of opportunity indicators for Orange County is provided in Table E-9. According to the AI, compared to Orange County, Fullerton scored slightly lower for economic opportunity and educational opportunity, and had significantly greater exposure to environmental health concerns. Fullerton scored higher for transportation costs and proximity to public transit compared to Orange County as a whole.
Across Orange County, residents earning an income below the poverty level scored slightly lower for environmental health concerns, and economic and educational opportunities compared to the total population.
Table E-9 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Orange County) Total Population
Economic
Opportunity
Index
Environmental
Opportunity
Index
Educational
Opportunity
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Transit
Index
White, Non-Hispanic 59.36 53.88 58.61 33.84 27.43
Black, Non-Hispanic 45.85 45.21 45.63 39.68 36.21
Hispanic 31.86 41.02 30.86 41.80 41.28
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 49.36 46.78 52.50 37.48 36.11 Native American, Non-Hispanic 46.39 48.19 45.07 37.47 33.02 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 51.70 51.01 52.13 39.18 32.26
36.25 36.25 40.42 37.29 40.77 35.60
Hispanic 22.65 39.02 23.81 45.65 46.35
H-E-46 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Total Population
Economic
Opportunity
Index
Environmental
Opportunity
Index
Educational
Opportunity
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Transit
Index
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 38.9 46.38 48.32 41.97 39.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic 35.89 38.62 40.92 40.15 40.17 Source: County of Orange AI, 2020
E.6.1 Transit Access and Walkability
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options such as walking and biking are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.
Regional Trends
Orange County generally has widespread access to public transit. Accessible transportation infrastructure includes the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Metrolink, and Amtrack. OCTA provides a variety of bus services and OC Flex, an on-demand curb-to-curb shuttle service. Amtrak operates the Pacific Surfliner, which runs along the 351-mile Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN Corridor) through Orange County. The Surfliner stops at stations in Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine.
Transit use is higher where investment in transit service has been made. Almost all major employment centers in Orange County are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.
Orange County received an average AllTransit performance score of 4.2 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit, enabling relatively few people to take transit to work.12 The land uses within Orange County do not support transit ridership. Throughout much of the county, residential uses are low density and spread out. The streets were not designed with walkability in mind. Additionally, bus service is focused on a select number of hubs, and on a few key corridors, mostly within the northern part of the county. As a result, there can be barriers between a commuter’s transit stop and their home. Of the six SCAG counties, Orange County’s AllTransit score ranks third, below Los Angeles County (6.8) and San Bernadino (4.4), but above Imperial County (0.1), Riverside (3.3), and Ventura (3.4).
Local Trends
The City of Fullerton is not very accessible by public transit. According to AllTransit, only 2.7 percent of workers in Fullerton take public transportation to work. The city has an AllTransit Performance Score of 4.8, which is higher than the county as a whole but still results in few people taking transit to work.
12 AllTransit.Org, 2023. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-47
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Metrolink’s Orange County line and 91-Perris line run through Fullerton, as well as Amtrak’s Surfliner, with a stop at the Fullerton Transit Station. There are also several bus lines operated by OCTA.
Figure E-22 illustrates transit access within a quarter-mile of transit stops for both bus routes and Metrolink. A significant portion of the city is within a quarter-mile access of a transit stop, particularly within the southern half of the city. The northern half of the city has less access to transit. The neighborhoods of Acacia Park, West Coyote Hills, Emery Park, and Amerige Heights have limited access to transit.
Fullerton has some neighborhoods with high walkability. Walk Score is a private company that offers a walkability index on its website, that measures the pedestrian friendliness of a given location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities and examining population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.13 According to Walk Score, Fullerton has a walk score of 54 out of 100, which is categorized as “Somewhat Walkable.”14 Downtown Fullerton has a Walk Score of 97, which is categorized as “Walker’s Paradise.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability.15 The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure E-23, shows that most of the city has a walkability score above that national average. The highest walkability scores are generally located in the southern portion of the city, although there are pockets of high walkable neighborhoods scattered throughout the city. Neighborhoods located in the northern area of Fullerton have lower walkability scores compared to the rest of the city.
13 Walk Score, 2022. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml 14 Walk Score, 2022. https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Fullerton 15 EPA, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology
H-E-48 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-22 Access to Transit Within a Quarter-Mile (Fullerton)
Source: City of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, 2022.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-49
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-23 Walkability Index (Fullerton)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2022.
H-E-50 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.6.2 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.16 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.
Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Orange County is illustrated in Figure E-24. Educational outcomes varied across Orange County, In general, urban areas in the northwest portion of the county had less positive education outcomes compared with the rest of the county, particularly in Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Placentia. Additionally, the neighborhood of Great Park in Irvine had low educational outcomes compared to the county, however there are limited residential uses in this neighborhood. According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, Orange County high school graduation rates were highest among Asian-American and Filipino students (95 percent) and white, non-Hispanic students (94 percent). American Indian/Alaska Native students (86 percent) and Hispanic/Latino students (87 percent) had lower graduation rates.17 Local Trends
Fullerton’s youth are served by the Fullerton School District (FSD) and Fullerton Joint Union High School District (Fullerton JUSD). FSD serves kindergarten through eighth grade students in the City of Fullerton.
FSD operates 15 elementary schools, two K-8th campuses, and three junior high schools.18 Fullerton JUSD operates five high schools in Fullerton and serves the City of Fullerton and the cities of La Habra, La Habra Heights, Buena Park, and small sections of Brea and Whittier. The City of Fullerton is also served by 11 private schools that serves kindergarten students through high school.19 Figure E-25 shows Fullerton’s TCAC scores for education outcomes at the census tract level. In general, the southern areas of the city had the lowest degree of positive education outcomes, particularly in the neighborhood of Rancho La Paz. This area also has a high percentage of LMI population, predominant Hispanic majority, and lower median income. The northern portion of the city has more positive educational outcomes. These areas also have high percentages of Asian American and non-Hispanic White residents, higher incomes, and a lower percentage of LMI residents.
16 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport 17 Kids Data. 2021. All Data: Orange County. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/365/orange-county/results#ind=&say=&cat=18 18 Fullerton School District. https://www.fullertonsd.org/domain/6 19 City of Fullerton. Private Schools. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/residents/schools/private-schools
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-51
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-52 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-25 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Outcomes (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) H-E-53 City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.6.3 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times.
The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.
Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Orange County as shown in Figure E-26. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified along the coastal communities and in the southern and eastern portions of the county. Conversely, similar to educational outcomes, the urban areas in the northwestern portion of the county had less positive economic outcomes, particularly in Santa Ana, Anaheim, Fullerton, and Buena Park.
According to ACS estimates, Orange County has an employment rate of 60 percent, a decrease of three percent from 2019. Table E-10 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Orange County for ACS 2015-2019 and 2017-2021. Overall, the percent of all employed residents age 16 remained the same, but unemployment increased slightly.
Table E-10 Employment Status by Disability Status (Orange County) Disability Status
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015 -2019
Employed
2017-2021
Unemployed
2017-2021
No Disability 1,445,013
(96.7%)
65,384
(91.9%)
1,435,544
(96.3%)
77,022
(91.8%)
With a Disability 48,800
(3.2%)
5,723
(8.0%)
54,620
(3.6%)
6,819
(8.1%)
Total 1,493,813
(74.7%)
71,107
(3.5%)
1,490,164
(74.4%)
83,841
(4.1%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2015-2019, 2017-2021 Estimates.
Local Trends
The TCAC opportunity maps help to identify patterns of negative and positive economic, educational and environmental outcomes across the state. Census tracts are ranked from low (negative outcomes) to highest resource (positive outcomes) based on TCAC’s Opportunity Maps analysis. TCAC economic outcome scores vary across neighborhoods in Fullerton, as shown in Figure E-27.
H-E-54 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-26 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-55
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-27 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-56 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Generally, lower economic outcomes are located in the southern part of the city south of Commonwealth Avenue. However, the neighborhood California State University Fullerton in the east of the city also has less positive economic outcomes, likely due to the prevalence of students. The E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd neighborhood is characterized as having less positive economic outcomes, but no residential units are located in this neighborhood. Areas with more positive economic outcomes were in the central and northern portions of Fullerton. Generally, areas with lower economic outcome scores were in neighborhoods with a higher percent of Hispanic/Latino residents, whereas areas with higher economic outcomes had a predominately non-Hispanic white or Asian-American population.
Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table E-11. The labor participation rate of residents age 16 and older decreased by one percent, slightly more than the county’s rate of change. The number of employed residents with a disability increased slightly in Fullerton, while employment for residents without a disability decreased. The total unemployment rate (5.6 percent) in 2021 is higher than the county (4.1 percent), but lower than the SCAG region (9.3 percent).
Table E-11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Fullerton) Disability Status
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015 -2019
Employed
2017-2021
Unemployed
2017-2021
No Disability 62,864
(96.5%)
4,206
(93.2%)
61,918
(95.8%)
4,768
(93.2%)
With a Disability 2,234
(3.4%)
305
(6.7%)
2,648
(4.1%)
346
(6.7%)
Total 65,098
(72.0%)
4,511
(4.9%)
64,566
(71.0%)
5,114
(5.6%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2015-2019, 2017-2021 Estimates.
According to TCAC, census tracts with a designation of “High Resource” indicate that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities for current and future residents. The majority of Fullerton is comprised of moderate to high resource areas. The highest resource areas are concentrated in the central and northern portion of the city. Several neighborhoods in the city are characterized as low resource, including Gilbert Park, Woodcrest Park, and Rancho La Paz. E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd in the northern tip of the city also is characterized as low resource, but this neighborhood is comprised of commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units.
Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the Southern California Region and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the SCAG region, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.20
Accessibility to employment opportunities differs across Fullerton is shown in Figure 5-28. Neighborhoods with the highest access to employment opportunity are concentrated in the eastern area of the city, primarily east of Harbor Boulevard, which is closest to the industrial zoned areas of northeastern Anaheim.
20HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-57
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Generally, accessibility to jobs decreases relative to the distance from that area, with the lowest scores in the western and southern areas of the city. Neighborhoods with the lowest job proximity scores in the southwestern area of the city are primarily comprised of single-family homes with pockets of commercial, and no industrial uses. Although it may appear counter-intuitive, there are some neighborhoods with higher proximity to jobs, such as Rancho La Paz that the lowest TCAC economic outcome scores and higher rates of LMI populations compared to other areas of the city with lower proximity to jobs. Despite being in close proximity to employment, residents in this area of Fullerton may not benefit from high proximity to job centers, as this area has low TCAC economic outcome scores and a high share of LMI populations.
E.6.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws— Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. HUD requires all entitlement jurisdictions to conduct reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act to determine if a proposed project creates adverse impacts due to environmental conditions. It furthers the requirement that human health deserves equal protection for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Under Executive Order 12898, Federally assisted projects may also target funding to communities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on minority and low-income populations due to environmental conditions.21 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from South Coast Air Quality Management District, water quality indicators from Orange County Water District, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socio- economic indicators, etc.). The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores as compared to other California census tracts (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.
21 HUD, 2022. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/
H-E-58 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure 5-28 Job Proximity Index (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) H-E-59 City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Orange County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure E-29 shows that generally, the more urbanized, northwestern portions of the county have less positive environmental outcomes, most notably near the industrial areas in the cities of Buena Park, Stanton, Fullerton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana.
Local Trends
As shown in Figure E-30, pollution burden varies across Fullerton communities. In general, the northern portion of the city, particularly the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills and Acacia Park, has more positive environmental outcomes than areas south. The neighborhood of E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, which contains several distribution centers with high truck traffic, and the neighborhood of Woodcrest Park, which contains large, big box commercial areas that generate car trips, have the worst environmental outcomes within the city. Areas with high pollution tend to have a greater percentage of industrial or commercial land uses. Areas with higher pollution burden are also areas that that had higher percentages of Hispanic/Latino residents, as shown in Figure E-30.
According to TCAC, environmental outcome scores vary across the city. Figure E-31 shows that higher environmental health scores are concentrated in western and northeastern Fullerton. Similarly, TCAC shows that the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills and Acacia Park have the highest environmental outcomes in the city. These areas have a high proportion of open space and public lands, and a majority white, non- Hispanic population. Conversely, the neighborhoods with the heavier pollution burden are concentrated in the southeastern portion of the city and have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents.
H-E-60 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-29 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-61
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-62 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-31 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-63
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Fullerton, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.
Information for this section relies on the HUD CHAS data.
E.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered “cost burdened,” and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems.
Regional Trends
Figure E-32 shows areas of Orange County where renter households experienced housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). As shown, paying more than 30 percent of gross income on rent is widespread across most of Orange County, where a significant portion of the county have between 40 and 80 percent of renter households pay more than 30 percent or more of household incomes on rent. There are a few census tracts in the county where over 80 percent of renter households pay more than 30 percent or more of household incomes on rent, particularly within the urbanized northern portion of the county including within the cities of Yorba Linda, Placentia, Orange, and Fountain Valley. Additionally, the less urbanized coastal community of Laguna Niguel has high levels of overpayment. Overpayment amongst homeowners is also widespread across the county, as shown in Figure E-33. Housing cost burden among homeowners is most prevalent in the northwestern area of the county, especially in the cities of Placentia, Anaheim, Westminster, and Santa Ana.
Local Trends
Similar to Orange County, housing cost burden among renters varies across Fullerton. As Shown in Figure E- 34, most neighborhoods in Fullerton have between 40 and 80 percent of renters experiencing housing cost burden, according to 2017-2021 ACS estimates. The neighborhoods with higher rates of cost burden (60 and 80 percent of renters) include Brea West, Craig Park Artisan Walk, California State University, and Bradford Park, located in the northeast of the city, and Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, located in the southwest of the city. The neighborhood with the lowest rates of overpayment by renters (less than 20 percent) is West Coyote Hills.
Housing cost burden among owner-occupied households varies across the city. An overview of housing cost burden for owner-occupied households is provided in Figure E-35. In most of the city, between 20 and 60 percent of owner-occupied households are cost burdened. The neighborhood of Emery Park has the highest percentage of cost burdened households within the city (between 60 and 80 percent). Areas with the highest cost burden generally have higher percentages of Asian American, non-Hispanic, and
H-E-64 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Hispanic/Latino populations. The California State University Fullerton neighborhood has between 40 and 60 percent of owner-occupied households are cost burdened; however, this neighborhood also has a significantly lower percentage of owner-occupied units than the city as a whole (13 percent, compared to 50 percent for the entire city).
Nine neighborhoods within Fullerton contain between 60 and 80 percent of cost burdened renters. As shown in Figure E-36, three of these neighborhoods have a majority non-Hispanic white population, and six of these neighborhoods had a majority Hispanic/Latino population. The lowest rate of overpayment by renters was in the West Coyote Hills neighborhood in the northwest corner of the city, which is predominantly Asian American.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-65
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-32 Overpayment by Renters (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-66 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-33 Overpayment by Homeowners (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-67
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-34 Overpayment by Renters (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-68 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-35 Overpayment by Homeowners (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-69
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-36 Overpayment by Renters and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-70 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.7.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is a measure to understand the needs of large families, defined as five or more persons per household. Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms.
Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding reflects various living situations, including housing units that are inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families that share a single housing unit.
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain electrical systems in older housing that have not been updated or contribute to a perceived shortage of parking. As a result, some property owners/managers may be more hesitant to rent to large households, thus making access to adequately sized housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.
Regional Trends
Orange County has 144,734 large households; approximately 13 percent of total households. Owner- occupied households comprise a larger share than renters of the total number of large households in the county. Overcrowding remains low overall in the county, compared to the statewide average, but there is a disproportionate impact of overcrowding in households primarily occupied by non-white racial/ethnic groups. According to ACS 2021 estimates, three percent of white, non-Hispanic households are overcrowded (more than one occupant per room), compared to 22 percent of Hispanic/Latino, eight percent of Asian, and four percent of Black/African American households. According to the California Department of Health and Human Services data shown in Figure E-37, overcrowded housing is most prominent in the northwestern area of Orange County, mainly in urban centers such as the cities of Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Orange, Anaheim, Buena Park, La Habra, Costa Mesa, and Westminster. There are also pockets of overcrowding int the southern area of Orange County near the cities of Laguna Niguel and Mission Viejo.
Local Trends
According to ACS 2017-2021 data, Fullerton has 6,651 large households; approximately 14 percent of the total households. Renter occupied large households comprise of 52 percent of the total number of large Fullerton households. Additionally, 10.8 percent of households in Fullerton are overcrowded, slightly higher than 8.6 percent for the county as a whole. Fullerton has an average of 2.87 persons per household in 2021, a decrease from 2011, when the city had an average of 3.00 persons per household. As shown in Figure E-38, neighborhoods with a higher degree of overcrowded households are generally located in the southern area of the city.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-71
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-37 Overcrowded Households (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-72 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-38 Overcrowded Households (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-73
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The neighborhood with the highest percentage of overcrowding is Woodcrest Park (more than 20 percent).
The predominant population in this area is Hispanic/Latino. Neighborhoods with 10 to 15 percent overcrowding include Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, E Wilshire Ave/N Raymond Ave, Rancho La Paz. The AFFH Data Viewer also shows the neighborhood of E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd in northern Fullerton as having high levels of overcrowding; however, this data is based on the residential units within the neighboring cities of La Habra and Brea. The portion of this census tract located within the City of Fullerton is comprised of entirely commercial and industrial uses and does not contain any residential units. Neighborhoods with low levels of overcrowding are generally located in the central and northern portion of the city.
According to the 2017-2021 ACS estimates shown in Figure E-39, overcrowding is a more common housing issue for residents of Fullerton who identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, and those of “other race or multiple races” than for people who identified as white, non-Hispanic, Black/African American, or American Indian/Alaska Native.
Figure E-39 Overcrowding by Race in Fullerton
Notes: The Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latino. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latino may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latino, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units. *Hispanic and non-Hispanic
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table B25014A-I 9%
21%
11%
0%
23% 22%
2% 3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS
MORE THAN 1.0 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
H-E-74 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.7.3 Housing Problems
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes.
Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Housing units built before 1978 may have health risks such as lead-based paint and asbestos. Housing issues prompted by disrepair such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.
Regional Trends
Housing problems are defined as units having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent. Severe housing problems are defined as all of the above and with a cost burden greater than 50 percent.22 Approximately 44 percent of total households in Orange County experience housing problems, and another 26 percent of total households experience severe housing problems. According to the AI, more than half of Hispanic/Latino (63 percent) households experience housing problems compared to white, non-Hispanic residents. Housing problems are significantly higher among large households, as nearly 65 percent of large households experience housing problems compared to 39 percent of households comprising less than five persons.
A housing unit is considered substandard by the ACS if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.
According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 0.2 percent of all occupied housing units in Orange County lack complete plumbing facilities and 1.3 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.
Fifty-six percent of Orange County’s housing stock was built prior to 1980. These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements. Additionally, lead-based paint was banned from residential uses in 1978. All houses constructed before 1978 are therefore considered at risk for containing lead-based paint.
Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 CHAS data, 46 percent of households in Fullerton experience at least one housing problem, similar to the rate for Orange County. According to the AI, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Black/African-American households experience the highest rate of housing problems at 63, 48, and 45 percent, respectively. In comparison, 36 percent of white, non-Hispanic households experienced housing problems. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 0.3 percent of all occupied housing units in Fullerton lack complete plumbing facilities and 2.2 percent lacked complete kitchen facilities, slightly higher than the county as a whole. Over 74 percent of the city’s current housing stock is greater than 40 years old.
Additionally, 71 percent of large households (five or more persons) in the city experience housing problems compared to 42 percent of households of five persons or less, as referenced in the AI.
Respondents to a survey conducted in May 2024 to gather stakeholder input noted the neighborhoods of Independence Park, Artesia Blvd/N, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave; Valencia Park, as
22 HUD, 2021. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-75
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
well as the neighborhoods south of Commonwealth Ave, and areas near downtown and the train station have a concentration of units in need of rehabilitation.
E.7.4 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Regional Trends
The 2022 Orange County Everyone Counts Point-in-Time (PIT) Summary is the most recent evaluation of people experiencing homelessness in the county. According to the 2022 PIT count, there were 5,718 people experiencing homelessness in Orange County (sheltered and unsheltered), which was a decrease of 1,142 people (16.7 percent) from 2019 (latest available comparable year). There were 3,961 individuals who were observed as being unsheltered in the county, a decrease of 904 people from 2019.
Fifty-five percent of unsheltered individuals, and 38 percent of sheltered individuals in Orange County were chronically homeless (individual has a disabling condition and has had four episodes of homelessness in the past three years or has been continuously homeless for one year or longer). Twenty-eight percent of sheltered individuals reported suffering from a mental health issue, 20 percent reported a substance abuse issue, and 11 percent were fleeing domestic and dating violence. Three percent had HIV/AIDS, and one percent had a developmental disability. Sheltered individuals were more likely to be male (51.4 percent) and most likely to be older than the age of 25 (72.6 percent). Approximately 4.7 percent were young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, and 22.6 percent were younger than 18 years of age.
White, non-Hispanic residents had the largest overrepresentation in terms of percent of sheltered individuals respective of county population share (77 percent of sheltered individuals versus 43 percent share of population). Asian Americans were the most underrepresented for sheltered individuals respective of city population share (4 percent of sheltered individuals versus 22 percent of population share). Other racial/ethnicity groups of sheltered individuals were closer to their respective city population shares.
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
o A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
o An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
o A public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Local Trends
The 20242 PIT count reported that 272 434 individuals were experiencing homelessness in Fullerton, including 70 226 sheltered and 202 208 unsheltered. This represents an increase of 162 individuals experiencing homelessness compared to the 2022 PIT count. The City established a Homeless Plan
H-E-76 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Committee in 2019 to create a comprehensive strategic plan to address homelessness. This plan was published in January 2020. The report indicated that the top four causes of homelessness in Fullerton are:
1. Lack of housing affordable to very low-income residents;
2. Lack of Permanent Supportive Housing for individuals living with mental illness;
3. Growing numbers of opioid addicted individuals reduced to living on the streets; and
4. Lack of jobs with sufficient pay to afford food and shelter in our community.
The report outlines several recommendations, including supporting additional beds for homeless individuals at shelters in Buena Park and Placentia, and at the Illumination Foundation Navigation and Recuperative Care Center in Fullerton. The plan also includes recommendations to increase the development of permanent affordable housing. The committee proposed to amend the Fullerton General Plan Land Use Designation to allow properties containing religious institutions to develop permanent supportive housing and/or affordable housing on those properties “by right,” and to adopt a Mixed Income Housing Ordinance for all new developments to provide housing for all Fullerton residents’ income levels.
The report also includes recommendations to collaborate with non-profits on homeless prevention and diversion through mental assistance programs, re-entry programs, and substance abuse programs.23 A survey conducted in May 2024 to gather stakeholder input provided local knowledge on the patterns of people experiencing homelessness in Fullerton. Five survey respondents indicated a concentration of people experiencing homelessness in the neighborhoods of Santa Fe District/SOCO, Independence Park, and S. Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Craig Park, and Chapman Park. Individuals experiencing homelessness are also found along major arterials, including Lemon Street, Orangethorpe Avenue, under the State Route (SR) 57 freeway, Hillcrest Park, and in the shopping centers and at bus depots. In terms of trends among homeless residents, respondents noted that older women appear to be a growing population of residents experiencing homelessness.
The city partners with the nonprofit organization City Net to provide street outreach, in-reach, and case management to those experiencing homelessness in Fullerton. The City also partners with the OC Health Care Agency, which serves individuals who are homeless or on the verge of becoming homeless. Services are offered to individuals of all ages with behavioral health conditions ranging. Staff frequent known gathering places for the homeless including food banks, shelters, and public areas such as parks/libraries in order to identify individuals and screen for program eligibility. The team responds to community referrals and collaborates with various community partners in support of an individual’s recovery.
E.7.5 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most
23 City of Fullerton. 2020. Fullerton Homeless Plan Committee Strategic Plan for Addressing Homelessness. https://www.cityoffullerton.com/home/showpublisheddocument/181/637423205151470000
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-77
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.24
Regional Trends
As shown in Figure E-40, the majority of Orange County has a lower risk of displacement, but there are several cities in the northwestern portion of Orange County (primarily the cities of Anaheim, Placentia, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Westminster, Santa Ana, Stanton, and Orange) that are at risk of displacement.
Local Trends
The majority of Fullerton is at lower risk of displacement, but there are several neighborhoods in southern Fullerton at risk of displacement, as shown in Figure E-41. These include the neighborhoods of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert, Valencia Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz, and California State University Fullerton.
Vulnerable areas in Fullerton had higher poverty rates, higher percentage of LMI residents, overcrowded households and were more likely to have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents. Fullerton has the highest number of rent-based eviction filings in all of Orange County.25 E.8 Local Area Knowledge
E.8.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation
Regional
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led to regional patterns of segregation.
The first people to live in Orange County were the Shoshonean-speaking people, the ancestors of the tribes we know today as the Juaneño and the Gabrielino. Spanish missionaries were established in the area in 1770s. In 1810, the first land grant in what is now Orange County was established east and south of the Santa Ana River. The area was dominated by cattle ranches. The Gold Rush of 1849 brought tens of thousands of new settlers to California. By 1850, the future Orange County comprised the southern tip of Los Angeles County. By late 1800s, residents had mobilized enough political support to pass the secession measure despite opposition by Los Angeles County in the State Legislature. Orange County was given jurisdictional autonomy on March 11, 1889.
24 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 25 United Way. 2023. Orange County Evictions Report. https://www.unitedwayoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/OC-Evictions- Spring23_final.pdf, accessed August, 2023
H-E-78 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-40 Estimated Displacement Risk (Orange County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-79
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-41 Estimated Displacement Risk (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
H-E-80 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Much of Orange County’s growth in the first half of the 20th Century was fueled by new forms of transportation. Between 1904 and 1910, the Pacific Electric Railway built three branches to serve Orange County with its “big red cars.” The coast line spurred development from Seal Beach to Corona del Mar. The Santa Ana line prompted the founding of Cypress and Stanton. And the La Habra line ran all the way down to the new community of Yorba Linda. Freeway construction began in the 1950s with the opening of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway and continued almost unabated into the 1970s. During World War II, a number of important military bases were established in Orange County. At the end of the war, many veterans decided to settle in Southern California, and the region began to grow at an unprecedented rate.
By the mid-1950s, Orange County’s farms were being replaced by single-family tract housing. South Orange County began to grow in the 1960s, with master planned communities such as Irvine, Mission Viejo, and Laguna Niguel. Aliso Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Ladera Ranch, and others followed in the 1980s and 1990s.
Until the 1940s, Orange County's economy was based largely on agriculture. With the rapid southward expansion of Los Angeles' population and industrial development, Orange County's economy began to change rapidly, particularly in the northern parts of the county. In 1940, twice as many workers were employed in agriculture as in manufacturing. Orange County's demographic explosion began with the onset of the military build-up for the Second World War and continued with the post-war expansion of California.
Between 1940 and 1960, Orange County's population grew from 130,000 to more than 700,000, transforming the county into a major suburban outpost for Los Angeles.
By 1960, manufacturing employed three times as many workers as the agricultural industry. Aerospace and other high-tech industries began moving into the area, bringing with them growing affluence. Between 1950 and 1960, Orange County's median income grew from the 20th highest of California's 58 counties to the third highest, behind only the Bay Area suburbs of Contra Costa and Marin Counties. By the mid-1990s, Orange County's high-tech and information industries were among the most dynamic in the United States.
Today, Orange County comprises 34 cities and has a population of approximately three million residents.
The unincorporated territory, consisting of approximately 321 square miles, is geographically diverse with unincorporated areas spread throughout the County. The largest portion of unincorporated territory is found in southern Orange County and includes a number of planned communities such as Coto de Caza, Las Flores and Ladera Ranch as well as large portions of undeveloped territory south of Ortega Highway.
In the late 1800s, Santa Ana was one of the only cities in Orange County with a Chinatown neighborhood.
These Chinese immigrants were recruited to meet the demands of labor in farming, railroads, and construction and worked for low wages to send to their families back in China. The area was burned down by the City in 1906 based on claims of mitigating the spread of disease. Residents were relocated to land along the Santa Ana River, but by 1912, most Chinese residents had left Santa Ana to reside in nearby Anaheim.
In the 1920s, Anaheim was home to members of the racist “white power” entity known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). In 1924, Anaheim elected four KKK affiliated candidates to city council, and KKK membership in Anaheim expanded. They spread prejudices until 1925, when they were recalled after residents were alerted of their KKK affiliations. In 1930s, most citrus laborers in Orange County were immigrants from Mexico, who formed the Federation of Agricultural Workers Unions of America (FAWUA). Strikes for better working conditions were met with state-sponsored violence.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-81
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The 1930s and 40s was a time of public segregation across the nation. Orange County participated in upholding racial hierarchies based on racist notions of white superiority. Various Orange County swimming pools had separate days for ethnic groups. Xenophobia was rampant. In 1942, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 which allowed local military commanders to designate military areas as “exclusion zones” from which any or all person may be excluded. Accordingly, 127,000 US residents of Japanese ancestry, most of them US Citizens were removed from the Pacific Coast and were sent to internment camps.26 At the end of their internment, many Japanese Americans struggled to find housing due to poverty, restrictive covenants, and racism.27
Starting in the 1930s, parts of Orange County were subject to redlining, which is the practice of federally sanctioned discriminatory mortgage lending that either steered or opted against providing loans to borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located.
Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied to often non-white persons seen as “undesirable.” Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, non- white, immigrant, and Jewish households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities. Additionally, many of the housing deeds in Orange County included prohibitions against Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Native American people, permitting them only if they were gardeners, servants, or nannies.28
In 1971, the OC Human Relations Commission was created by advocates for civil rights who were upset with police brutality against non-white residents, housing discrimination, lack of affordable health care, and discrimination in education. The Commission was intended to eliminate prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, socio-economic status, and age.29 The OC Human Relations Commission, Fair Housing Council, League of Women Voters, Legal Aid Society, and other housing advocates formed the Housing Coalition to advocate for the development of Affordable Housing. In addition, the Hate Crime Network was established in 1991 to respond to hate crime and build relationships between police and diverse communities within Orange County.
Local
In early 1887, the California Central Railroad, a subsidiary of Santa Fe, sent George H. Fullerton, president of the Pacific Land and Improvement Co., to purchase land for railroad right-of-way. Brothers George and Edward Amerige learned that a likely site for a town was located north of Anaheim. With George Fullerton's assurance that the area north of Anaheim would be included, the Ameriges purchased 430 acres and Fullerton was established.
26 Japanese-American Internment During World War II. U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation 27 For Japanese Americans, Housing Injustices Outlived Internment, New York Times, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/magazine/japanese-internment-end-wwii-trailer-parks.html 28 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/a-brief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/ 29 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/a-brief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/
H-E-82 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Historically, the city was a center of agriculture, notably groves of Valencia oranges and other citrus crops.
Drilling for petroleum began in 1880 with the discovery of the Brea-Olinda Oil Field, which started a boom that peaked in the 1920s.
Anecdotal evidence suggests Fullerton was a “sundown town,” which is a city, county or region that was intentionally “all white” by forcing out anyone considered non-white by force, law, or custom. In 1919, hundreds of residents protested at a city council meeting after they learned that the Santa Fe Railroad planned to build housing for its Mexican workers near the company’s tracks.30 There were widespread racist civic and housing policies throughout Orange County, including Fullerton, that prevented minorities from accessing housing. According to anecdotes, the only neighborhood where minorities were allowed to rent or own homes was on the south side of the train tracks in the Truslow neighborhood.31 Today, the Truslow Avenue neighborhood has some of the lowest median incomes in and the highest percentage of non-white residents in the city.
Racial covenants were prevalent within Fullerton. Fullerton is the home of the Bernal House, which is the subject of one of the leading anti-discrimination cases in 1943 known as “Doss v. Bernal.” The Sunnyside Addition was established in 1923 and by the time the Bernals moved in, it had become a predominantly lower middle-class community occupied exclusively by whites. The Bernals, a Mexican family, purchased a home on Ash Avenue in the Sunnyside neighborhood of Fullerton with a deed restriction attached to the house, that supported residential segregation in housing covenants. Neighbors filed a lawsuit against the Bernals, but they refused to leave. The case was successfully argued under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the Bernals were able to keep their home.32 Terrorism of Black/African American residents was widespread in the area. Just outside Fullerton in Placentia, the first African American family to move into the neighborhood in 1956 was firebombed and their home was vandalized.33 Redlining was a practice in Fullerton. By the 1970s, national fair housing laws were created; however, Black/African American residents still faced discrimination in buying and renting.34 While redlining does not occur today, land uses and differences in predominant populations between neighborhoods reflect old policies that promoted racial segregation.
California State University Fullerton was established in 1957 as Orange County State College. The majority of the campus was developed throughout the 1960’s. The campus has grown rapidly since the early 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s.
Downtown Fullerton serves as the commercial center of the city and is clustered with over 70 historic buildings dating as far back as the early 1900s.
30 Fullerton Observer. 2020. Recognizing the History Behind the Bernal House. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/06/11/recognizing-the-history- behind-the-bernal-house/
31 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/a-brief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/ 32 Fullerton Observer. 2020. Recognizing the History Behind the Bernal House. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/06/11/recognizing-the-history- behind-the-bernal-house/
33 OC Weekly. 2019. Remembering When the Home of Placentia’s First African American Family Was Firebombed. https://www.ocweekly.com/remembering-when-someone-firebombed-placentias-first-african-american-family/ 34 Fullerton Observer. 2020. A Brief History of Housing Discrimination in Fullerton and North Orange County. https://fullertonobserver.com/2020/07/27/a-brief-history-of-housing-discrimination-in-fullerton-and-north-orange-county/
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-83
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.9 Stakeholder and Community Input
E.9.1 Homes for All Initiative
The City of Fullerton participated in the Homes for All initiative, which is a coalition of family members and non-profit organizations who are working together to get more affordable homes built in their respective cities (Garden Grove, Lake Forest, and Fullerton). The Homes for All collaborative coalition is comprised of The Kennedy Commission, Welcoming Neighbors Home, Tapestry, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Hope Community Services, People for Housing OC, and Hope Through Housing Foundation/Amplify Communities (National CORE). As part of the Homes For All Initiative, People For Housing OC utilized a questionnaire provided by the Kennedy Commission to collect responses from a select sample of residents in impacted neighborhoods to capture conditions. The questionnaire contained 30 questions designed to capture measures of rent burden, overcrowding, demographics, public health, and civic engagement.
Public for Housing OC received 90 responses to the questionnaire, with a high percentage of Hispanic mothers and families due to the ties of the organizations they are a part of. The survey made several conclusions:
• The majority of the people surveyed are renters who have lived in Fullerton for six or more years. Rents are regularly increasing and are outpacing monthly incomes, increasing the risk of displacement for long-term residents.
• The average family size of respondents is 5.5 people per household. Apartments are not big enough to meet the needs of large families. Larger-sized apartments are needed in affordable developments. • Residents are concerned about habitability of housing and deterioration of housing stock. The City’s code enforcement efforts and results need to be improved.
E.9.2 Study Sessions
The City held two Planning Commission study sessions on January 19, 2022 and February 15, 2023, and one City Council study session on September 20, 2023 to review and discuss the Housing Element. Overall, community members showed support for affordable housing development in the city and requested additional information on the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (HIOZ) and continued public participation in the Housing Element update process. The HIOZ received both support and disapproval from community members. The following comments were provided during the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions:
• General support and disapproval for establishing the HIOZ • Need for housing for homeless residents, low-income residents, and affordable housing for seniors • Recommendation the City increase affordability percentage requirements for the HIOZ and Religious Surplus Land
• Support for an inclusionary housing program
• Concern over the effects of increased density in the city E.9.3 Fair Housing Capacity
The most recent Orange County AI analyzed fair housing enforcement capacity in the county. The City of Fullerton does not have its own Impediments to Fair Housing report. The identified fair housing issues include:
H-E-84 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
• Limited resources for regional fair housing organizations • Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
• Limited loan opportunities for home rehabilitation
• Racial discrepancies in loan origination rates
• Lack of affordable housing and segregation of existing affordable housing assets Although Orange County is served by two high-quality private, non-profit fair housing organizations, they are underfunded and understaffed in comparison to the total need for their services. Victims of discrimination would be more able to exercise their rights, thus deterring future discrimination, if the capacity of existing organizations grew to meet the scale of the problem. Additionally, the size of the federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program, the primary funding program for fair housing organizations, has failed to keep up with inflation, making Congress’s appropriations worth less over time. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing.
There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement, with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD constituting the only public enforcement bodies that operate in Orange County. Advocates across Orange County and the state of California have reported issues with the timeline of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s investigations and the standards that it applies in making probable cause determinations. A local public enforcement agency, if created, would have the potential to be more responsive to victims of discrimination in Orange County than either the state or HUD.
Given the scarcity of affordable rental housing and high cost of living within Orange County, loan opportunities for home improvement, purchase, and refinancing are important tools for moderate and low-income households. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data shows there is a racial discrepancy of loan approval rates, with white residents most likely to have their applications result in originated loans.
With respect to the location of affordable housing, at a high level, there is relatively little such housing in coastal areas, hillside communities, or in the southern portion of the county, all areas that are disproportionately White and have relatively low Hispanic population concentrations. Within some cities that have patterns of segregation, affordable housing is concentrated in particular areas that tend to be more heavily Hispanic. In Fullerton, affordable housing is more concentrated in the disproportionately Hispanic southern portion of the city. With respect to the role of the type of affordable housing in causing fair housing issues, the total lack of public housing in Orange County, which tends to be more accessible to members of protected classes than do Low Income Housing Tax Credit developments, may play a role in perpetuating segregation.
E.9.4 Stakeholder Survey
Following HCD comments received on May 9, 2024 , the City emailed a survey to interested parties to obtain local knowledge on fair housing issues and patterns. More specifically, the City asked for input on the differences between northeast Fullerton, characterized as “racially concentrated areas of affluence” and other areas of the city. Questions explored whether City policies have historically provided diverse housing opportunities in these affluent neighborhoods and what measures could enhance housing availability, with options including ADUs, multifamily housing on commercial sites, and multiple-unit
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-85
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
housing. Additionally, the survey sought information on neighborhoods where people experiencing homelessness tend to congregate, including their access to transportation and services. It also asked about recent trends among the homeless population. Finally, the survey requested identification of neighborhoods with housing in poor physical condition needing rehabilitation or repairs. The City received responses from five survey participants. The survey revealed several patterns:
• RCAAs are characterized by large parcels, single-family homes, greater setbacks, hilly terrain, abundant parkland, and high-performing schools. RCAAs have minimal multifamily zoning and limiting housing opportunities for low or moderate-income households. The lack of diverse housing in RCAAs perpetuates racial and economic segregation.
• Residents may support constructing ADUs for family members but generally oppose additional density due to infrastructure constraints. To increase housing opportunities in RCAAs, respondents suggested encouraging ADU construction, allowing multifamily and mixed-use housing, and developing affordable housing on religious institutional sites. • Respondents also supported an ordinance to streamline affordable housing development on land owned by religious institutions and remove the prevailing wage requirement. • Homelessness trends noted concentrations of homeless individuals in Santa Fe District/SOCO, Independence Park, S. Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Craig Park, and Chapman Park, as well as along major arterials, under the SR 57 freeway, Hillcrest Park, shopping centers, and bus depots. A growing population of older women among the homeless was noted. • Areas in need of housing rehabilitation or repair include Independence Park, Artesia Blvd/N, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Valencia Park, neighborhoods south of Commonwealth Ave, and areas near downtown and the train station.
E.10 Other Relevant Factors
E.10.1 Land Use and Zoning
Most of the city’s housing stock was built in the post-war era between the 1940s and 1970s. The city’s current form and character was defined during this era, when over half of the city’s current housing stock was constructed. Most of the housing built before and during the post-war era was built in southern and central Fullerton in the neighborhoods near Orangethorpe Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, and E.
Chapman Avenue. The neighborhoods with the highest percentage of housing stock built prior to 1960 (60 to 80 percent of the housing stock) are Independence Park, S Woods Avenue/W Orangethorpe Avenue, W Valencia Drive/Courtney Avenue, W Oak Ave/Lambert Drive, Byerrum Park, and E Wilshire Avenue/N Raymond Avenue. These neighborhoods are more likely to have housing stock in need of repair.
Today, single-family detached housing comprises 54 percent of the city’s housing stock, higher than Orange County (51 percent) and other areas of Southern California such as Los Angeles County (49 percent). Today, most of the city’s residentially zoned areas are designated for single-family homes.
E.10.2 Demographic Trends
Fullerton’s demographics have reflected regional migratory trends. Southern California has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the nation, with half of residents born in Latin American countries, and an increasing share from Asian countries. As a result, the city has become much more diverse over the last several decades. Southern California has also been impacted by out-bound domestic migration trends. In
H-E-86 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
each year since 2014, an average of 91,000 people have left the region than the number of those who have arrived. High housing costs are often cited as a reason for leaving.35 Additionally, the median age in the region has steadily increased in the past two decades, changing the ratio of working age population to seniors, and increasing the need for housing for seniors and assistance to help seniors stay in their homes. While the region has experienced tremendous job growth, moderate- income households within the region have been declining since 2000.36 E.10.3 Student Housing
The California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) is located in the eastern portion of the city and enrolls approximately 41,000 students. The University provides approximately 2,000 students with on-campus housing. As a result, there is a significant need for off-campus housing within the city and surrounding communities. The large student population creates a unique need for student-friendly affordable housing.
The influx of students adds significant pressure to the existing housing stock within the city. A survey of student housing needs found that the average rental cost for a studio or one-bedroom off-campus in Fullerton was $19,206 per year (May 2022 costs), higher than the average cost for the same type of housing for all CSU campuses ($14,857 per year). Additionally, only four percent of all CSUF students resided in on-campus housing.37
E.10.4 Access To Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Fullerton’s main public transportation systems are operated by OCTA and Metrolink light rail service. OCTA operates nine bus lines that extend throughout Fullerton and Orange County. To assist persons with disabilities, OCTA busses are equipped with accessibility improvements. Paratransit service is available through OC Flex and OC ACCESS. It is available for people unable to use fixed-route bus service because of functional limitations caused by a disability. While most areas of Fullerton are within a quarter-mile of a OCTA bus route, or the Metrolink line (see Figure E-22), there are segments of the city that are not in close proximity to existing transit service, including the West Coyote Hills, and most of Emery Park, Amerige Heights, Acacia Park, and E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr neighborhoods. Residents with disabilities residing in these areas may have limited access to transportation as the Acacia Park and E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr are located in census tracts that contain a slightly higher rate of persons with disabilities, compared to other areas of Fullerton.
E.10.5 Access to Home Ownership
As previously mentioned, governmental constraints enacted throughout the 20th century impacted homeownership opportunities for non-white populations.
To understand current racial/ethnic disparities among homeownership opportunities, this analysis reviews mortgage application filing and acceptance by race and ethnicity using the latest available data from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). As shown in Table E-12, there were 12,138 mortgage applications filed in Fullerton in 2021. Race and ethnicity data is unknown for more than one- quarter of loan applicants and the analysis on race and ethnicity for loan applications may not be fully complete. Of the known racial/ethnic categorization of mortgage applications, most were filed by Asian
35 SCAG. Connect SoCal. 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 36 Ibid.
37 Cal State University Business and Finance. 2022. 2022 CSU Systemwide Housing Plan. https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the- csu/government/Advocacy-and-State-Relations/legislativereports1/Legislative-Report-CSU-Systemwide-Housing-Plan.pdf
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-87
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
American/API residents and by white, non-Hispanic residents. In comparison, Hispanic/Latino applicants comprised 22 percent, Black/African-American applicants comprised one percent, and American Indian or Alaskan Native applicants comprised less than 1 percent of total mortgage loan applications. Non-Hispanic white residents were the only racial population that was representative for mortgage applications relative to proportion of population (36 percent of applications, 37 percent of population). Asian American residents underrepresented for mortgage applications (16 percent of applications, 27 percent of population), as were Black/African American residents (1 percent of applications, 2 percent of population), Hispanic/Latino residents (22 percent of applications, 37 percent of population), and American Indian/Alaska Native (less than 1 percent of applications, 1 percent of population).
Table E-12 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2021 Racial/
Ethnic Group
Application
Approved
but Not
Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
by
Applicant
File Closed for
Incompleteness
Loan
Originated
Other
Action
Total
Applications
American Indian or
Alaska Native, Non-
Hispanic
0 0 3 0 5 0 8
(<1%)
Asian American/API,
Non-Hispanic
32 166 286 62 1,331 58 1,935
(16%)
Black/African-
American, Non-
Hispanic
2 11 14 1 54 2 84
(1%)
Non-Hispanic White, 50 206 301 98 1,596 2,111 4,362
(36%)
Hispanic/Latino 37 154 175 83 783 1,386 2,618
(22%)
Unknown 60 217 292 149 1,338 1,075 3,131
(26%)
Total 181 754 1,071 393 5,107 4,632 12,138
(100%)
Notes: “Loan originated” means that the application was accepted a loan was made by a financial institution to the applicant. “File incomplete or withdrawn” means a loan was not originated because the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made or the file was closed for incompleteness. “Application denied” means a loan was not originated because the financial institution did not approve the mortgage application. “Application approved but not accepted” means the financial institution approved the loan application but the applicant did not complete the transaction and a loan was not originated. Other categories of application actions were not included in this analysis, such as purchased loan, preapproval request denied, and preapproval request approved but not accepted. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latino” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files As shown in Figure E-42, approximately 71 percent of Asian American/API and white, non-Hispanic mortgage applicants had their loans originated, compared to 64 percent of Hispanic/Latino and 66 percent of Black/African American applicants. American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants had the lowest rates of denied applications, but also the lowest number of total applications. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants had the highest denial rate at 13 percent.
H-E-88 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-42 Mortgage Rates and Acceptance by Race (Fullerton)
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files E.11 Subsidized Housing
The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) operates several housing programs. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program provides financial assistance to rent-burdened residents. The Family Self- Sufficiency program helps HCV program participants access employment. The Non-Elderly Disabled program provides HCVs for non-elderly disabled families with demonstrated need for supportive services.
Additionally, the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, run jointly through the Department of Housing and the Department of Veteran Affairs, provides HCVs and wraparound services to homeless veterans.
Figure E-43 shows the percent of housing units that accept HCVs. Most HCV households are located in southern Fullerton, which is considered low resource and has a higher percentage of multifamily homes. 9% 13% 9% 13% 11%
38% 15% 17% 13% 14% 14%
7% 7%
63% 71% 66% 71% 64% 65%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Application Approved but Not Accepted Application Denied Application Withdrawn by Applicant File Closed for Incompleteness Loan Originated
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-89
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-43 Housing Choice Vouchers (Fullerton)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
H-E-90 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.12 Housing Site Inventory Analysis
This portion of the AFFH analyzes the relation between the housing opportunity sites and AFFH-related issues. Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the housing opportunity sites to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that sites designated for low-income households are dispersed equitably throughout the county rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low-resource areas that have historically been underserved, and conversely, that sites designated for above moderate- income households are not concentrated in areas of high resources. By comparing the Site Inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Housing Element Site Inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity.
The housing opportunity sites are designated by income category—whether the sites could accommodate housing appropriate for low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income households. The “appropriateness” of sites for various affordability levels is dictated by state housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors. More information about the sites and income designations is available in Chapter 4, Housing Resources.
A portion of the City’s RHNA will be satisfied by planned and approved projects that will develop 2,5071,977 units. This analysis only considers the 14,61413,315 housing opportunity sites on vacant land and potential rezone sites.
E.12.1 Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. The majority of northern Fullerton is designated “Highest Resource” and “High Resource,” while southern Fullerton is mostly designated “Moderate Resource and “Low Resource.”
Figure E-44, Figure E-45, Figure E-46, Figure E-47, Figure E-48, Figure E-49, Figure E-50, and Figure E-51 show the location of the Housing Element opportunity sites by TCAC-designated resource area. Most of the housing opportunity units are in Highest, High, or Moderate-Resource areas:13 percent are located in Highest-Resource areas, 28 percent located in High-Resource areas, and 39 percent in Moderate-Resource areas. Twenty percent of housing opportunity sites are located in Low-Resource areas.
The housing opportunity sites will add the following units to Low-Resource areas:
• 1,456 583 lower-income units (25 29 percent of total lower-income units) • 722 656 moderate-income units (17 percent of total moderate-income units) • 744 680 above moderate-income unit (16 17 percent of total above moderate-income units) The housing opportunity sites will add the following units to Moderate-Resource areas in the city:
• 2,0832,240 lower-income units (36 41 percent of total lower-income units) • 1,8181,675 moderate-income units (42 44 percent of total moderate-income units) • 1,9171,759 above moderate-income unit (41 43 percent of total above moderate-income units)
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-91
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
The planned and approved projects and the housing opportunity sites will add the following units to high- and highest-resource areas:
• 2,2381,675 lower-income units (39 30 percent of total lower-income units) • 1,801 452 moderate-income units (41 38 percent of total moderate-income units) • 1,967 613 above moderate-income units (43 40 percent of total above moderate-income units) The housing opportunity sites will add most of the lower-income units in moderate-, high-, and highest- resource areas (75 78 percent). Similarly, a higher percentage of low-, moderate-, and above moderate- income units will be included in High- and Highest-Resource areas (30, 38, 41 and 403 percent, respectively), than Low-Resource areas (29, 1,7 and 176 percent, respectively). Therefore, overall housing development during the planning period will not increase patterns of segregation and will increase integration by household income in terms of access to opportunity.
E.13 Sites by Income Population
The percentage of Low to Moderate Income (LMI) households vary across the city. Census tracts with more than 50 percent LMI households are located primarily in the southwestern area of the city. The communities with the highest percentage of LMI residents are Independence Park and Woodcrest Park in the south-central portion of the city (79 percent LMI).
As shown in Figure E-52, Figure E-53, Figure E-54, Figure E-55, Figure E-56, Figure E-57, Figure E-58, and Figure E-59, a majority of the housing opportunity sites are located in communities with greater than 50 percent of LMI populations (10,4159,384 or 71 70 percent of all units). The Site Inventory assumes that the areas of the city with greater than 50 percent LMI households could accommodate 4,0323,823 units appropriate for low-income households (70 percent of the total lower-income units), 3,1412,732 units for moderate-income households (72 percent of the total moderate-income units) and 3,242 2,829 units for above moderate-income households (70 percent of the total above moderate-income units). The Site Inventory assumes the areas of the city with less than 50 percent LMI households could accommodate 1,742 657 units appropriate for lower-income households, 1,200 051 units appropriate for moderate- income households, and 1,386 223 units for above moderate-income households. Lower-income areas in Fullerton will benefit from the mix of households of differing income levels and additional housing options.
Without private investment in areas like Independence Park and Woodcrest Park, it is unlikely that these areas would revitalize in ways that advance housing equity in Fullerton.
E.14 Sites by Overcrowded Households
The majority of northern Fullerton has low levels of overcrowding (less than five percent of households), while southern Fullerton has higher rates of overcrowding (5 to 22 percent of households). The communities with the highest percentage of overcrowded households are Independence Park and Woodcrest Park in the south-central portion of the city (22 percent overcrowded). Figure E-60, Figure E-61, Figure E-62, Figure E-63, Figure E-64, Figure E-65, Figure E-66, and Figure E-67 show the Site Inventory by overcrowded households.
The Site Inventory assumes that areas with lower levels of overcrowding (less than 10 percent) could accommodate 9,8598,575 units (67 64 percent of the city’s total Site Inventory), including 3,7853,342 units appropriate for lower-income households (66 61 percent of the total lower-income units), 2,9212,510 units for moderate-income households (67 66 percent of the total moderate-income units) and 3,1532,723 units
H-E-92 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
for above moderate-income households (68 67 percent of the total above moderate-income units). The Site Inventory assumes that areas with higher levels of overcrowding (greater than 10 percent) could accommodate 4,8844,740 units (33 36 percent of the Site Inventory), including 1,9892,138 units appropriate for lower-income households, 1,420,1273 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 1,4751,329 units for above moderate-income households. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overcrowding conditions but will add new housing opportunities across all income levels throughout the city, which will lessen the concentration of overcrowded households in southern Fullerton.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-93
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-44 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/ Sherwood Ave)
H-E-94 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-95
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-45 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-96 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-97
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-46 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo) ~!
H-E-98 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-99
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-47 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-100 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-101
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-48 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-102 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-103
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-49 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-104 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-105
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-50 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-106 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-107
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-51 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Opportunity Score (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-108 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-109
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-52 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-110 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-111
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-53 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-112 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-113
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-54 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-114 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-115
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-55 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-116 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-117
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-56 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-118 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-119
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-57 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-120 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-121
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-58 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-122 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-123
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-59 Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-124 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-125
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-60 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-126 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-127
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-61 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-128 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-129
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-62 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-130 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-131
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-63 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-132 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-133
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-64 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-134 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-135
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-65 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-136 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-137
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-66 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-138 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-139
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-67 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-140 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-141
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.14.1 Sites by Overpayment by Renters
The housing overpayment rate for renter households in most of the city is between 40 and 60 percent.
Overpayment is lowest in the northwestern communities of West Coyote Hills and La Habra South (less than 20 percent of renter households), and highest in the southern communities of Valencia Park and W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr (60 to 80 percent of renter households).
The housing opportunity sites will provide housing opportunities for a mix of income levels in areas with both high and low rates of overpayment by renters, as shown in Figure E-68, Figure E-69, Figure E-70, Figure E-71, Figure E-72, Figure E-73, Figure E-74, and Figure E-75. In areas with rates of overpayment by renters above 50 percent, the Site Inventory assumes capacity for 8,6337,205 units (59 54 percent of the total inventory), including 3,0822,544 units appropriate for low-income households (53 46 percent of the total lower-income units), 2,7302,285 units for moderate-income households (63 60 percent of the total moderate-income units) and 2,8212,376 units for above moderate-income households (61 59 percent of the total above moderate-income units). The Site Inventory assumes the areas of the city with rates of overpayment by renters below 50 percent could accommodate 6,1106,110 units (41 46 percent of the city’s total Site Inventory), including 2,6922,936 units appropriate for lower-income households, 1,6111,498 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 1,8071,676 units for above moderate- income households.
According to the UDP, new market-rate construction in gentrifying areas neither worsens nor eases rates of people moving out of the area.38 It increases rates of people moving to an area across all socio-economic groups, particularly high-socio-economic residents. The mix of lower-, moderate, and above moderate- income housing units in areas with high overpayment rates will provide affordable housing options for existing lower-income residents as well as encourage higher-income households to move into the area. The Site Inventory will add new rental housing opportunities which may alleviate high costs due to lack of availability.
E.15 Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation
The northwestern and southeastern areas of the city are the most racially and ethnically diverse, with the highest percentage of non-white residents (between 80 and 100 percent), compared to the center and northeastern areas of the city, which are predominantly white.
The Site Inventory proposes 3,2291,218 housing units (22 nine percent of the total inventory) in communities where non-white residents exceed 75 percent of the population, including. Approximately one-fifth of units per income category are proposed in these areas: 1,328605 low-income units (21 11 percent of total lower-income units), 937 298 moderate income units (22 eight percent of total moderate- income units), and 964 315 above moderate-income units (21 eight percent of total above moderate- income units). Figure E-76, Figure E-77, Figure E-78, Figure E-79, Figure E-80, Figure E-81, Figure E-82, and Figure E-83 show the housing opportunity sites by percent of the population comprised of non-white residents. NinetySeventy-eight one percent of the total Site Inventory units are located in areas with less than 75 percent non-white residents. The Site Inventory will not contribute to segregation based on race/ethnicity.
38 Chapple, Hwang, Jeon, Zhang, Greenberg, and Kumar. New Development for Whom? How New Housing Production Affects Displacement and Replacement in the San Francisco Bay Area. 2022. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/IGS_1_New- Production_Brief_03.01.22.pdf, accessed August, 2023.
H-E-142 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Additionally, the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Bastanchurty Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Craig Park, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park are designated as RCAAs. As shown in Figure E-84, Figure E-85, Figure E-86, Figure E-87, Figure E-88, Figure E-89, Figure E-90, Figure E-91 The Site Inventory identifies 1,4051,008 housing units in these areas, including 558 368 lower-income units, 414 311 moderate-income units, and 433 329 above moderate-income units. The addition of housing units in these areas will further integrate households of varied incomes within the city.
E.16 Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement
While most of Fullerton is at lower risk of displacement, there are several communities in southern Fullerton that are considered vulnerable to displacement, including the neighborhoods of Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz, California State University Fullerton, and Bradford Park. These neighborhoods also have higher poverty rates, higher percentage of LMI residents, overcrowded households and were more likely to have a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents.
Figure E-92, Figure E-93, Figure E-94, Figure E-95, Figure E-96, Figure E-97, Figure E-98, and Figure E-99 show the housing opportunity sites in relation to the location of areas that are at risk of displacement. The majority of the housing opportunity sites identified by the Site Inventory are located in areas with lower displacement risk. Twenty-two percent of the Site Inventory is located in areas considered at risk of displacement, including 1,3031,111 low-income units, 930 858 moderate-income units, and 959 894 above moderate-income units. Additional lower-income and moderate-income units in areas of displacement risk will provide affordable housing options for existing low- and moderate-income residents, allowing residents to remain in their communities, and additional moderate- and above moderate-income units may provide housing mobility options and opportunities for home ownership to increase neighborhood stabilization.
E.17 Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score
The majority of the city has low or moderate CalEnviroScreen scores. However, there are a few neighborhoods that are subject to high CalEnviroScreen scores. In general, the northern portion of the city, particularly the neighborhoods of Sunny Hills and Acacia Park, has more positive environmental outcomes than areas south. Higher CalEnviroScreen scores (associated with negative environmental outcomes) are located within the southeastern portion of the city. Figure E-100, Figure E-101, Figure E-102, Figure E-103, Figure E-104, Figure E-105, Figure E-106, and Figure E-107 show the housing opportunity sites by CalEnviroScreen score.
Approximately 60 63 percent of the housing units proposed by the Site Inventory are proposed in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score higher than 75. The remaining 40 37 percent of housing units are in a census tract with a CalEnviroScreen score lower than 75. Of the units located in areas with higher CalEnviroScreen scores, 3,5541,865 units are appropriate for low-income residents (69 34 percent of the low-income units), 2,5341,485 units are appropriate for moderate-income residents (58 39 percent of the moderate-income units), and 2,7411,550 units appropriate for above moderate-income residents (59 38 percent of the above moderate-income units).
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-143
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-68 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-144 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-145
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-69 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-146 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-147
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-70 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-148 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-149
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-71 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-150 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-151
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-72 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-152 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-153
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-73 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-154 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-155
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-74 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-156 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-157
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-75 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-158 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-159
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-76 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-160 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-161
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-77 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-162 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-163
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-78 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-164 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-165
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-79 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-166 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-167
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-80 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-168 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-169
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-81 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-170 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-171
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-82 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-172 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-173
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-83 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-174 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-175
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-84 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-176 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-177
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-85 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-178 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-179
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-86 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-180 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-181
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-87 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-182 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-183
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-88 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-184 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-185
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-89 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-186 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-187
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-90 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-188 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-189
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-91 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-190 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-191
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-92 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-192 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-193
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-93 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-194 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-195
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-94 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-196 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-197
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-95 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-198 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-199
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-96 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-200 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-201
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-97 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-202 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-203
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-98 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-204 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
\
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-205
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-99 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-206 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-207
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-100 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Craig Park, Acacia Park, Artisan Walk, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-208 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-209
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-101 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, El Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr)
H-E-210 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-211
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-102 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (West Coyote Hills, Amerige Heights, La Habra South, W Commonwealth Ave/N Masque Ave, Independence Park, Sunny Hills, Santa Fe Distric/SoCo)
H-E-212 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-213
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-103 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave, Gilbert Park, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, Nicolas Park)
H-E-214 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-215
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-104 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, California State University Fullerton, Bradford Park, Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave)
H-E-216 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-217
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-105 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (The Fox Block, Byerrum Park, Rancho La Paz, Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl, Chapman Park, California State University Fullerton)
H-E-218 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-219
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-106 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Nicolas Park, Independence Park, S Wood Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave, Woodscrest Park, Rancho La Paz, Santa Fe District/SoCo)
H-E-220 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-221
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Figure E-107 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score (Sunny Hills, Santa Fe District/SoCo, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, The Fox Block)
H-E-222 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-223
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table E-13 summarizes the Site Inventory by development priority area, sites, number of units by income level, and census tract characteristics.
E.18 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
State law (AB 686) requires identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues based on all the previously required analysis. This identification and prioritization must give highest priority to factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights. AB 686 also requires identification of metrics or quantified objectives and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved. Meaningful actions must be taken in concert with each other and address the following:
• Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and in Access to Opportunity • Replacing Segregated Living Patterns with Truly Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns • Transforming R/ECAP into Areas of Opportunity
• Fostering and Maintaining Compliance with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Laws39 This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in the AI, community outreach, and the analysis in this document.
Table E-14 summarizes the identified fair housing issues, contributing factors to these issues, and meaningful actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing for special needs, racial/ethnic minority, and low-income residents.
E.18.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The following contributing factors to inadequate fair housing enforcement and outreach include:
• Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement • Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations to conduct more rigorous testing and audits, outreach, training, public education campaigns. • Lack of funding for consumer rights and responsibility education on Fair Lending practices and identification of predatory lending practices.
• Lack of language access
Although Fullerton residents are served by the Fair Housing Foundation, fair housing resources are limited due to available funding. Additionally, as stated in the AI, the size of the federal Fair Housing Initiatives Program, the primary funding program for fair housing organizations, has failed to keep up with inflation, reducing the capacity of fair housing organizations over time. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing.
39 HCD. 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements. April 2021 Update. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf
H-E-224 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-225
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-13 Site Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Percent
Non-
White
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
Acacia Park
6059001602 1,701 9385 3135 3135 41.12
55.51%
$137,869 19.94% Highest
Resource
51.1% 0.59% Lower Risk 29.33
Amerige Heights
6059001704 2,411 297272 107119 108121 94.11% $137,202 34.57% Highest Resource
49.9% 3.28% Lower Risk 55.61
Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St
6059001801 1,659 224206 106116 110118 75.53% $56,169 70.21% Low Resource
60% 11.51% At Risk 90.45
Artisan Walk
6059011707 2,437 4239 4344 4547 41.76% $92,593 39.02% Highest Resource
61.2% 1.07% Lower Risk 66.63
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr
6059001601 1,559 34250 45135 49140 51.25% $105,801 34.74% Highest Resource
56.8% 3.85% Lower Risk 90.09
Bradford Park
6059011711 2,425 182659 325529 330536 86.61% $64,961 70.33% High Resource
63.9% 6.93% At Risk 60.16
Brea West
6059001503 1,811 1 5 6 46.43% $98,157 40.82% High
Resource
60.5% 5.58% Lower Risk 93.06
Byerrum Park
6059011402 979 6 27 31 38.36% $127,847 19.7% High
Resource
31.4% 1.23% Lower Risk 48.39
H-E-226 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Percent
Non-
White
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
California State University Fullerton
6059011504 1,795 238220 166175 171180 59.36% $46,992 70.91% Moderate Resource
79.3% 3.90% 1 Income Group
Displacement
61.84 Chapman Park
6059011502 1,633 587543 548571 559580 65.70% $76,458 67.46% High Resource
52.9% 7.23% Lower Risk 95.26
Craig Park
6059001505 2,349 5 22 25 53.68% $132,932 36.79% High
Resource
63.8% 8.05% Lower Risk 62.60
Deerpark Dr/Sherwood Ave
6059011708 1,695 224 9 119 59.70% $82,614 61.28% Moderate Resource
54.2% 6.73% Lower Risk 57.62
E Imperial Hwy/N Harbor Blvd
6059001404 997 928850 321359 326366 66.58% $81,602 70.47% Low Resource
42.5% 12.14% Lower Risk 95.00
E Wilshire Ave/ N Raymond Ave
6059011403 1,922 518482 581599 605623 60.96% $85,481 63.68% Moderate Resource
57.3% 11.55% Lower Risk 95.83
Gilbert Park
6059001903 885 7872 3942 3942 66.26% $98,819 42.9% Low
Resource
51.2% 9.72% Lower Risk 80.49
Independence Park
6059011102 1,188 2 9 11 68.24% $111,524 52.61% Moderate Resource
60.2% 6.82% Lower Risk 72.97
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-227
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Percent
Non-
White
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
6059011200 1,667 602552 352374 371399 57.18% $96,964 41.94% Moderate Resource
42.8% 5.28% Lower Risk 58.95
6059011601 2,240 1 4 5 73.77% $65,789 79.36% Low
Resource
68.1% 21.88% At Risk 96.58
La Habra Southeast
6059001705 1,387 1 4 5 60.17% $103,413 47.55% High
Resource
51.2% 3.89% Lower Risk 89.04
Nicolas Park
6059011101 1,339 8842 7748 8457 67.25% $98,165 49.54% Moderate Resource
42.9% 8.44% Lower Risk 70.82
Nutwood Ave/N Mountain View Pl
6059011503 553 66 3131 3232 44.46% $107,102 16.56% High Resource
37.7% 4.52% Lower Risk 48.46
Rancho La Paz
6059011602 1,760 269246 105108 108111 68.68% $65,192 75.97% Low Resource
53.5% 12.22% At Risk 99.69
S Woods Ave/W Orangethorpe Ave
6059011102 1,188 4843 9285 9989 71.47% $111,524 52.61% Moderate Resource
60.2% 6.82% Lower Risk 72.97
Santa Fe District/SoCo
6059011300 2,030 171157 6975 188196 57.96% $92,604 40.72% High Resource
48.2% 2.86% Lower Risk 89.50
6059011602 1,760 1 8 8 76.48% $65,192 75.97% Low
Resource
53.5% 12.22% At Risk 99.69
H-E-228 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Neighborhood
and Census Tract
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Percent
Non-
White
Median
Household
Income
Percent LMI
Households
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
Sunny Hills
6059001706 1,331 230212 186195 193202 57.30% $184,018 25.2% Highest Resource
48.5% 3.98% Lower Risk 34.60
The Fox Block
6059011401 663 2 9 11 55.81% $138,625 36.97% High
Resource
42.9% 3.62% Lower t Risk 48.62
Valencia Park
6059001802 2,248 114113 7180 7887 77.44% $61,354 76.8% Moderate Resource
66.1% 13.75% At Risk 85.65
W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave
6059011000 2,521 606554 319343 332360 67.59% $81,033 50.63% Moderate Resource
44.7% 0.67% Lower Risk 83.95
6059011101 1,339 39 31 32 66.64% $98,165 49.54% Moderate Resource
42.9% 8.44% Lower t Risk 70.82
W Oak Ave/Lambert Dr
6059001902 809 113 461 563 65.50% $76,146 59.86% Moderate Resource
50% 13.60% Lower Risk 47.88
W Valencia Dr/Courtney Ave
6059001901 850 1 4 5 59.84% $106,630 44.09% Moderate
Resource
70.2% 2.94% Lower Risk 59.76
Woodcrest Park
6059011601 2,240 8477 8585 9794 78.12% $65,789 79.36% Low Resource
68.1% 21.88% At Risk 96.58
Total 5,4805774 3,7834341 4,0524628
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-229
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement in Fullerton. The city provides links to the Fair Housing Foundation and upcoming fair housing workshops. A local agency contracted by the City would have the potential to be more responsive to discrimination complaints.
According to the AI, 20 percent of city residents have Limited English Proficiency (LEP), with Spanish being the most commonly spoken language other than English, followed by Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
Residents with LEP may have a harder time understanding fair housing laws and increased difficulty in accessing fair housing resources. Fair housing outreach must be inclusive of multiple languages to accommodate LEP residents.
E.18.2 Segregation and Integration
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Fullerton include:
• Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
• Land use and zoning laws
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• Racial discrepancies in loan origination
Fullerton is an ethnically diverse city with a high degree of integration. As previously mentioned, most areas of Fullerton have a three-group neighborhood mix consisting of Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic white residents, and several neighborhoods have a four-racial group mix. No singular racial/ethnic group is segregated within Fullerton, but there several neighborhoods with predominant racial gaps (gap greater than 50 percent), with a predominantly Asian American population in the eastern area of the city and a predominantly Hispanic/Latino population in the southwestern area of the city.
Economic disparities have been intensified by the high cost of housing in recent years in Fullerton and Orange County as a whole, which have resulted in displacement of low-income residents. These disparities have been worsened by the limited growth of low- and moderate-income housing in the city and have resulted in significant segregation by race and ethnicity and income levels.
Zoning patterns exacerbate patterns of segregation by concentrating higher density residential zoning and industrial zoning in southern and southeast portion of Fullerton and low-density residential and open space zoning in the northern portion of the city. The majority of the multifamily homes are located in the southern neighborhoods with a predominant Hispanic/Latino population that are at risk of displacement.
Recent new multifamily development within the city is also concentrated in southern Fullerton, while new single-family development and open space preservation is concentrated in high resource areas in northern Fullerton. While recent new developments have increased the availability of housing in areas that need it, the dichotomy in development patterns further segregates the city by incomes and race. Further, the majority of the existing subsidized housing stock is located in proximity to the industrial zoned areas in the city in the neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz, which exacerbates economic segregation and subjects lower-income residents to poorer air quality.
Disparities in mortgage origination is a contributing factor to fair housing issues in Fullerton. Asian American and white, non-Hispanic mortgage applicants had their loans originated at higher rates compared to other races. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants had the highest loan denial rate. This may be due to disparities in income and mortgage education across races.
H-E-230 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
E.18.3 Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and Access to Opportunity The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities in Fullerton include:
• The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation • Location of environmental health hazards
• Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
• The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Access to Opportunity
According to HCD, access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Neighborhoods located in the southeastern central area of the city are generally associated with lower access to opportunity in terms of environmental health determinants, housing, and economic opportunities. The neighborhoods with the lowest outcomes across all opportunity areas include Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. Conversely, the northern portion of the city has greater access to educational, economic, and environmental opportunities than the southern half of the city.
Neighborhoods in southern Fullerton, such as Woodcrest Park, E Wilshire Ave/N Raymond Ave, Chapman Park, and Rancho La Paz, have higher levels of exposure to particulate matter from truck and vehicle emissions due to the proximity of industrial and commercial uses. These neighborhoods have the highest housing density within the city, with the majority of multifamily homes concentrated in these areas.
Subsidized housing units are also concentrated in this area of the city. As a result, there is a high percentage of lower-income, non-white residents that are exposed to greater environmental hazards, compared to the wealthier communities in northern Fullerton that are primarily comprised of single-family homes.
In general, the disproportionately white and Asian American northern half of the city, which tends to have greater access to opportunities, is primarily comprised of single-family homes, contributing to higher housing costs. Increasing housing affordability and the availability of different housing types in these areas would make it easier for low-income households, which disproportionately are associated with Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American households, to access the types of services and amenities that further social mobility.
Transit Access
The lack of service routes for public transportation in northern Fullerton impacts fair housing issues in the city. The southern half of the city is more heavily serviced with more bus routes than the northern half of the city. Households that rely on public transit are pressured to reside in southern Fullerton, which has a higher degree of pollution exposure, a lower median household income, and a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino and Black/African-American residents than northern Fullerton. Therefore, lack of transit options in northern Fullerton reinforces existing patterns of segregation and lack of access to opportunity.
Housing Needs
Overcrowding, as defined by HUD, in Fullerton is higher than Orange County. Broken down by race, overcrowding was a more common housing issue for residents of Fullerton who identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic/Latino, and those of other race or multiple races than for people who identified as white, Black/African American, or American Indian/Alaska Native. According to the AI, the
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-231
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
majority of subsidized housing units, includng Project-Based Section 8 units, other multifamily assisted units, and HCV units are comprised of studios and one-bedroom units. As a result, low-income households, especially those with multiple children, may have difficulty finding adequately sized affordable housing.
E.19 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues
This assessment of fair housing issues identifies factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Fullerton, identified in Table E-14. The meaningful actions are incorporated into programs and actions in Chapter 4, Housing Policy Plan. Based on community feedback and data analysis, it was determined that high-priority issues in the city are lack of affordable housing, displacement, and segregation of low-income residents.
Fair housing enforcement and outreach are determined to be medium priority. Additionally, several programs included in Chapter 4, Housing Policy Plan, affirmatively further fair housing by the action areas determined by HCD.
H-E-232 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Table E-14 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Fair housing
enforcement and
outreach
• Lack of local private
fair housing
outreach and
enforcement
(Priority: high)
• Lack of public fair
housing
enforcement
(Priority: medium)
• Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies to
conduct more rigorous
testing and audits,
outreach, training,
public education
campaigns (Priority:
high).
• Lack of funding for
consumer rights and
responsibility
education on Fair
Lending practices and
identification of
predatory lending
practices. (Priority:
medium)
• Lack of language access
(Priority: high)
Fair Housing Services and Education:
• Provide informational seminars to area residential real estate agents and brokers on fair housing laws and regulations; • Work with tenants, tenant advocates to identify violations of fair housing federal and State fair housing laws and support prospective and existing tenants who are experiencing discrimination; • Provide trainings for property owners/managers on the requirements of federal and State fair housing laws to prevent discrimination. (Policy Action 4.2-a)
Provide trainings to at least 15 real
estate agents and brokers annually.
Provide trainings to at least 15
property owners and managers
annually.
Report the number of complaint-based
testing efforts and number of resulting
complaints filed with HUD or CRD
annually.
With the Fair Housing Foundation, support an annual Fair Housing Audit Report that assesses typical or timely market-based suspected areas of discrimination. (Policy Action 4.2-e)
Consult with the Fair Housing
Foundation to review methodology for
a Fair Housing Audit by January 2025.
Affordable Rental Housing Counseling Services: Provide funding for information and referral services that direct families and individuals with financial resources for housing rental or purchase, locating suitable housing, and obtaining housing with special needs facilities such as disabled-accessible units. (Policy Action 4.2-b) Hold at least four informational events
during the planning period to
disseminate informational materials or
provide trainings to residents,
prioritizing communities sensitive to
displacement. Hold at least four of the
informational events in the
neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and
Rancho La Paz.
Assist at least 50 residents and
landlords with fair housing services
annually.
Create a Language Access Plan based on HUD guidelines and publish on the City’s website: The goal of the Language Access Plan is to survey, maintain and publish a list of multi-lingual staff-capacity at City Hall so that staff may respond to the needs of Limited English Proficiency households. (Policy Action 1.5-b)
Create a Language Access Plan by
January 2025.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-233
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Ensure that local housing programs respond to the needs of a culturally diverse community that includes multi-generational families, a variety of living arrangements, and Limited English Proficiency households.
Plans should ensure collaboration with community groups, including faith-based and nonprofit organizations, to provide outreach on housing resources to all types of households and those households with Limited English Proficiency. (Policy Action 4.2-c) Review the existing fair housing
marketing plan every two years ensure
compliance with current City policy to
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and
make necessary changes within six
months.
Fair Lending: Work to promote fair lending practices throughout the city:
• Ensure that low-income and minority residents have fair access to capital resources needed to acquire and maintain housing. • Prevent predatory lending through information and referrals to the Fair Housing Foundation. (Policy Action 4.2-f)
Annually conduct and publish third
party review of City or regional HMDA
data to identify areas of need
regarding fair access to lending.
Add information on fair housing laws and resources on the City’s website regarding housing programs in several languages. (Policy Action 4.2-g)
Updated website content with
updated information on fair housing
services and programs by January
2025.
Seek opportunities to expand outreach and public education strategies on available tenant protection, fair housing services, and homeownership education to reach vulnerable households by offering information in multiple languages, targeted social media efforts, combining information with other assistance programs, distributing resources through local schools and colleges, and partnering with community-based organizations. (Policy Action 4.2-h)
Partner with three new schools or
community-based organizations during
the planning period to disseminate
materials and provide trainings to
residents, prioritizing services in
communities sensitive to displacement
within southern Fullerton, including
Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia
Park, Woodcrest Park, Rancho La Paz,
California State University Fullerton,
and Bradford Park.
H-E-234 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Concentration of
minority and low-
income residents in
southern Fullerton;
displacement of
residents
• Location, type, and
supply of affordable
housing (Priority: high)
• Land use and zoning
laws (Priority: medium)
• Displacement of
residents due to
economic pressures
(Priority: high)
• Racial discrepancies in
loan origination
• The availability, type,
frequency, and
reliability of public
transportation (Priority:
medium)
Develop an outreach strategy in multiple languages for property owners who own fewer than 10 residential units (either in single-family or multi-family rental housing) to assess needs and connect them with resources, such as housing unit rehabilitation and financing programs.
The intent of this program is to preserve Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e., not currently regulated with affordability restrictions), particularly in the neighborhoods of Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. The program will seek to prioritize communities vulnerable to displacement, generally in the southern areas of the city; and with a focus on neighborhoods with lower median income. (Policy Action 4.3- a)
Develop an outreach strategy for
“mom and pop” property owners by
January 2026. After the strategy is
adopted, conduct outreach to at least
15 property owners with less than 10
units and assist at least 5 property
owners with a combined total of 20
units or more by December 2029.
Implement changes to the in-lieu fee structure and the desire and ability of developers to contribute to an affordable housing trust fund.
Adopt incentives such as increased densities, increased height limits, reduced parking standards, and ministerial review for projects that incorporate increased affordable units or deeper levels of affordability. (Policy Action 4.3-b)
Complete a feasibility study on in-lieu
payments to a Housing Trust Fund by
January 2026. If feasible, amend the
municipal code to allow for an in-lieu
fee structure by December 2027 and
implement an Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance by December 2029.
Facilitate the development of housing for persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities) through incentives for affordable housing development with services, resources, and assistance. (Policy Action 4.7-a)
Develop 5 housing units for special
needs households during the planning
period.
Review the City’s Tenant-Based Rental Assistance program with input from tenants and property owners/managers, ensuring representation across the economic spectrum, and update as appropriate. Outreach to be conducted to all vulnerable communities during the update process and after final adoption in 2027.
Fill any gaps between Section 8 assistance and rent, or to aid those who may not qualify for Section 8 but need one-time emergency assistance, to provide relief to tenants to avoid the displacement in vulnerable communities. (Policy Action 4.3-c)
Update the City’s Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance program by January 2027.
Prepare and present a report on
recommendations for programs that
would provide relief to tenants and
landlords to avoid the displacement in
vulnerable communities by December
2026. If a rental assistance program is
approved and implemented as a result,
the program will assist at least 10
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-235
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline lower income renter households
annually.
Provide tenant services in conciliation and tenant/owner counseling and legal assistance to evaluate existing State and federal “just cause for eviction” (AB 1482; 2019-Chiu) and other similar legislation with provisions to determine if additional protections through a local ordinance is warranted. (Policy Action 4.5-c)
Annually collect reporting by
consultant(s) and review data. If
warranted, recommend adoption of a
local ordinance by December 2026.
Provide financial support to organizations that provide supportive housing for emancipated foster youth (ages 18-21) who are homeless or at immediate risk of becoming homeless. (Policy Action 4.4-f) Assist at least 10 foster youth with
supportive housing during the planning
period by December 2029.
In compliance with recent updates to the Surplus Land Act (AB1255, 2019-Rivas; AB 1486, 2019-Ting), identify publicly owned land for the development of affordable housing. Explore the adoption of an ordinance that identifies public land and where a portion or all of the land be used for the development of affordable housing by non-profit, mission-based developers. (Policy Action 1.7-g)
Identify viable publicly-owned sites by
2025.
Review the General Plan, Specific Plans, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map to evaluate opportunities for removing barriers to housing production, such as reducing height limitations, parking requirements, development fees and removing the necessity for CUPs for certain housing types and subjective language in the review process.
Recommend amendments, as necessary, to accommodate added housing capacity in northern Fullerton. Additionally, review the zoning code to identify opportunities to increase and encourage a greater mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically housing types that may accommodate moderate-income households (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard buildings), in High and Highest Resource areas identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), focusing efforts in northeastern and northwestern Fullerton, and amend the zoning code as needed. (Policy Action 1.4-g) Review General Plan, Specific Plans,
and Zoning Code and Zoning Map by
January 2028 and implement any
changes by January 2029. After
adoption of zoning code changes by
January 2029, track at least 8
moderate-income units to be
constructed annually in lower-density
residential areas.
H-E-236 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Actively promote available parcels appropriate for development that can accommodate low-income and/or moderate-income households to private or non-profit housing providers to support the production of 10,115 units available to lower- and moderate-income households during the planning period.
Provide support for Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) projects, by providing in-kind assistance and funding for development of affordable housing. (Policy Action 1.7-c) Create a Priority Housing Sites List by
January 2025.
Development of 10,115 units available
to lower- and moderate-income
households.
Develop a web-based Housing Development Toolkit that outlines a step-by-step process for residential development, including identifying steps in the entitlement and building permit process, detailed information on development incentives, and funding programs and resources for affordable housing development. (Policy Action 1.4-d) Publish Housing Development Toolkit
on City’s website by January 2025.
Increase low-, moderate-, and mixed-income housing development in in areas considered “high” and “highest” resource by the TCAC, specifically the neighborhoods of West Coyote Hills, Emery Park, La Habra Southeast, Sunny Hills, W Commonwealth Ave/N Basque Ave, Sante Fe District/SoCo, The Fox Block, Bastanchury Rd./Fairway Isles Dr, Brea West, Artisan Walk, Bradford Park, Byerrum Park, Chapman Park, Craig Park, Acacia Park, Amerige Heights, and E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Drive. Collaborate with regional partners and seek grant funding for infrastructure to support development of a variety of new housing types in these neighborhoods, including duplexes triplexes, and fourplexes. (Policy Action 1.4-g)
Biannual review of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Support
the development of 2,826 low-income
and 2,152 moderate-income units in
these neighborhoods.
Identify and advertise housing opportunity sites within one-quarter mile of public transit stops in northern Fullerton. Educate developers on the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Housing Program, and/or pursue funding to increase transit infrastructure in northern Fullerton. (Policy Action 4.3-d)
On an ongoing basis, consult with
interested developers on the TOD
Housing Program. Conduct a study
with OCTA to identify capital projects
to increase transit infrastructure by
2026. Apply for TOD Housing Program
funds as NOFA becomes available.
Appendix H-E: Housing Element H-E-237
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Partner with Cal State Fullerton to develop a plan to address the need for off-campus affordable housing for students. (Policy Action 1.4-m) Develop a city-wide student housing
plan by December 2029.
Conduct outreach to homeowners’ associations in the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park, and the neighborhoods in northwest Fullerton, and provide information on SB 9 (1.3b)
Meet with at least one homeowners’
association annually in the areas of
northwest Fullerton and the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr,
Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park to
provide education on SB 9
implementation.
Policy Action 1.3-f: Conduct outreach to religious institutions and provide technical assistance for interested parties to develop affordable housing on sites zoned religious institution (1.3f).
Starting in 2025, annually mail or email
resources on developing affordable
housing to all religious institutions in
the city with underutilized land. By
December 2026, present information
during at least one meeting with the
board and/or members of OC United.
Policy Action 4.4-h: Conduct outreach to people experiencing homelessness with the Illumination Foundation and the OC Health Care Agency, focusing efforts in areas where there is a high concentration of homeless individuals in the neighborhoods of Independence Park, Santa Fe District/SoCo, and Gilbert Park, and along arterial boulevards and commercial centers. Provide resources to connect individuals with shelter space in Fullerton and as needed, to services in surrounding cities (4.4h).
Annually allocate funding and City
resources to support outreach efforts
in coordination with the Illumination
Foundation and the OC Health Care
Agency to provide information and
resources to those experiencing
homelessness. Annually fund the
Fullerton Police Department’s
Homeless Liaison Officer Unit, and as
funding is available and based on need,
increase the number of officers to
provide services for residents
experiencing homelessness.
H-E-238 Appendix H-E: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Identified Fair Housing
Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Improving place-based
strategies to encourage
Community
conservation and
revitalization
• Location of
environmental health
hazards (Priority: high)
• Lack of investment in
community-based
infrastructure and
services (Priority: low)
• Lack of access to
housing mobility
(Priority: medium)
Prioritize public health, education, economic, and safety programs in lower resource areas as defined by TCAC in coordination with area public health entities. school districts, workforce development groups, and the police department. Identify addresses and compile mailing list and email addresses to focus outreach to neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low-income and minority residents to prioritize services in these areas. (Policy Action 4.3-e)
Increase participation in the City’s first-
time homebuyer seminars and owner-
occupied housing rehabilitation grant
program 5 percent annually from
lower income and minority
concentration areas through the
planning period (data collection via
surveys conducted at the seminars).
Explore preference policy for affordable housing opportunities, land use, transportation, urban design, public facilities and services, and economic development strategies. The city will seek involvement from community organizations and advocates, business councils, and residents to further refine program scope. (Policy Action 4.3-f) Increase the TCAC Opportunity Map
composite score for the
neighborhoods of Gilbert Park,
Woodcrest Park, and Rancho La Paz to
Moderate Resource levels by the end
of the planning period (2029).
Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-1
Appendix H-F:
Glossary of Housing Terms
Above-moderate Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120 percent of the area Median Family Income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.
Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, State, or local housing programs including, but not limited to federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, federal Section 221(d)(3) (below-market interest rate program), federal Section 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Section 515, multi- family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.
Below-market-rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low or moderate income households for an amount less than the fair market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.
Build-out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan.
Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.
Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.
Deed. A legal document that affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.
H-F-2 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned; usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.
Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.
Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on natural resource areas.
Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price that is financed.
Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupancy as the residence of two families living independently of each other.
Dwelling Unit (du). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms, designed for or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.
Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Transitional Housing.”)
Extremely-low Income Household. A household with an annual income less than 30 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program.
Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [California].
General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which, in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise. The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams illustrating the policies.
Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.
Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and more resource- efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Group Quarters. Group quarters include nursing homes, orphanages, and prisons. Non-institutional group quarters include dormitories, shelters, and large boarding houses.
Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-3
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.
Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic, architectural, or cultural value.
Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See “Family.”) Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low and moderate income households.
Housing Element. One of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan. It assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing Elements must be updated every five years.
Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and utilities.
Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income. Also called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.
Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.
Impacted Areas. Census tracts where more than 50 percent of the dwelling units house low and very-low income households.
Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.
Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.
Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a built- up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.
Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The General Plan uses the Southern California Association of Government’s definition, which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number of housing units within the area under consideration.
Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.
Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.
H-F-4 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Low Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 51 percent-80 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low income households.
Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile Home” and “Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.
Moderate Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 81 percent-120 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Modular Unit. A factory-fabricated, transportable building or major component designed for use by itself or for incorporation with similar units on-site into a structure for residential, commercial, education, or industrial use. Differs from mobile homes and manufactured housing by (in addition to lacking an integral chassis or permanent hitch to allow future movement) being subject to California housing law design standards. California standards are more restrictive than federal standards in some respects (e.g., plumbing and energy conservation). Also called Factory-built Housing and regulated by State law of the title.
Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.
Multiple-Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.
Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.
Overcrowding Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or group. Are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one that is occupied by more than one person per room.
Parcel. A lot or tract of land.
Persons with Disabilities. Persons determined to have a physical impairment or mental disorder expected to be of long or indefinite duration. Many such impairments or disorders are of such a nature that a person’s ability to live independently can be improved by appropriate housing conditions.
Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-5
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the General Plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.
Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment, but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a Poverty Index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A quantification by the Southern California Association of Government of existing and projected housing need by household income group, for all localities within a region.
Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for building of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents.
Residential, Multiple-Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.
Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of second unit.
H-F-6 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation.
Senior Citizen. A person 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development. (California Civil Code §51.3.b.1)
Shared Living. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential districts by §1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Single-family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”) Single-family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink and closet, but which may require the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen.
Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or State income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.
Target Areas. Specifically designated sections of the community where loans and grants are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing affordable by very-low and low income households.
Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the community’s supply of very-low and low income housing.
Tenure. A housing unit is “owned” if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is “mortgaged or not fully paid for. All other occupied units are classified as “rented,” including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent.
Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.
Appendix H-F: Housing Element H-F-7
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
Transitional Housing. Shelter provide to the homeless for an extend period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City are designated as “undevelopable” by the City.
Very-low Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 50 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Acronyms Used
ACS American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CalHFA: California Housing Finance Agency
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CCRC: California Community Reinvestment Corporation
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
CMP: Congestion Management Plan
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/ac: Dwelling units per acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
GDP: General Development Plan
HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
H-F-8 Appendix H-F: Housing Element
City of Fullerton
Housing Element
LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCHA: Orange County Housing Authority
PRD: Planned Residential Development
RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SF: Summary File (U.S. Census)
SOI: Sphere of Influence
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
SPD: Specific Plan District
SRO: Single Room Occupancy
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan