Att #2 Resolution No. 2025-32 — City Council/Public Financing Authority, May 6, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

FY 2025/26 – 2029/30
Consolidated Plan
&
FY 2025/26 Annual Action Plan
Draft for Public Review and Comment
City of Huntington Beach
Community Enhancement Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 2

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4 ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ........................................................... 4 THE PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 12 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) ............................................................. 12 PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and 91.315(I) .............. 13 PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c) ................................... 23 NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 26 NA-05 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 26 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) ...................................................... 27 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) .......................... 35 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) .............. 38 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) .................... 41 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ....................................... 42 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) ............................................................................................ 44 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) ...................................................................... 48 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) .............................................. 51 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) ......................................... 56 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 60 MA-05 Overview........................................................................................................................ 60 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) ............................................................... 62 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) ................................................. 67 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) ........................................ 71 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) ...................................................................... 76 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) ................................................................ 79 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ......................................................... 82 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) .................................................................. 89 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) ........................................ 90 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ......................................................................... 98 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -

91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) ....................................................................................................... 100 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) ........................................................... 102 STRATEGIC PLAN ............................................................................................................... 104 SP-05 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 104 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ............................................................................ 105 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) ......................................................................................... 108 HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 3

SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) ................................................................ 112 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) ................................................... 113 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) .................................................................. 115 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) ...................................................................................... 121 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) ........................................... 127 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) ................................................................... 128 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) .............................................................................. 130 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) ........................................................................... 134 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) .................................................................................. 136 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230...................................................................................................... 139 EXPECTED RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 141 AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) ........................................................................... 141 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 145 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 145 PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................... 149 AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) ...................................................................................................... 149 AP-38 Project Summary .......................................................................................................... 151 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) ............................................................................. 167 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ..................................................................................................... 168 AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) .................................................................................... 168 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) ........................................................................................... 169 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) ............................................ 170 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) ................................................................... 174 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) ............................................................................................. 176 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 179 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) ...................................................... 179

APPENDIX

Appendix A Glossary of Terms
Appendix B Figures
Appendix C FY 2025/26 Certifications
Appendix D Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) for CDBG Program Appendix E Assurances – Non-Construction Programs (SF 424-B) for CDBG Program Appendix F Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) for HOME Program Appendix G Assurances – Non-Construction Programs (SF 424-B) for HOME Program Appendix H Public Notices
Appendix I Agency and Citizen Participation Comments

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

Introduction

The Executive Summary of the five-year Consolidated Plan for FY 2025/26 – 2029/30 (Con Plan) provides an overview of the City of Huntington Beach's (City) housing and community development needs, as well as the City’s priorities and strategies to address these needs. It is meant to inform the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing and service providers, City residents, and businesses.

Each year, the City of Huntington Beach receives federal funds through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) to support housing and community development projects that primarily benefit low- and moderate-income households. In order to receive these funds, the City must adopt a five-year strategic plan that identifies local needs and outlines how these needs will be addressed using the available funds.

The City’s current five-year plan (FY 2020/21–2024/25) will end on June 30, 2025, requiring the adoption of a new plan before that date.

The new five-year Con Plan builds on several key documents, including the current Con Plan, the City’s Draft 2013-2021 Housing Element, the 2024 Orange County Homeless Point-in-Time Count and Report, and the 2024 Orange County Continuum of Care.

The Con Plan includes the following sections:
 Executive Summary
 The Process
 Needs Assessment
 Housing Market Analysis
 Strategic Plan
 One-Year Action Plan

Summary of the Objectives and Outcomes Identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview

The City’s Con Plan strategy outlines general priorities to address community needs and guides the investment of federal funds. To effectively meet these needs, the City has identified seven priority areas that require the most attention. These priorities are:

1. Housing Needs: The need for affordable housing options in the City continues to be high, based on the proportion of households in the City experiencing cost burdens.

2. Community Facility Needs: The City recognizes the high need for public improvement activities throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 5

environment for its citizens. Identified community facility needs include, but are not limited to, parks and playgrounds, community and neighborhood facilities, and childcare and youth centers.

3. Infrastructure Needs: The City recognizes the high need for public infrastructure improvements throughout the City in order to provide for and maintain a safe and decent environment for its citizens. Identified public infrastructure needs include, but are not limited to, sidewalk improvements, bicycle and walking paths, street and alley improvements, and tree planting and beautification.

4. Homeless Needs: The is a high need for continued investment of federal funding into serving the City’s homeless and at risk of homelessness populations. Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers that assist various subcategories of homeless populations such as homeless youth and women.

5. Special Needs: Huntington Beach prioritizes housing and services for special needs populations. Special needs populations include the elderly, families with young children, developmentally disabled, victims of domestic violence, homeless individuals, and those with behavioral or physical health issues.

6. Community Service Needs: There are a number of vital community services in the City that need continued support. These community services serve low- to moderate-income households and generally do not fall under the other service populations (homeless, special needs, etc.).

7. Other Housing and Community Development Needs: The City has identified the need to provide support for the HOME and CDBG programs in the City, as well as to affirmatively further fair housing. These activities are vital to the continuation of the City’s efforts to administer these programs.

These priorities are aligned with the national objectives and outcomes set by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as described below:

National Objectives
HUD's national objectives are guidelines that federal funds must meet in order to address community development needs. These objectives are set by HUD for programs such as CDBG and HOME. The three national objectives are:

 Provide decent affordable housing: This objective focuses on activities that increase or improve the availability and quality of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income households. This includes efforts such as building new housing, rehabilitating existing housing, or assisting with rent or homeownership.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 6

 Create a suitable living environment: Activities under this objective aim to improve the quality of life for individuals and families by addressing various community issues. This can involve improving public facilities, increasing safety, upgrading infrastructure, or addressing environmental hazards to create a healthier and safer living environment.

 Create economic opportunities: This objective relates to activities that promote economic development, such as job creation, business expansion, or commercial revitalization. The goal is to support local economies, improve job opportunities, and reduce poverty in low- and moderate-income areas.

National Outcomes
HUD’s national outcomes are the specific results that HUD seeks to achieve through funded activities. These outcomes help to assess whether a project or program is effectively addressing the national objectives. The three national outcomes are:

 Availability/Accessibility: This outcome focuses on ensuring that housing, services, or facilities are available and accessible to those who need them, especially for low- and moderate-income individuals. It includes activities that increase access to housing, public facilities, or services such as healthcare, education, or transportation.

 Affordability: The goal of this outcome is to make housing, services, or infrastructure affordable for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. It typically includes activities like providing rental assistance, creating affordable housing units, or reducing the cost of essential services.

 Sustainability: Sustainability focuses on long-term impact. It involves ensuring that projects or investments are designed to be enduring and continue to benefit the community over time. This could mean building energy-efficient housing, upgrading infrastructure to last, or implementing programs that will maintain positive community outcomes in the future.

The City's strategy for meeting HUD’s national objectives and outcomes is outlined below.

Huntington Beach 2025/26 – 2029/30 Consolidated Plan Programs By HUD Objectives and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE/ OUTCOMES

AVAILABILITY/

ACCESSIBILITY AFFORDABILITY SUSTAINABILITY

DECENT HOUSING
Implementing Programs:
 Housing Rehabilitation
Loan Program
 Housing Rehabilitation
Administration
 Fair Housing Program
Implementing Programs:
 HOME
Acquisition/Rehabilitati
on of Affordable
Housing
 HOME New
Construction of
Affordable Housing

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 7

 HOME Tenant Based
Rental Assistance

SUITABLE LIVING

ENVIRONMENT
Implementing Programs:
 ADA Improvements
 Homeless Services
 Youth and Family
Services
 Senior Services
 General Public Services

Implementing Programs:
 Special Code
Enforcement
 Public Facility
Improvements
 Infrastructure
Improvements

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Table 1 – 2025/26 - 2029/30 Consolidated Plan Programs

Evaluation of Past Performance

HUD requires that grantees provide an evaluation of past performance. Since the current year, 2024/25, is still in progress, the City of Huntington Beach will measure the current years’ performance for CDBG and HOME in the 2024/25 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) which will capture the City’s progress towards meeting its five-year goals and objectives outlined in the 2020/21 – 2024/25 Con Plan. However, the following is an evaluation of performance to date:

Decent Housing
 In FY 2020/21, the City of Huntington Beach allocated $2.8 million in HOME funding to support the development of a 43-unit affordable senior housing project at 18431 Beach Boulevard. This project, in partnership with the Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Jamboree Housing Corporation, is a significant step in addressing the housing needs of seniors. Of the 43 units, nine are HOME-income and rent-restricted, ensuring affordability for very-low-income households. The project was completed in December 2024 and contributes to nearly 50% of the City’s 20-unit development goal for the 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan period.

 Since July 2020, the City has allocated nearly $3 million in HOME funds for the Tenant- Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program, which helps low- and moderate-income households with rental costs. This program has been instrumental in addressing housing affordability challenges and has assisted 218 households so far, showcasing its effectiveness in supporting vulnerable populations.
 The City’s Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program provides critical support to lower-income homeowners. The Rehabilitation Grant Program offers one-time grants of up to $15,000 for deferred maintenance and health/safety repairs, while the Rehabilitation Loan Program offers deferred payment loans up to $75,000 for larger repairs. To date, 43 homeowner rehabilitation projects have been completed through these programs, with more households currently being assisted in FY 2024/25. These HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 8

efforts demonstrate the City’s ongoing commitment to supporting homeownership and preserving affordable housing for its residents.

Suitable Living Environment
 The City's Special Code Enforcement program has consistently surpassed its goal of assisting 600 housing units each year in CDBG-eligible areas. Since July 2020, the program has issued over 4,500 code violations, which in most cases, are voluntarily addressed by homeowners. This proactive approach to maintaining community standards and ensuring safe and habitable living conditions, underscores the City's commitment to ensuring compliance with housing standards and contributing to the overall well-being and livability of neighborhoods within CDBG-eligible areas.

 The City of Huntington Beach continues to prioritize the delivery of high-quality services to various segments of the community, including youth, homeless individuals, seniors, the disabled, and illiterate adults. These efforts are supported through public service funding and aim to improve the well-being and accessibility of essential services for residents.

Since July 2020, the City has made significant progress in its public service initiatives. For example, over 700 youth have benefited from subsidized after-school programming, enriching their educational experiences and offering valuable opportunities for personal growth. Additionally, 2,250 homeless individuals have received a range of services, including case management, emergency housing, outreach services, and other supportive programs. These efforts highlight the City’s commitment to addressing homelessness and supporting vulnerable populations.

Furthermore, around 1,500 seniors and individuals with special needs have accessed services through the City’s Senior Care Services Program and the Oak View Family Literacy Program. These programs are designed to meet the specific needs of these groups, ensuring they receive the support and care they require. These initiatives reflect the City’s ongoing dedication to enhancing the lives of its residents and ensuring that all members of the community have access to the services they need.

 As part of its commitment to enhancing public facilities and community infrastructure, the City set a goal to assist 5,000 persons with improved or new public facilities during the 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan period. In FY 2023/24, the City allocated CDBG funding to the Central Library Restrooms Project, which includes ADA improvements. This project not only contributed to enhancing accessibility but also exceeded the goal by serving a larger number of individuals than initially targeted.

 The City used CDBG funding in FY 2020/21, 2021/22, FY 2023/24, and in FY 2024/25 to make ADA curb cut improvements in various areas of the City. By the end of FY 2023/24, over 6,500 persons had already benefited from the handicap-accessible curb cuts, surpassing the 5-year goal of 2,000. An estimated 2,750 additional persons are set to benefit from the latest project in FY 2024/25.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 9

Economic Opportunity
In 2024, the City of Huntington Beach updated its Economic Development Strategic Plan. The City Council initiated this update to reinforce existing economic development efforts, address current needs, and prioritize new initiatives. The plan provides a roadmap for strengthening the local economy, creating jobs, and ensuring that Huntington Beach remains a vibrant and welcoming place for businesses, residents, and visitors. A blend of new initiatives and enhancements across four main areas are featured in the plan:

 Business Retention, Attraction & Expansion
 Tourism, Culture & Community
 Responsive & Effective Government
 Communication & Collaboration

The plan aims to enhance the City's economic vitality and quality of life by retaining and attracting a diversified mix of businesses, strengthening tourism and cultural offerings, growing the Streamline Surf City Initiative, and fostering stronger collaboration with local stakeholders. Each area includes specific goals and objectives with actionable milestones, as well as priorities for the upcoming year.

In addition, in October 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. This 2023-2027 Strategic Plan identifies various policies and programs that the City should prioritize, over and above normal operations, within the limited financial, human, and operational resources of the City. The goal of economic development is for greater business retention, investment, and job growth in Huntington Beach.

Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process

The City developed its Con Plan through extensive consultation and coordination with housing, social service and healthcare providers; public agencies; and the local public housing agency as presented in Table 2. As a means of gaining input from these agencies, the City conducted an agency consultation workshop, public meetings, a survey, and invited local grantees to provide comments on the draft Con Plan and Annual Action Plan. In addition, consultation in the development of the Con Plan involved several City departments.

Consulted Agencies and Organizations
Families Forward Fair Housing Foundation Literacy Volunteers StandUp for Kids Community SeniorServ
Mental Health Association of
Orange County
Oak View Family Resource
Center Children’s Bureau
Open Arms Food Pantry and
Resource Center Robyne’s Nest
Pathways to Independence Project Hope Alliance
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 10

City of Huntington Beach Departments and Commissions
Huntington Beach Office of
Business Development
Huntington Beach Community
Services Department
Huntington Beach Police
Department
Huntington Beach Public Works
Department
Huntington Beach City Council Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB)
Other Public Agencies
Orange County Health Agency Orange County Housing
Authority

Table 2 – Citizen Participation Consultation

The City of Huntington Beach has followed HUD guidelines for citizen and community involvement in the preparation of its Con Plan and Annual Action Plan. This process aims to ensure that the community has an active role in shaping the documents, which will guide the allocation of federal funding for housing and community development projects.

To encourage broad participation, the City engaged the public through various activities, including:

 Agency Workshop
 Community Meetings
 Community Needs Survey
 Public Hearings

These efforts allowed residents and stakeholders to provide valuable input on the City's priorities and needs.

A draft of the five-year Con Plan will be available for public comment from April 4 to May 6, 2025.

During this period, the public will have the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft plan. Additionally, a City Council public hearing is scheduled for May 6, 2025, offering a final opportunity for residents and interested parties to comment on the plan before it is formally adopted and submitted to HUD.

Summary of public comments

Public comments received at the agency workshop, community meetings, the results of the community survey, and comments made at public hearing can be found in the Appendix.

Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them

The City responded to all relevant comments. All comments received were accepted.

Summary

Key findings of the Needs Assessment include:

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 11

 Housing overpayment is the most prevalent housing problem, with 76% of Huntington Beach's low and moderate income (<80% AMI) renter households facing a cost burden (>30% of income on housing costs), and 40% facing a severe cost burden (>50% of income towards housing). Consultation with housing, homeless and public service providers identify the shortage of affordable rental housing as the most significant issue facing Huntington Beach's extremely low-, low- and moderate-income residents.  Household overcrowding is a far less significant problem than overpayment in Huntington Beach though it has doubled in the last decade from 5% of all renters in 2010 to 10% a decade later (as documented by the 2007-2011 and 2016-2020 ACS1). However, certain neighborhoods continue to experience high levels of overcrowding.  Many of the workers who make up Huntington Beach's workforce earn modest incomes, making it challenging to afford to in live in the City where they work. The analysis of rental housing costs and affordability illustrates that households earning extremely low, low and moderate incomes cannot afford average market rents in Huntington Beach. Local occupations priced out of the rental market include: bookkeepers, bus drivers, preschool teachers, retail sales managers, and food service managers.  For homeless people or people at-risk of becoming homeless, the most significant problem is the lack of affordable rental housing. This problem has been compounded by record high rents combined with decreases in public funding previously used to support affordable housing.
 The City's Capital Improvement Program identifies the following general projects (within low- and moderate-income areas) in need of CDBG funds over the next five years:
 American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to public facilities  Sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, including accessibility ramps  Main Street Library HVAC installation project
 Critical repairs to police and fire stations throughout the City  Necessary improvements to the Oak View Library, Oak View Family Resource Center, Central Library, and playground improvements at 9th Street and Lagenbeck Parks

1 The American Community Survey (ACS), performed by the U.S. Census Bureau, is an ongoing Census statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the population every year, and publishes five-year averages of this data.

Many of the tables in the Consolidated Plan are "pre-populated" by HUD with data from the 2016-2020 ACS, and thus the City has utilized the 2016-2020 ACS as the primary data source throughout the Plan.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 12

THE PROCESS
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)

Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source

The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
Lead Agency HUNTINGTON BEACH Community Enhancement Division CDBG Administrator HUNTINGTON BEACH
Jennifer Villasenor, Community
Development Director
Community Enhancement Division
HOME Administrator HUNTINGTON BEACH
Jennifer Villasenor, Community
Development Director
Community Enhancement Division
Table 3 – Responsible Agencies

Narrative

The Community Enhancement Division of the City of Huntington Beach serves as the lead agency responsible for overseeing the development of both the Con Plan and the Annual Action Plan.

This division plays a crucial role in coordinating the allocation of funding for various community development projects and initiatives. It is also responsible for monitoring community-based organizations that receive funding, ensuring compliance with program requirements, and managing the successful implementation of these projects. Additionally, the division administers the CDBG and HOME programs, which support affordable housing and other community development efforts. Beyond these responsibilities, the division also oversees other housing and community development initiatives, ensuring that all efforts align with the City’s goals and HUD guidelines. Through these activities, the Community Enhancement Division plays a key role in fostering the growth and improvement of Huntington Beach’s housing and community services.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information

Gregory Hoang
Senior Housing Analyst
City of Huntington Beach
Community Enhancement Division
2000 Main Street, 5th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Phone: (714) 563-5473
Email: [email protected]
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 13

PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and 91.315(I)

Introduction

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)).

The City of Huntington Beach developed its Con Plan through a collaborative process that involved consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. These stakeholders included the Orange County Housing Authority, various City departments, health and social service providers, and neighboring local governments. A key part of this process was seeking input from housing, homeless, and social service providers active within Huntington Beach.

To gather valuable insights, the City held an agency workshop to better understand the services they offer, identify priority needs within the community, and pinpoint any gaps in services. This workshop was an important tool for capturing the perspectives of organizations that work directly with residents in need of housing assistance, homeless services, and other social support.

By engaging a diverse group of stakeholders and utilizing surveys and consultations, the City ensured that the Con Plan was shaped by the knowledge and experiences of those most directly involved in addressing the community’s housing and social service needs. This collaborative approach was essential in making sure the plan reflects the community’s priorities, ultimately guiding the allocation of resources to effectively address the key challenges Huntington Beach faces.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness

The City of Huntington Beach actively participates in the Orange County Continuum of Care (CoC), which is led and coordinated by the Orange County Health Care Agency. This partnership between public and nonprofit entities aims to ensure comprehensive and regional coordination of efforts and resources to address homelessness and support individuals at risk of homelessness throughout Orange County.

As part of the CoC, the City's Homeless Outreach Case Manager collaborates with other stakeholders to promote community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness. The CoC serves as a regional convener of year-round planning processes and facilitates the involvement of public and private agencies within the regional homeless system of care.

The Orange County Continuum of Care system is structured to achieve several key objectives:

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 14

1. Promote Community-wide Commitment: The CoC fosters a shared commitment among stakeholders to end homelessness through regional coordination and collaboration.

2. Advocate for Funding and Resources: It advocates for funding and resources to support efforts aimed at quickly rehousing individuals experiencing homelessness while minimizing trauma and dislocation.

3. Promote Access to Mainstream Programs: The CoC works to ensure that homeless individuals and families have access to and effectively utilize mainstream programs and services.

4. Implement Best Practices: It promotes the implementation of best practices and evidence-based approaches to homeless programming and services to ensure effectiveness and efficiency.

By actively participating in the Orange County Continuum of Care, the City of Huntington Beach contributes to the collective efforts aimed at addressing homelessness and improving outcomes for individuals and families experiencing housing instability in the region.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS

Not applicable. The City of Huntington Beach does not receive ESG funds.

Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 15

Agency/Group/
Organization
Agency/Group/
Organization Type
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the
anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
City of Huntington
Beach
Other government
- Local
• Housing Need Assessment
Homeless Needs
Homelessness Strategy
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
• Economic Development
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
• Anti-Poverty Strategy
• Lead-based Paint Strategy
Citizen Participation Advisory Board
(CPAB). The City of Huntington Beach
will continue to maintain strong
relationships with service providers
through the Citizen Participation
Advisory Board (CPAB) to help
implement the five-year strategy
outlined in the Con Plan. The CPAB
plays a key role in ensuring that
community input and collaboration
remain central to the process of
allocating resources and addressing
the social service needs of the
community.

Huntington Beach
City Council
Civic Leaders • Housing Need Assessment
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
Market Analysis
• Economic Development
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
• Anti-Poverty Strategy
Public hearings. Public hearings are a
key component of the City’s process
for ensuring that the Con Plan
accurately reflects the needs and
priorities of the community. City
Council members, who represent the
needs of their constituents, play an
important role in this process by
incorporating community feedback
into the Con Plan. The needs and
priorities identified through public
hearings, consultations, and surveys
have been integrated into the Con
Plan, ensuring that the City’s strategy
addresses the most pressing concerns
of residents. These public hearings
provide a platform for community
members to voice their opinions and
influence the allocation of resources
to meet the housing and social service
needs of Huntington Beach. Through
this process, the City ensures that the
Plan is responsive to the community's
evolving needs.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 16

Huntington Beach
City Manager’s
Office
Grantee
Department
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Public Housing Needs
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
• Market Analysis
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
• Anti-Poverty Strategy
• Lead-Based Paint Survey
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
City of Huntington
Beach Community
and Library
Services
Department
Grantee
Department

Services-Children
Services-Education
Services-Elderly
Persons
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy

Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Oak View Literacy
Program
Grantee
Department

Services-Education
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
• Anti-Poverty Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Huntington Beach
Council on Aging
Services-Elderly
Persons
• Non-Homeless Special Needs

Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan Huntington Beach
Police Department
Grantee
Department

Services-Homeless
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Huntington Beach
Public Works
Department
Grantee
Department
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Huntington Beach
Senior Center
Grantee
Department
• Non-Homeless Special Needs Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 17

Orange County
Housing Authority
PHA • Housing Needs Assessment
• Public Housing Needs
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Therapeutic Riding
Center of
Huntington Beach
Services – Persons
with Disabilities
• Non-Homeless Special Needs Invitation to participate in the survey, public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Beach Cities
Interfaith Services
Services –
Homeless
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Open Arms Food
Pantry & Resource
Center
Services – Children
Services – Elderly
Persons
Services – Persons
with Disabilities
Services -
Homeless
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
• Anti-Poverty Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
StandUP for Kids Services-Homeless • Housing Needs Assessment • Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Robyne's Nest Services-Homeless • Housing Needs Assessment • Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Families Forward Housing

Services-Homeless
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 18

South County
Outreach
Housing

Services-Homeless
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Fair Housing
Foundation
Services-Fair
Housing
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Public Housing Needs
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Assistance League
of Huntington
Beach
Services-Children
Services-Veterans
Services-Education
• Non-Homeless Special Needs
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
• Anti-Poverty Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Mercy House Housing

Housing

Orange County
Fair Housing
Council
Services-Fair
Housing
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Catalyst Kids Services-Children • Non-Housing Community Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Project Hope
Alliance
Services-Homeless • Housing Needs Assessment
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
New San Cai Other
Government-State
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy

Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
The Priority Center Services-Health • Non-Housing Community Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Amuse Foundation Services-Children • Non-Housing Community Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Friendship Shelter Housing

Services-Homeless
• Housing Needs Assessment
• Homeless Needs –
Chronically Homeless
• Homeless Needs – Families
with Children
• Homeless Needs – Veterans
• Homeless Needs –
Unaccompanied Youth
• Homelessness Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Straight Talk
Counseling
Services-Health • Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Meals on Wheels
OC
Services-Elderly
Persons
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Pathways to
Independence
Services-Victims of
Domestic Violence
• Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Orange County
Congregation
Community
Organization
Civil Rights • Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 20

Orange County
Asian Pacific
Islander
Community
Alliance
Civil Rights • Non-Housing Community
Development Strategy
Invitation to participate in the survey,
public input meeting, and comment
on the draft plan
Table 4 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting

The City of Huntington Beach diligently engaged in the development of its Consolidated Plan by consulting with a broad spectrum of stakeholders. These consultations included housing, social, and health service providers, as well as local agencies and governments, and the Orange County Housing Authority. By actively seeking input from these various entities, the City ensured that a comprehensive range of perspectives and expertise were considered in the planning process. The City is unaware of any Agency Types relevant to the Consolidated Plan that were not consulted.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 21

Name of Plan Lead Organization
How do the goals of your
Strategic Plan overlap with the
goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care Orange County Health Care
Agency, Office of Care
Coordination
Leadership and coordination
of Orange County’s
Continuum of Care planning
process is led by the Orange
Health Care Agency, Office of
Care Coordination. The
organization uses housing and
demographic data obtained
through HMIS and Homeless
Counts to determine needs
and to pinpoint gaps in
housing and services. This in
turn helps to pool and
coordinate resources with the
County and cities to develop
coordinated homeless access
and assessment centers.

Huntington Beach
participates in building the
regional continuum of care to
address the homeless and
persons at risk of
homelessness.

Huntington Beach 2013-2021
Housing Element
City of Huntington Beach Planning
Division
Key housing policies and
programs from the 2013-
2021 Housing Element have
been reflected within the Con
Plan.

Orange County Housing
Authority Administrative Plan
Orange County Housing Authority
(OCHA)
The purpose of OCHA’s
Administrative Plan is to
establish policies and
procedures to implement the
Section 8 Program in a
manner consistent with HUD
requirements and local
objectives. The Con Plan
reflects the policies set forth
in the Administrative Plan.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 22

Huntington Beach HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan
City of Huntington Beach The HOME-ARP Allocation
Plan describes how
Huntington Beach intends to
distribute its HOME-ARP
funds. The plan includes an
assessment of unmet needs
and service gaps for the
qualified population and a
summary of the planned uses
of the program funds for
eligible activities. The Con
Plan reflects much analysis in
the HOME-ARP Allocation
Plan.

Multi-Family Submarket
Report for Huntington
Beach/Seal Beach
CoStar Group The Multi-Family Submarket
Report, prepared in August
2024, provides real estate
information and analytics on
both multi-family rental and
multi-family sales in
Huntington Beach.

Table 5 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l))

The City of Huntington Beach has notified adjacent local governments including Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Westminster and the County of Orange of the availability of the draft Consolidated Plan for 30-day review and comment. Huntington Beach coordinates with the local CoC in implementation of the Consolidated Plan's homeless strategy, and with the Orange County Housing Authority in implementation of the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 23

PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)

Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation

The City followed HUD’s guidelines for citizen and community involvement in preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. To encourage citizen participation in the preparation of the documents, the City undertook several activities as summarized below.

Housing and Community Development Needs Survey
In order to evaluate public opinion of specific housing and community development needs, the City utilized a Needs Survey (in English and Spanish) in which the respondent was asked to rank the level of need for a particular housing program, capital improvement and public infrastructure project, and public service need.

Hard copies of the survey were distributed in various community locations within low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and at the Senior Center, and published on the City's website.

A total of 334 responses were received with the following results:

• Top Housing Needs include the construction of new or rehabilitation of existing affordable rental housing, property maintenance/code enforcement, and the development of affordable senior housing.
• Top Capital Improvement Needs include parks and playgrounds, community/neighborhood centers, and childcare/youth centers.
• Top Infrastructure Improvement Needs include sidewalk improvements, bicycle and walking paths, street/alley improvements, and tree planting/beatification projects. • Top Public Service Needs include anti-crime, homeless, and domestic violence preventative and response services.

A copy of the Housing and Community Development Survey, along with the Needs Survey Report can be found in the Appendix.

Community Workshops
The City held two community workshops on October 30, 2024, at Oak View Community Center and November 7, 2024, at Central Library. The presentation covered CDBG and HOME programs, eligible funding uses, and current funding uses, while also gathering public input on priority needs. Sixteen residents attended.

Stakeholders Workshop
On November 14, 2024, a stakeholders meeting was convened with various agencies that provide services to Huntington Beach's low- and moderate-income households, special needs populations, and homeless populations. The discussion focused on identifying priority needs and gaps in the services provided. A total of eight agencies participated in the meeting, including HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 24

those offering fair housing, tenant-based rental assistance, homelessness support, literacy programs, and other public services.

Community Meetings and Public Hearings
The Citizen Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) held a public hearing on January 16, 2025, at Huntington Beach City Hall to discuss community needs. Following this, two community meetings occurred on January 30 and February 20, 2025, allowing agencies and individuals to express opinions on public service gaps in Huntington Beach. The represented agencies/programs included Oakview Children's Bureau/Boys and Girls Club Afterschool Program, Fair Housing Foundation, Open Arms Food Pantry and Resource Center, Pathways to Independence, Project Hope Alliance, Robyne’s Nest, Senior Center Care Management, and StandUp for Kids Orange County.

Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting

Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Internet
Outreach
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
A total of 334
Housing and
Community
Development Needs
Survey’s were
received.

See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
2 Community
Meeting
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
Two community
workshops were held
on 10/30/2024 and
11/7/2024 to solicit
opinions on housing
and community
development priority
needs in Huntington
Beach,
See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
3 Community
Meeting
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
A stakeholder
meeting was held on
11/14/2024 with
various agencies to
discuss priority public
service needs and
gaps in service.

See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
4 Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
A newspaper
advertisement was
posted on 1/2/25
notifying interested
persons of a public
hearing on needs and
priorities scheduled
for 1/16/2025.

No comments
received.

None
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 25

Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
5 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
The Citizen
Participation Advisory
Board (CPAB), a
group of appointed
Huntington Beach
citizens, held two
public hearings on
1/16/25 to solicit
input on housing and
community
development needs.

Comments received
focused on the
continued need for
youth after-school
education
programs; fair
housing services;
senior services,
homeless support
services, and family
services.

None
6 Community
Meeting
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
The CPAB held two
public meetings on
1/16/25 and on
2/20/25 to allow
presentations from
local agencies for
CDBG funding in
2025/16.

See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
7 Community
Meeting
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
A joint CPAB and City
Council study session
was held on 3/18/25
to go over CPAB
funding
recommendations.

See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
8 Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
A newspaper
advertisement was
made soliciting public
comment on the
draft 2025/26-
2029/30 Con Plan
and the 2025/26
Action Plan and to
notify the public of a
public hearing to
adopt the Plans on
5/6/25. The public
notice was published
on 4/3/25.

See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
9 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted /
broad
community
The City Council held
a public hearing to
adopt the 2025/26-
2029/30 Con Plan
and the FY 2025/26
Action Plan on
5/6/25.

See attached
results in Appendix
C.

None
Table 6 – Citizen Participation Outreach

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 26

NEEDS ASSESSMENT
NA-05 Overview

Needs Assessment Overview

The Consolidated Plan's Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment was conducted in a variety of ways, including data review and analysis2; consultation with housing, homeless and service providers, and City Departments; Community Needs Assessment Survey; and community meetings to take public input on community needs. Key findings of the Needs Assessment include:
 Housing overpayment is the most prevalent housing problem, with 80% of Huntington Beach's low and moderate income (<80% AMI) renter households facing a cost burden (>30% of income on housing costs), and 45% facing a severe cost burden (>50% of income towards housing). Consultation with housing, homeless and public service providers identify the shortage of affordable rental housing as the most significant issue facing Huntington Beach's low- and moderate-income residents.
 Household overcrowding is a far less significant problem than overpayment in Huntington Beach and has decreased from 13% of all renters in 2000 to just 5% a decade later (as documented by the 2007-2011 ACS). However, certain neighborhoods continue to experience high levels of overcrowding.
 For homeless persons or persons at risk of becoming homeless, the most significant problem is the lack of affordable rental housing. This problem has been compounded by record high rents combined with decreases in public funding previously used to support affordable housing. Surveys of homeless service providers in Huntington Beach identify additional affordable housing as the top priority need, followed by the need for additional substance abuse services, and additional tenant-based rental assistance.  The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) presents a comprehensive listing of planned and projected capital project needs based on various long-range plans, goals, and policies. Pursuant to the 2023/24-2027/28 CIP, the following general projects (within low- and moderate-income areas) have been identified in need of CDBG funds over the next five years:
 Citywide sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, including accessibility ramps
 Residential overlay and slurry seal program
 Other public facilities and infrastructure projects

2 The American Community Survey (ACS), performed by the U.S. Census Bureau, is an ongoing Census statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the population every year, and publishes five-year averages of this data.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 27

NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c)

Summary of Housing Needs
Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change Population 197,750 199,780 1%
Households 74,460 77,590 4%
Median Income $83,252.00 $97,469.00 17%
Table 7 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year)

Number of Households Table

0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 10,710 8,970 13,675 9,320 34,920
Small Family Households 2,965 2,880 5,020 3,705 17,195
Large Family Households 495 735 910 575 2,250
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 2,795 2,695 3,130 2,355 8,155 Household contains at least one-
person age 75 or older 2,390 1,840 2,380 1,145 2,775
Households with one or more children
6 years old or younger 1,255 1,260 1,335 1,195 1,680
Table 8 - Total Households Table
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Housing Needs Summary Tables

1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs)

Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete
plumbing or
kitchen facilities
390 155 35 15 595 40 15 0 0 55
Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51
people per room
(and complete
kitchen and
plumbing)
195 165 100 85 545 10 0 10 0 20
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 28

Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total
Overcrowded -
With 1.01-1.5
people per room
(and none of the
above
problems)
495 420 280 115 1,310 0 55 115 125 295
Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems)
3,855 2,235 695 10 6,795 2,430 1,580 1,055 370 5,435
Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems)
390 1,435 3,835 920 6,580 505 865 1,680 1,370 4,420
Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above
problems)
355 0 0 0 355 350 0 0 0 350
Table 9 – Housing Problems Table
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or more of
four housing
problems
4,935 2,975 1,110 225 9,245 2,480 1,645 1,180 495 5,800 Having none of four
housing problems 1,565 1,785 6,045 4,035 13,430 1,730 2,560 5,335 4,565 14,190 Household has
negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 10 – Housing Problems 2
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 29

3. Cost Burden > 30%

Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI Total
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 1,715 1,975 1,720 5,410 815 490 975 2,280 Large Related 435 375 260 1,070 60 145 220 425
Elderly 1,475 1,120 805 3,400 1,580 1,620 1,205 4,405
Other 1,595 755 1,875 4,225 495 240 370 1,105
Total need by
income 5,220 4,225 4,660 14,105 2,950 2,495 2,770 8,215 Table 11 – Cost Burden > 30%
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

4. Cost Burden > 50%

Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI Total
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 0 0 960 960 735 285 0 1,020
Large Related 0 0 135 135 60 50 50 160
Elderly 1,215 880 155 2,250 1,220 1,070 590 2,880
Other 0 1,520 420 1,940 425 0 0 425
Total need by
income 1,215 2,400 1,670 5,285 2,440 1,405 640 4,485
Table 12 – Cost Burden > 50%
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

5. Crowding (More than one person per room)

Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single family
households 585 555 365 90 1,595 0 45 125 115 285
Multiple, unrelated
family households 40 35 15 85 175 0 4 0 10 14
Other, non-family
households 85 10 0 25 120 10 0 0 0 10
Total need by
income 710 600 380 200 1,890 10 49 125 125 309
Table 13 – Crowding Information – 1/2
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 30

Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI Total
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI Total
Households with
Children Present
Table 14 – Crowding Information – 2/2

Describe the number and type of single-person households in need of housing assistance.

According to the 2023 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, there are approximately 10,170 single-person renter households in the City, but only 1,465 studio rental units and 8,170 one-bedroom rental units available (2016-2020 ACS – refer to Section MA-10 later in the report). These figures highlight a critical shortage of affordable rental units, with high rents making these options inaccessible to low- and moderate-income individuals. Tables 11 and 12 indicate that 4,225 low- and moderate-income single-person renter households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs, with nearly half (1,940 households) experiencing a severe cost burden, allocating more than 50% of their income to housing.

Since 2010, the proportion of single-person renter households has remained steady, representing about 30% of all renter households and 12% of all households, regardless of tenure.

In contrast, the 2023 5-year ACS data shows that there are 9,983 single-person owner-occupied households in Huntington Beach, presumably residing in the 260 studio units and 1,255 one- bedroom owner units available. Of these owner-occupied households, 11% (1,105 households) face some form of cost burden, with 425 experiencing severe cost burdens. While this is a significant challenge, it is far less pronounced than among the single-person renter households, highlighting the relative stability and lower cost burden faced by those who own their homes.

These findings underscore the ongoing need for affordable rental housing, particularly for low- and moderate-income single-person households.

Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Among the 628 Huntington Beach residents reported by the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) as receiving Housing Choice Vouchers, 19% (117) have a disabled member. These statistics confirm the significant need for housing assistance among the City's disabled population.

Persons spending greater than half their incomes on housing are considered precariously housed, and at risk of homelessness. The 2016-2020 CHAS documents 30% of Huntington Beach's low- and moderate-income households as spending more than half their incomes on housing; applying the same 30% severe housing overpayment figure to the City's estimated 22,698 disabled population (2008-10 ACS) translates to approximately 6,809 persons with disabilities in need of housing assistance.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 31

Domestic violence disproportionately affects women and children, with survivors often fleeing violent situations in search of safety and support. While specific data for Huntington Beach is limited, state-level statistics provide valuable insights into the scope of the issue. According to the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), approximately 40% of women in California have experienced physical intimate partner violence at some point in their lives. When applying this statewide statistic to Huntington Beach's 2023 adult female population (age 18+), it is estimated that approximately 32,326 women in the City may have been victims of domestic violence at some stage.

In contrast, the California Department of Justice reported 443 domestic violence-related calls in Huntington Beach in 2023. This significant gap between the number of potential victims and the actual number of calls for police assistance suggests a troubling underreporting of domestic violence incidents. Many victims may be reluctant to seek help due to fear, shame, or lack of knowledge about available resources, further underscoring the need for additional support services in the community.

Beyond immediate safety concerns, women and children fleeing domestic violence often require a range of critical services, including emergency shelter, transitional housing, counseling, and childcare. These services are essential for helping survivors rebuild their lives and regain their independence. Given the large number of potentially affected women in Huntington Beach, the City may benefit from expanding domestic violence prevention and support programs to ensure that all victims have access to the care and protection they need.

Dating violence is defined as the physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional violence within a dating relationship, including stalking. Dating violence is widespread with serious long-term and short-term effects. Many teens do not report it because they are afraid to tell friends and family.

A 2019 CDC Youth Risk Behavior survey found that 41% of females and 26% of males have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. Even more alarming, is the same study reports that one in every 12 teens experience physical dating violence and about the same number face sexual dating violence.

Supporting healthy, nonviolent relationships could reduce teen dating violence and prevent its harmful, long-lasting effects on individuals, their families, and their communities. During the pre- teen and teen years, it is critical for youth to begin learning skills to create and maintain healthy relationships, including managing feelings and communicating in a healthy way. Research also highlights the need for prevention efforts that address the unique needs of teens who are at greater risk of experiencing teen dating violence.

What are the most common housing problems?

Based on the CHAS tables provided by HUD (extrapolated from 2016-2020 ACS data), the following summarizes two key housing problems in Huntington Beach:

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 32

 Among Huntington Beach's approximately 18,420 low and moderate income (<80% AMI) renter households, 14,090 (76%) face a cost burden of spending greater than 30% of income on rent. Over 40% of the City's low- and moderate-income renters face a severe cost burden, with 7,910 spending more than 50% of income on rent. As depicted in Figure 4 located in Appendix B, census tracts with the highest concentrations of severe renter overpayment (32-55% of all renters spending >50% income on rent) are scattered throughout the City, with a predominance north of Warner Avenue. Consultation with housing, homeless and public service providers identify the shortage of affordable rental housing as the most significant issue facing Huntington Beach's low- and moderate- income residents.

• Household overcrowding, defined as more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, porches, and hallways), is less prevalent than overpayment for housing in Huntington Beach, yet it remains a growing concern. Over the past decade, the rate of overcrowding has doubled from 5% in 2010 to 10% in 2020, as documented by the 2007-2011 ACS.

Among low- and moderate-income renters, Table 13 highlights that 1,890 households— representing 10% of Huntington Beach's 18,420 low- and moderate-income renter households—are overcrowded. This marks a notable increase from 2015, when the number of overcrowded households stood at 1,190.

• For homeless persons or persons at-risk of becoming homeless, the most significant problem is the lack of affordable rental housing. This problem has been compounded by record high rents combined with decreases in funding available through Section 8 and HOME, and the loss of $3 million in annual Redevelopment Housing funds previously used to support affordable housing. Surveys and discussions with homeless service providers in Huntington Beach conducted for the Consolidated Plan identify additional affordable housing as the top priority need, followed by the need for additional tenant rental assistance and wrap around support services.

Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems?

As reflected in Tables 12 and 13, small-related and single person, non-elderly ("other") households are most impacted by renter cost burden. Small, related households comprise 5,410, or 38%, of Huntington Beach’s 14,105 low- and moderate-income renters spending greater than 30% of income on housing costs. Elderly person households are also most impacted by severe cost burden (> than 50% of income of housing costs) among low- and moderate-income renters, comprising 43% of the total low-and moderate-income households that experience severe cost burden.

Based on input from local service providers, low- and moderate-income populations particularly impacted by housing overpayment in Huntington Beach include single-parent families, senior citizens on fixed incomes, the working poor, young adults, and persons suffering from a physical, mental or developmental disability.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 33

Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance

Record-high rents in Huntington Beach have significantly increased the risk of homelessness, particularly for lower-income individuals and families. Among the most vulnerable are family households and single mothers, who are disproportionately affected by the high costs of housing and childcare. Additionally, individuals working in low-wage jobs are particularly vulnerable, as rising rent prices further strain their already limited resources. The lack of sufficient funding and limited availability of Section 8 vouchers exacerbates the situation, leaving many households with few options for affordable housing.

Low-income renter households earning less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and facing extreme cost burdens—spending more than 50% of their income on rent—are at especially high risk of becoming homeless. This risk is compounded for those who are unemployed, employed in low-paying jobs, or dealing with serious health issues among family members. These factors create a perfect storm that can push households into homelessness if they do not have access to stable housing solutions.

In response, the City of Huntington Beach offers three tenant-based rental assistance programs aimed at individuals and families at imminent risk of becoming homeless or residing in shelters.

These programs provide up to 24 months of assistance, along with case management and support services to help households transition to stable, non-assisted housing. Beneficiaries include homeless individuals, those at risk of homelessness, families with children, veterans, and seniors.

For households nearing the end of their rental assistance, maintaining stable housing requires more than just financial support. Full-time employment, affordable childcare, reliable transportation, and access to affordable housing are critical. In addition, healthcare access, life skills training, and opportunities for further education or vocational training play an essential role in ensuring long-term housing stability and self-sufficiency.

If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates:

Not applicable. The City adheres to HUD’s criteria for defining homelessness to identify those at imminent risk of homelessness.

Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness

As highlighted in Table 12, an estimated 5,285 low- and moderate-income renter households, along with 4,485 owner-occupied households in Huntington Beach, are spending more than half HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 34

of their gross monthly income on housing costs. This significant financial burden leaves these households with limited resources to cover essential living expenses such as food, transportation, healthcare, utilities, and other necessities. With so little disposable income remaining, these households are especially vulnerable to eviction and homelessness. A sudden reduction in income—whether due to job loss, reduced work hours, or cuts in government benefits—can have catastrophic consequences. Similarly, unexpected expenses, such as a medical emergency, major car repair, or the onset of a serious illness that prevents someone from working, could push these households into financial instability, making it even more difficult to stay housed.

Discussion

As discussed above, housing affordability is a critical issue among Huntington Beach's renter population. With nearly 30% of low and moderate income (<80% AMI) renter households spending more than half their incomes on housing, severe housing cost burden is the most pervasive housing problem in the community. The need far exceeds the resources available through the Consolidated Plan and is further exacerbated by the increased costs associated with developing affordable housing.

As described in the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element, many of the workers who make up Huntington Beach's workforce earn modest incomes, making it challenging to afford in live in the City where they work. The analysis of rental housing costs and affordability presented in the Housing Market section of this report (Section MA-15) illustrates that households earning low and moderate incomes (up to 80% AMI) cannot afford average market rents in Huntington Beach.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 35

NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)

Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction

A disproportionately greater housing need exists when the members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole. The following tables identify the presence of one or more housing problems among households of differing race/ethnicities and income levels, with the analysis that follows identifying any racial/ethnic group evidencing a disproportionate housing need. The four housing problems are:
1) Lacks complete kitchen facilities.
2) Lacks complete plumbing facilities.
3) More than one person per room; and
4) Cost Burden greater than 30%.

0%-30% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 7,400 1,280 800
White 4,345 915 590
Black / African American 140 15 0
Asian 880 195 85
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 25 0
Pacific Islander 15 0 0
Hispanic 1,865 125 110
Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 36

30%-50% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 6,100 1,860 0
White 3,645 1,275 0
Black / African American 85 0 0
Asian 685 215 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 50 25 0
Pacific Islander 35 10 0
Hispanic 1,455 330 0
Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

50%-80% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 7,215 5,080 0
White 4,920 3,555 0
Black / African American 80 65 0
Asian 540 610 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 45 0
Pacific Islander 20 45 0
Hispanic 1,450 675 0
Table 17 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

80%-100% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 3,145 4,925 0
White 2,275 3,460 0
Black / African American 55 75 0
Asian 325 370 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 30 0
Pacific Islander 15 10 0
Hispanic 380 825 0
Table 18 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 37

Discussion

Tables 15-18 above identify the presence of one or more housing problems (lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, overcrowding at > 1 person per room, or overpayment at > 30%) for different racial/ethnic group within a given income category. The following summarizes the results of these CHAS tables and identifies groups experiencing disproportionate housing need in Huntington Beach.

Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
 78% of extremely low-income households in Huntington Beach have one or more housing problems, ranging from 44% to 100% by racial or ethnic group.  The highest incidence of housing problems (100%) is experienced by Pacific Islanders, representing a disproportionate need based on the CHAS data provided by HUD. However, at just 15 households, the total number of extremely low-income Pacific Islander households in Huntington Beach is minimal, representing just 0.1% of the total 9,480 extremely low-income households in the City.
 Extremely low-income Black/African American and Hispanic households meet the definition of having a disproportionately greater housing need. A total of 90% of Black/African American and 89% of Hispanic extremely low-income households have one or more of the hour housing problems, compared to 78% of all households as a whole.

Low Income (30-50% AMI)
 77% of low-income households in Huntington Beach have housing problems, ranging from 67% (American Indians) to 74% (Whites) to 82% (Hispanics) to 100% (Black/African Americans).
 Black/African American households have a disproportionate housing need in this income category; however, at only 85 households, the total number of low-income Black/African American households only represents 1% of the total households in this income group.

Moderate Income (50-80% AMI)
 59% of moderate-income households in Huntington Beach have housing problems, ranging from 31% (Pacific Islanders) to 68% (Hispanics) by racial or ethnic group.

Median Income (80-100% AMI)
 39% of all households in Huntington Beach in the median income bracket have housing problems, ranging from 32% to 60% by racial or ethnic group.  Pacific Islander households earning median incomes evidence a disproportionate housing need, with 60% experiencing one or more housing problems. At 15 households, Pacific Islander households represent only 2% of Huntington Beach's median income households.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 38

NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)

Introduction

A disproportionately greater housing need exists when the members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole. The following tables identify the presence of severe housing problems among households of differing race/ethnicities and income levels, with the analysis that follows identifying any racial/ethnic group evidencing a disproportionate housing need. The four severe housing problems are:

1) Lacks complete kitchen facilities.
2) Lacks complete plumbing facilities.
3) More than 1.5 persons per room.
4) Cost Burden over 50%.

0%-30% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems*
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 6,665 2,010 800
White 3,795 1,465 590
Black / African American 130 25 0
Asian 785 295 85
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 25 0
Pacific Islander 15 0 0
Hispanic 1,790 190 110
Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

30%-50% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems*
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 4,140 3,820 0
White 2,565 2,355 0
Black / African American 70 15 0
Asian 400 500 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 50 25 0
Pacific Islander 0 45 0
Hispanic 945 835 0
Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 39

50%-80% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems*
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 3,020 9,270 0
White 1,890 6,590 0
Black / African American 40 104 0
Asian 175 975 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 45 0
Pacific Islander 4 60 0
Hispanic 820 1,305 0
Table 21 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

80%-100% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems*
Has one or more of
four housing
problems
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none of
the other housing
problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 820 7,245 0
White 585 5,150 0
Black / African American 0 130 0
Asian 140 560 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 30 0
Pacific Islander 0 25 0
Hispanic 90 1,110 0
Table 22 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Discussion

Tables 19-22 above identify the presence of one or more severe housing problems (lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, overcrowding at > 1.5 person per room, or overpayment at > 50%) for different racial/ethnic group within a given income category. The following summarizes the results of these CHAS tables and identifies groups experiencing disproportionate housing need in Huntington Beach.

Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
 70% of all extremely low-income households in Huntington Beach experience one or more of the identified severe housing problems, ranging from 44% to 100% by racial or ethnic group.
 The highest incidence of severe housing problems (100%) is experienced by Pacific Islanders, representing a disproportionate need. However, at just 15 households, the HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 40

total number of these households in Huntington Beach is minimal, representing well under 1% of the total extremely low-income households in the City.

Low Income (30-50% AMI)
 52% of low-income households in Huntington Beach have severe housing problems, ranging from 0% (Pacific Islanders) to 82% (Black/African Americans) by racial or ethnic group.
 Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native households earning low incomes evidence a disproportionate housing need, with 82% and 66% respectively, experiencing one or more severe housing problems. At 70 households, Black/African American households represent only under 1% of Huntington Beach's low-income households. Likewise, American Indian/Alaska Native households represent under 1% of low-income households as well, at 50 households.

Moderate Income (50-80% AMI)
 25% of moderate-income households in Huntington Beach have severe housing problems, ranging from 0% to 39% by racial or ethnic group.  Hispanic households earning moderate incomes evidence a disproportionate housing need, with 39% experiencing one or more housing problems. At 820 households, Hispanic households represent 7% of Huntington Beach's moderate-income households.

Median Income (80-100% AMI)
 10% of median-income households in Huntington Beach experience severe housing problems, ranging from 0% to 20% by racial or ethnic group.  Median income Asian households represent a disproportionate need, with 20% experiencing severe housing problems. Asian households represent under 2% of all households in this income category.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 41

NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2)

Introduction

Housing Cost Burden
Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50%
No / negative
income (not
computed)
Jurisdiction as a whole 47,850 14,430 13,580 840
White 34,795 10,000 8,830 590
Black / African American 440 195 185 0
Asian 5,370 1,525 1,530 90
American Indian, Alaska
Native 190 35 55 0
Pacific Islander 95 90 15 0
Hispanic 5,740 2,240 2,715 135
Table 23 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Discussion

A disproportionately greater housing need exists when the members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole. Table 23 above identifies cost burden for each racial and ethnic group earning up to 100% AMI in Huntington Beach, including no cost burden (<30% income towards housing), cost burden (30-50%), severe cost burden (>50%), and not computed due to no/negative income. According to the CHAS data on which this table is based, 19% of Huntington Beach 0- 100% AMI households experience a cost burden, with an additional 18% experiencing a severe cost burden. In comparison with this citywide average, only one racial/ethnicity group – Pacific Islanders - experience disproportionate housing cost burdens. However, with a total of just 90 Pacific Islander households (earning 0-100% AMI) identified as residing in Huntington Beach by the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS), combined with the sampling methodology utilized by the ACS, the results for such a small sample size are less than statistically significant.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 42

NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2)

Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole?

The analysis of housing problems and severe housing problems in sections NA-15 and NA-20 identify Hispanic, Asian, African American, Pacific Islander, and American Indian households as evidencing a disproportionate housing need. Tables 24A and 24B below identify the specific income categories among these racial groups where disproportionate need is apparent:

Income
Category
% Households with Housing Problems
(# Households with Housing Problems)
Citywide Hispanic Asian African
American
Pacific
Islander
American
Indian
0-30% 78%
9,480
89%
1,865 -- 90%
140
100%
15 --
30-50% 77%
6,100
-- -- 100%
85 -- --
50-80% 59%
7,215
-- -- -- -- --
80-100% 39%
3,145
-- -- -- 32%
380 --
Table 24A – Housing Problems: Greater Disproportionate Need

Income
Category
% Households with Severe Housing Problems
(# Households with Severe Housing Problems)
Citywide Hispanic Asian African
American
Pacific
Islander
American
Indian
0-30% 70%
9,475
86%
1,790 -- 84%
130
100%
15 --
30-50% 52%
7,960 -- -- 82%
70 -- 66%
50 50-80% 25%
12,290
39%
820 -- -- -- --
80-100% 10%
8,065 -- 20%
140 -- -- --
Table 24B – Severe Housing Problems: Greater Disproportionate Need

As illustrated in the above tables, the actual number of households within the Asian, Pacific Islander, African American and American Indian racial groups identified by the HUD CHAS data as experiencing disproportionate housing problems is extremely limited. As previously mentioned, given this small number of households, combined with the sampling methodology utilized by the American Community Survey, the results in such a small sample size are less than statistically significant.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 43

In contrast, disproportionate housing needs among low- and moderate-income Hispanic households are evident in Huntington Beach, particularly for those households of extremely-low income.

If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs?

Not applicable.

Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community?

A minority concentration is defined as a census block group with greater than the City average of minority population (20%). Figure 6 (located in Appendix B) depicts minority concentrations in Huntington Beach. Under this definition, seven census block groups are identified as having a concentration of minorities. The majority of these areas are located in the area bound by Bolsa Avenue on the north, Talbert Avenue to the south, Goldenwest Street to the west and Newland Street to the east. Four of the seven census tracts correspond to the City's low- and moderate- income areas (refer to Figure 2).

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 44

NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b)

Introduction

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, formerly called the Section 8 program, is HUD’s largest program that helps low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled find affordable decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Participants receive federally subsidized vouchers that they can use to rent the home or apartment of their choosing, provided that it meets the requirements of the program and agreement of the landlord. The funding assistance is provided to the family or individual, the voucher holder, and can move with the family or individual rather than being tied to the property or unit.

The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) is the local public agency providing Housing Choice Vouchers within Huntington Beach. According to a special data run conducted by OCHA for the City, as of February 2025, there were a total of 628 Huntington Beach households receiving tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers; 85 of these were Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers, 39 were Continuum of Care Vouchers, 16 were Family Self-Sufficiency Vouchers, and 24 were Family Unification Vouchers. Elderly households comprise 61% of the City’s Section 8 recipients (381 households), indicative of several large senior housing complexes with significant numbers of Section 8 tenants. The City also has a significant number of disabled households receiving Section 8 (116 households), although many of these households are also likely to be seniors. There are no public housing projects located within Huntington Beach.

Totals in Use
Program Type
Certificate
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total
Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of units
vouchers
in use
0 0 0 628 0 628 85 26 116
Table 25 - Public Housing by Program Type
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Characteristics of Residents

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 45

Program Type
Certificate
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total
Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Average Annual
Income 0 0 0 16,476 0 16,470 17,239 15,594
Average length
of stay 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 4
Average
Household size 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 3
# Homeless at
admission 0 0 0 87 0 5 72 10
# of Elderly
Program
Participants
(>62)
0 0 0 4,926 0 4,884 38 3
# of Disabled
Families 0 0 0 2,163 0 2,075 64 14
# of Families
requesting
accessibility
features
0 0 0 10,825 0 10,418 187 207
# of HIV/AIDS
program
participants
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 26 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type

Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Race of Residents
Program Type
Race
Certificate
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total
Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
White 0 0 0 5,857 0 5,528 139 182 6
Black/African
American 0 0 0 745 0 693 39 10 2
Asian 0 0 0 4,128 0 4,107 4 15 2
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
0 0 0 64 0 60 4 0 0
Pacific
Islander 0 0 0 31 0 30 1 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 46

*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 27 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Ethnicity of Residents
Program Type
Ethnicity Certificate
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total
Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
Hispanic 0 0 0 1,941 0 1,814 34 87 4
Not
Hispanic 0 0 0 8,884 0 8,604 153 120 6
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 27 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 47

Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units:

Not Applicable, as there is no public housing in Huntington Beach and OCHA does not have a public housing program.

Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders

The most immediate need of residents with Housing Choice Vouchers is available, affordable rental units that fall within the rent levels of HUD's Fair Market Rents.

How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large

High rents and low vacancy rates in Orange County effect the population at large, not just low and extremely low- income residents. The increase in home prices has led to a decline in housing affordability, contributing to additional demand for rental housing.

Discussion

The impact of the high cost of rentals and low vacancy rates is evidenced in the increase in renter overpayment over the past decade. The 2016-20 American Community Survey (ACS) documents 46% of all Huntington Beach renters spend greater than 30% of their income on rent, compared to 38% in 2000. Furthermore, the ACS documents 8% of Huntington Beach's population as below the poverty level. These conditions have contributed to a lengthy waiting list for housing assistance, both for Housing Choice Vouchers from OCHA, tenant based rental assistance offered through the City, and for occupancy within the affordable rental projects within the City.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 48

NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)

Introduction

Homelessness has become an increasingly urgent challenge across the United States, particularly in the Los Angeles and Orange County regions. A variety of factors contribute to this rise, including the lack of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income individuals, a growing number of people living below the poverty line, reductions in public assistance programs, substance abuse issues, the de-institutionalization of individuals with mental illness, and, in some cases, an increase in people who choose homelessness as a lifestyle.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates that all Continuum of Care jurisdictions conduct a biennial unsheltered count and an annual sheltered count to measure homelessness on a single night during the last ten days of January. For 2024, Orange County’s Sheltered Point in Time (PIT) Count was held on the night of Monday, January 22, 2024, with demographic data collected from all emergency shelter and transitional housing programs throughout the county. The Unsheltered PIT Count took place over three days, from Tuesday, January 23, to Thursday, January 25, 2024, to ensure that the county’s 800-square-mile jurisdiction was thoroughly canvassed. With improvements in the PIT process, methodology, and data quality—thanks to the use of GIS technology—the results from the 2019, 2022, and now 2024 counts offer the most accurate representation of Orange County’s homeless population to date. It is important to note that the PIT Count not only involves a physical tally of those experiencing homelessness but also includes a formula to estimate the total number of homeless individuals.

The 2024 PIT Count identified 7,322 homeless individuals in Orange County, representing a substantial 28% increase from the 2022 count, which recorded 5,718 individuals. In Huntington Beach specifically, the count found 433 homeless individuals—173 of whom were unsheltered and 260 sheltered. This marks an increase from the 2022 figures, which reported a total of 330 homeless individuals: 188 unsheltered and 142 sheltered. Pinpointing the exact cause of the increase is a challenge given the number of variables that could influence the fluctuation of the numbers. The County does know, however, that certain resources existed in 2022 that did not exist during the 2024 PIT Count. Some of those include:

 The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA). Approximately $300 million in rental assistance was awarded by the County and state to Orange County residents to prevent evictions due to COVID-19.

 The Eviction Moratorium pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic was still in effect; the moratorium ended on May 31, 2022.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 49

While the 2024 Point-in-Time Count report provides specific demographic information about the homeless population for the entire County, data for Huntington Beach specifically is limited.

If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth):

Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional)
Race Sheltered Unsheltered
American Indian, Alaskan Native, or Indigenous 36 75
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 91 28 Asian or Asian American 103 164
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 8 7
Black, African American, or African 329 223
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 13 7 Hispanic/Latino/e/o 37 1509
Middle Eastern or North African 1 40
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 0 2 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 53 45
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 12 5 White 1,120 1,772
White & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 1,275 205
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/Latino/e/o 20 14
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/Latino/e/o 51 77
TOTAL 3,149 4,173
Ethnicity Sheltered Unsheltered
Hispanic/Latino/e/o 1,456 1,777
Not Hispanic/Latino/e/o 1,693 2,396
Notes: Race and ethnicity categories have been combined and expanded to align with HUD guidance for race and ethnicity reporting.

Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans.

Individuals and families experiencing homelessness have diverse needs, which can range from medical care, job training, childcare, mental health services, credit counseling, and substance abuse treatment to English language education. Homeless families, in particular, may require housing that accommodates their unique needs, such as sufficient space for family members, affordable childcare, and support through counseling and life skills training.

According to the 2024 PIT Count, Orange County's homeless population includes 1,128 people in 347 families with at least one adult and one minor. Of these families, 291 (representing 948 people, including 362 adults and 586 children) were sheltered, which accounts for 84 percent of the total homeless families. Given that Huntington Beach constitutes six percent of the county’s

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 50

homeless population, it is estimated that approximately 68 individuals in 21 families within Huntington Beach may require housing assistance.

For veterans, specific family data is unavailable for the 328 counted in the county. However, applying the same six percent estimate suggests that about 20 veterans in Huntington Beach may also need housing assistance.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.

The 2024 Point-In-Time Count provides an analysis of the racial and ethnic composition of the homeless population in Orange County. The data indicates that Hispanic individuals account for 56% of this population, followed by White individuals at 39%, Black individuals at 8%, Asian individuals at 4%, American Indian/Alaska Native individuals at 2%, and multi-racial individuals at 2%. This reveals a notable overrepresentation of Hispanic and Black/African American groups within the homeless demographic compared to their respective proportions in the general population, where Hispanics comprise 20% and Black/African Americans less than 2%.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.

The 2024 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count reported that Huntington Beach had an estimated 173 unsheltered homeless individuals and 260 sheltered individuals, accounting for 40% and 60%, respectively, of the total homeless population in the area. In contrast, approximately 57% of the total homeless population of 7,322 in Orange County were unsheltered. This suggests a lower incidence of unsheltered homelessness in Huntington Beach compared to the county overall. This difference may be attributed to the presence of the City’s Navigation Center and a Homekey Program site in the city, which was functioning as an emergency shelter at the time of the count.

This Homekey Program site is in the process of transitioning to permanent housing.

Discussion

The data collected from the Orange County 2024 PIT describing 7,322 homeless persons within Orange County, coupled with a 2024 Continuum of Care housing inventory count showing a total of 9,812 total year-round emergency, transitional, and permanent beds/units for homeless persons Orange County suggests the overall need for additional housing for homeless has been met, though not by type of housing. The prevalence of health-related conditions such as substance abuse, mental health, alcoholism, and other issues experienced by homeless persons also suggest a need for public services to assist with these conditions. Public outreach to housing and homeless service providers conducted in support of the Consolidated Plan echoes this need.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 51

NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d)

Introduction

Certain segments of the population may have greater difficulty finding adequate and affordable housing due to their unique special needs and circumstances. Such circumstances range from fixed incomes to limited mobility to the need for supportive services. The groups that categorically fall under special needs are the elderly and frail elderly, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS, and persons with substance abuse problems. These groups represent a significant part of Huntington Beach's population, and efforts must be made to ensure that decent, affordable and accessible housing is available to all such special needs populations.

Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:

Elderly
The elderly and frail elderly special needs population (age 65 and above) comprise approximately 39,110 residents in Huntington Beach (20%), reflecting a slightly greater proportion of seniors in comparison with Orange County (17%) and California as a whole (16%). Over 47% of Huntington Beach’s seniors are 75 years of age and above, a population, which may require more supportive housing options as they age and tend to become more frail. Some of the more pressing housing needs of Huntington Beach’s seniors include:

 Rental affordability. Rising rents are a particular concern due to the fact that most seniors are on fixed incomes. Of Huntington Beach’s approximately 7,495 senior renter households, 70% are low and moderate income (<80% AMI), with 42% low income (<50% AMI). Market rents in Huntington Beach are well beyond the level affordable to low- and moderate-income households, as confirmed by the Census which documents 45% of the City’s low/mod income senior renters spending more than half their incomes on rent.

 Disabilities. The Census identifies approximately 32% of Huntington Beach’s seniors as having one or more disabilities, encompassing physical, sensory and mental disabilities, as well as conditions that limit the senior’s ability to leave their home. Combined with the significant number of older seniors (age 75+) indicates a large segment of the senior population that may require various levels of housing support.

 Housing maintenance. Huntington Beach has approximately 22,000 senior homeowners.

As these homeowners age, many may be unable to maintain their homes or perform minor repairs. The installation of grab bars and other assistance devices may be necessary to enhance accessibility.

Addressing the diverse housing needs of Huntington Beach’s senior population will require strategies which foster independent living (such as home accessibility improvements, second

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 52

units, rehabilitation assistance), as well as strategies that encourage the provision of a variety of supportive living environments for seniors of all income levels.

Persons with Disabilities
The 2016-2020 ACS identifies 22,698 Huntington Beach residents as having one or more disabilities, representing 12% of the City’s population. About one-third of these adult residents are unable to live independently. The ACS documents the presence of following types of disabilities among Huntington Beach’s disabled residents:
 Ambulatory – 42%
 Cognitive – 40%
 Hearing – 29%
 Vision – 14%

Of the City’s senior population, 32% suffer from a disability. As Huntington Beach’s population continues to age, the number of residents with disabilities will also increase.

Victims of Domestic Violence
Individuals fleeing domestic violence are generally women and children. It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of domestic violence, as many victims do not call the police or seek services. Women between the ages of 18 and 44 are at an increased risk for domestic violence, with lower-income and immigrant women particularly vulnerable to abuse. This group needs transitional housing with counseling and supportive services.

Persons with HIV/AIDS
Persons with HIV/AIDS are considered a special needs group due to their need for affordable housing, health care, counseling and other supportive services. The Orange County Health Care Agency tracks HIV/AIDS cases and reports 266 newly diagnosed HIV cases in 2023 in Orange County. Among the top give cities impacted by new HIV cases include Santa Ana (60), Anaheim (41), Orange (18), Graden Grove (17), Costa Mesa (17), and Irvine (14). Short-term housing needs for persons with AIDS – many of whom face homelessness - may include hospice facilities, shelters or transitional housing. Long term needs include affordable housing near public transportation and health care facilities.

Alcohol/Other Drug Abuse
According to the National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics, one in ten Americans over the age of 12 suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder. In California, excessive alcohol use is responsible for an average of 15,443 deaths annually. Similarly, about half of individuals aged 12 and older in the United States have used illicit drugs at least once. Drug use is most prevalent among individuals aged 18 to 25, with 39% reporting use, compared to 34% of those aged 26 to 29. In California, an average of 6,198 drug overdoses occur each year, and approximately 2.31% of all deaths in the state are attributed to drug overdose, a figure that has increased by 10.37% over the past three years.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 53

Individuals struggling with drug and alcohol addictions often require a supportive living environment to break the cycle of substance abuse. Supportive housing for individuals with substance use disorders typically includes transitional housing programs that offer counseling, job training, and other resources to facilitate recovery. The County is the primary funding source for these types of programs, helping to provide the necessary services for those in need.

What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined?

Housing and service needs are addressed under each group heading in the prior section. The housing needs of persons with disabilities is further elaborated on below.

Persons with Disabilities
Some people with disabilities may live comfortably without special housing accommodations, but persons with physical and/or sensory disabilities often require specially designed, barrier-free housing that allows freedom of movement not only to and from the housing unit, but also within the unit itself. Special modifications to permit free access are very important in maintaining independence. The California Code of Regulations Title 24 requirements set forth access and adaptability requirements for the disabled population. These regulations apply to public buildings and require that ramps, larger door widths, restroom modifications, and other special facilities be incorporated into building designs. However, these standards are not mandatory for new single-family residential construction. Therefore, conventional housing may require modification to ensure its suitability for occupancy by a disabled person.

The City has a well-defined Reasonable Accommodation procedure that ensures individuals with disabilities are protected. Specifically, Chapter 17.77 – Reasonable Accommodation Procedures of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) provides an application process and review requirements for a Reasonable Accommodation request from the City’s zoning and land use regulations, policies, and practices when necessary to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Chapter 17.77 ensures that reasonable accommodation requests are processed efficiently without imposing costs on the applicant. The City does not assess a fee for reasonable accommodation requests and does not require a public hearing. The administrative approval of reasonable accommodations is an objective decision- making process. The findings the City must make to provide a reasonable accommodation are based on the objective need to provide an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 54

Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area:

As reported in the Orange County Health Care Agency HIV/AIDS Surveillance Program’s 2023 HIV Fact Sheet, by the end of 2023, there were 7,044 individuals living with HIV disease in Orange County. Among these individuals, 266 (or 4%) were newly diagnosed with HIV in 2023, highlighting ongoing challenges in both prevention and treatment.

The demographic profile of those living with HIV in the county reflects a significant gender disparity, with the majority (78%) of individuals being male. Ethnically, the population is predominantly Hispanic and White, accounting for 51% and 31% of cases, respectively. Asians make up 11% of those living with HIV, and African Americans represent 6% of the population.

This distribution points to specific communities that may face unique challenges in terms of access to care, education, and prevention efforts.

When examining age distribution, the largest group of individuals diagnosed with HIV in 2023 were between the ages of 26 and 35, comprising 33% of new diagnoses. The next largest age groups were individuals aged 36 to 45 years (25%) and 19 to 25 years (18%). Individuals aged 46 to 55 years made up 14% of new diagnoses, while those 56 years and older accounted for 9%.

This age distribution underscores the ongoing need for targeted HIV prevention and treatment strategies, particularly among younger populations, while also addressing the needs of older individuals who may face different health challenges related to living with HIV.

This data highlights the importance of continuing efforts to provide comprehensive care, support, and education for individuals living with HIV, while also addressing the specific needs of different demographic groups within the county.

If the PJ will establish a preference for a HOME TBRA activity for persons with a specific category of disabilities (e.g., persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic mental illness), describe their unmet need for housing and services needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by such persons. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2) (ii))

Not applicable. The City of Huntington Beach administers HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) programs designed to provide crucial support for individuals and families facing housing instability. These programs are specifically targeted to assist homeless individuals, those at risk of homelessness, veterans, victims of domestic violence, families with children, and seniors. The HOME TBRA programs offer rental assistance to help eligible participants secure safe and stable housing while also providing case management and support services to facilitate long-term housing stability. By offering temporary financial assistance and resources, the City aims to prevent homelessness, reduce the risk of eviction, and help vulnerable populations transition into stable, independent living situations. These efforts are essential in addressing the unique challenges faced by these groups, including limited income, high housing costs, and the need for additional supportive services.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 55

Discussion

There is a small but significant population of non-homeless special needs persons in the City.

Particular attention should be paid to elderly and disabled populations. Seniors 65 and over make up 20% of Huntington Beach's population. It’s notable that the elderly population in the City is higher compared to the proportion of seniors in Orange County (17%) and the State as a whole (16%). In addition, among Huntington Beach's 7,500 senior renter households, nearly three- quarters are low and moderate income. This population is particularly vulnerable to rent increases as the majority are on fixed incomes.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 56

NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f)

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:

The City of Huntington Beach is home to a wide array of public facilities designed to serve the diverse needs of its residents. These amenities include five libraries, 79 parks covering nearly 767 acres with 190 playgrounds, a gym and pool facility, three clubhouses, a nature center, a golf club, a senior center, three community centers, a civic center, an art center, an International Surf Museum, and a community college. Additionally, the City is fortunate to have 208 acres of public beach and a 98-acre public golf course, providing recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike.

However, despite these extensive resources, many of the City’s public facilities are aging and require significant repair and modernization. Key infrastructure assets such as the Civic Center, fire stations, libraries, and community centers are facing a range of critical issues, including water intrusion, failing HVAC systems, and outdated electrical infrastructure. Years of underfunding have led to deferred maintenance, creating safety risks and limiting the effectiveness of these facilities. To ensure the continued delivery of essential services and protect public safety, the City must prioritize investment in upgrades, secure additional funding, and adopt sustainable, modern infrastructure practices.

The City’s 2024 Infrastructure Report Card outlines a number of immediate, near-term, and long- term facility needs. Among the most urgent are the Main Street Library HVAC installation project, critical repairs to police and fire stations throughout the City, and necessary improvements to the Oak View Library, Oak View Family Resource Center, Central Library, and playground improvements at 9th Street and Lagenbeck Parks.

To address these challenges, the City follows a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which serves as a strategic guide for future facility and infrastructure investments. The City’s 2023/24 – 2027/28 CIP identifies citywide facility ADA improvements that could potentially utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding over the next five years. Many of the City’s public facilities require significant accessibility improvements to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These improvements may involve the removal of architectural barriers and updates to restrooms, doors and doorways, signage, and paths of travel to ensure greater accessibility for all residents.

By investing in these critical facility projects, the City of Huntington Beach aims to ensure that its public facilities continue to serve the needs of its residents safely and effectively for years to come.

How were these needs determined?

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 57

The City of Huntington Beach’s Capital Improvement Program forecasts capital needs over a five- year period based on various long-range plans, goals, and policies. The plan presents a comprehensive listing of planned and projected capital project needs which have been identified by City staff for the five-year planning period. The CIP document includes both new projects and upgrades to existing facilities.

Needs were also determined in the City’s 2024 Infrastructure Report Card which offers an evaluation of 13 infrastructure subcategories, including public facilities and parks, and aim to highlight strengths and urgent challenges while creating a long-term plan for a resilient Huntington Beach. While Huntington Beach benefits from adequate services in areas like parks, the pier and plaza, and roads, several systems—including stormwater, wastewater, and city facilities—are aging and approaching the end of their useful life. Of particular concern are the rehabilitation of City facilities, alleys, and pump stations, which have been identified as critical objectives requiring immediate attention to prevent service disruptions and safety risks.

Finally, a Housing and Community Development survey was available during the development of this Con Plan. Of the 334 surveys collected, respondents ranked parks and playgrounds, community/neighborhood facilities, and childcare/youth facilities as the top three facility needs in Huntington Beach.

Funds for capital improvement projects are provided mainly from Infrastructure Funds, however, some projects, particularly those involving sidewalk, curb, and gutter construction in enhancement areas, community center renovations, and citywide ADA improvements, can be funded with CDBG funds.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:

Infrastructure improvements cover such issues as upgrades or expansion of streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, sewer and drainage systems, and streetlights, and are in general an eligible expenditure for CDBG funds within low and moderate-income areas. Most of Huntington Beach’s low- and moderate-income neighborhoods are older, and many contain aging infrastructure. The City’s CIP has identified ADA ramp repairs and installation to be funded with CDBG funding in the next five years. CDBG funds will be allocated for the repair, design, and construction of ADA ramps throughout Huntington Beach, enhancing accessibility across key public spaces and ensuring that residents with mobility challenges have equal access to the City's services and facilities.

How were these needs determined?

The City’s Capital Improvements Plan identifies infrastructure and public improvements to be undertaken in Huntington Beach from 2023/24 to 2027/28. The City has generally relied on a variety of other non-CDBG funding sources to pay for infrastructure improvements, and is actively addressing water, sewer, storm drain and street deficiencies through ongoing projects.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 58

Nonetheless, the City may direct CDBG funds towards infrastructure improvements in low- and moderate-income enhancement neighborhoods as needed.

The Consolidated Plan Housing and Community Development Needs Survey, completed by 334 households in Huntington Beach identified sidewalk improvements, bicycle and walking paths, street and alley improvements, and tree planning/beautification as the most critical community development needs in Huntington Beach.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:

Huntington Beach is home to a diverse range of special needs populations, as well as numerous low- and moderate-income households, all of which have distinct public service needs.

Consultation with community residents and social service providers, conducted as part of this Consolidated Plan, has led to the identification of several critical service needs within the City.

These needs are essential to supporting the well-being of vulnerable groups and enhancing overall community health and resilience. The following key service areas were highlighted:

1. Homeless Services: Addressing the needs of the homeless population, including services tailored to homeless youth, mental health care, case management, and wraparound services that offer comprehensive support.

2. Senior Services: Providing resources for homebound seniors, offering home modification assistance, ensuring access to nutrition resources, and providing respite for caregivers to support aging residents.

3. Healthcare and Mental Health Services: Expanding access to mental health services, substance abuse treatment, healthcare specifically for seniors, and drug and alcohol education to foster improved health outcomes for residents.

4. Financial Support Services: General support services that provide additional financial resources to assist individuals and families in need.

5. Disability Services: Offering resources for persons with disabilities, including assistive technology and other tools to support independence and enhance quality of life for individuals with disabilities.

6. Affordable Childcare: Access to affordable childcare services that enable families to work and maintain financial stability while ensuring quality care for their children.

7. Youth Services: Providing recreational and sports programs to engage young people, promoting physical activity, teamwork, and social skills development.

Additionally, the Housing and Community Development Needs Survey revealed that the most urgent needs identified by residents included anti-crime efforts, homelessness prevention, and services for victims of domestic violence (for further details, see Appendix C).

The City of Huntington Beach, along with local nonprofit organizations, offers a wide range of services to address the needs of low- and moderate-income residents, as well as those with special needs such as persons with disabilities and the homeless. The City actively supports the delivery of these essential services through its Community Services and Police Departments,

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 59

alongside its ongoing partnership with public service providers, ensuring a coordinated and effective response to the community’s most pressing challenges.

How were these needs determined?

Consultation with social service providers actively engaged in the Huntington Beach area, coupled with the distribution of a comprehensive Housing and Community Development Needs Survey, has resulted in valuable and detailed input regarding the needs of the diverse populations they serve. This feedback has been instrumental in identifying critical areas of concern and in shaping a clear understanding of the challenges facing these communities. Additionally, the Community Development Department has played a vital role by offering crucial guidance in prioritizing public service needs, ensuring that resources and efforts are strategically directed toward the most pressing issues. This collaborative approach ensures that both community needs and departmental objectives are aligned, fostering a more effective and responsive strategy for addressing housing and social service challenges in Huntington Beach.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 60

HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
MA-05 Overview

Housing Market Analysis Overview

Table 28 presents the City's housing unit mix, as reported in the 2016-2020 ACS. The City has approximately 81,840 housing units, reflecting a net increase of about 2,679 units over the past 10 years. The mix of housing types in Huntington Beach has remained relatively stable over the past two decades, with 60% of units being single-family homes and 36% being multi-family units.

Additionally, the City has 18 mobile home parks, containing approximately 3,290 mobile home units, which make up 4% of the City's total housing stock.

Housing tenure refers to whether a housing unit is owned, rented, or vacant. It serves as a key indicator of the housing climate within a community, reflecting the relative affordability of housing and residents' ability to access housing opportunities. Tenure also influences residential mobility, with owner-occupied units generally experiencing lower turnover rates compared to rental housing. According to the 2016-2020 ACS (Table 29), 54% of Huntington Beach's households are homeowners, while 41% are renters. Over the past two decades, owner occupancy has slightly declined in the City. This trend can be partly attributed to the increasing cost of homeownership and the development of multi-family housing designed to maximize the use of residentially zoned land.

Another important characteristic of the City's housing supply is unit size in relation to the number of bedrooms. Large households, defined as those with five or more members, create a demand for units with three or more bedrooms. The 2016-2020 ACS identifies 8,430 rental units in Huntington Beach with three or more bedrooms, which generally aligns with the needs of the City's 5,592 large renter households. While it may seem that there is a sufficient supply of large rental units, many of these units are likely single-family homes, which may not be affordable for renters.

Regarding single-person households, approximately 25% of the City's renters are one-person households, yet only 4% of the rental stock consists of studio units (without a bedroom).

Although one-bedroom units account for an additional 24% of rental housing in Huntington Beach, the high rental prices make these units unaffordable for many single individuals.

The vacancy rate is a key indicator of overall housing availability within a community and often reflects how well the current supply of for-sale and rental housing meets demand. A vacancy rate of 5% for rental housing and 2% for ownership housing is typically regarded as healthy, indicating a balance between housing supply and demand. According to the 2020 Census, the residential vacancy rate in Huntington Beach was 1.2% for ownership units, signaling a limited supply of homes on the market. For rental housing, the 2020 Census reported a vacancy rate of 2.6%, which is significantly below the healthy rate of 5%. Moreover, the City’s August 2024 Multi-Family

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 61

Submarket Report by CoStar Group, a company specializing in real estate information and analytics, documented a multi-family rental vacancy rate of 3.2% for the Huntington Beach/Seal Beach area. This report suggests that the Huntington Beach multi-family vacancy rate is declining due to insufficient supply growth. Additionally, a recent survey conducted in February 2025 on the California Regional Multiple Listing System (CRMLS) indicated only 165 available rental units in Huntington Beach, with prices ranging from $1,495 per month for a 300-square-foot unit to $35,000 per month for a nearly 6,800-square-foot harbor front property.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 62

MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2)

Introduction

All residential properties by number of units
Property Type Number %
1-unit detached structure 39,030 48%
1-unit, attached structure 9,445 12%
2-4 units 10,965 13%
5-19 units 8,400 10%
20 or more units 10,710 13%
Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc 3,290 4%
Total 81,840 100%
Table 28 – Residential Properties by Unit Number
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
No bedroom 260 1% 1,465 4%
1 bedroom 1,255 3% 8,170 24%
2 bedrooms 6,930 16% 15,575 46%
3 or more bedrooms 35,500 81% 8,430 25%
Total 43,945 101% 33,640 99%
Table 29 – Unit Size by Tenure
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs.

As presented in the Affordable Rental Housing Table below, Huntington Beach currently has 2,459 deed-restricted affordable units. Approximately 20 percent (502 units) of these affordable units are for senior citizens, with the remainder available to family households. This inventory includes all multi-family units assisted under federal, state, and local programs, including HUD, state/local bond programs, density bonus, inclusionary, and former redevelopment programs.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 63

Project Name
Tenant
Type
Total
Units
Affordable
Units
Potential Conversion
Date
American Family Housing
7802 Barton Drive Family 4 4 Very Low 2029
Avalon Huntington Beach (Lofts)
7400 Center Avenue Family 384 39 Moderate 2070
Beach and Ocean Apartments
19891 Beach Boulevard Family 173 17 Moderate 2070
Beach Grove Apartments (Bridges)
16851 Nichols Lane Family 80 80 Low 2027
Beachview Villa Apartments
8102 Ellis Avenue Family 106 47 Very Low
59 Low n/a
Boardwalk by Windsor
7461 Edinger Avenue Family 487 10 Very Low
47 Moderate 2070
Breakwater
16761 Viewpoint Lane Family 402 135 Low
267 Moderate 2036-2051
Colette’s Children’s Home III
17432-17442 Keelson Lane Family 10 4 Very Low
6 Low 2068
Elan
18504 Beach Boulevard Family 274 110 Low
164 Moderate 2036-2051
Hermosa Vista Apartments
15363 & 15425 Goldenwest Street Family 88 26 Very Low
62 Low 2063
Huntington Pointe
18992 Florida Street Family 104 21 Very Low
83 Low 2061
Huntington Villa Yorba
16000 Villa Yorba Lane Family 192 192 Very Low n/a
Luce Apartments
7290 Edinger Avenue Family 510 8 Low
43 Moderate 2073
Main Place Apartments
7305 Luna Family 29 26 Low 2033
Newman Avenue
7912 Newman Avenue Family 13 1 Very Low
1 Low 2066
O.C. Community Housing – 11th Street
313 11th Street Family 9 9 Very Low 2034
O.C. Community Housing – Barton
7792 Barton Lane Family 4 2 Very Low
2 Low 2072
O.C. Community Housing – Koledo I
17361 & 17371 Koledo Lane Family 10 10 Very Low 2060
O.C. Community Housing – Koledo II
17351 & 17291 Koledo Lane Family 8 8 Very Low 2060
O.C. Community Housing – Koledo III
17401 & 17432 Koledo Lane Family 10 10 Very Low 2060
O.C. Community Housing – Koledo IV
17411 & 17421 Koledo Lane Family 10 10 Very Low 2060
O.C. Community Housing – Koledo V
17412 Koledo Lane Family 5 5 Very Low 2060
O.C. Community Housing – Queens
17422 & 17432 Queens Family 8 8 Very Low 2027
Oakview Apartments
17362 Jacqueline Lane Family 4 4 Very Low 2067
Oakview Apartments
17362 Koledo Lane Family 5 5 Very Low 2067

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 64

Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.

In return for public assistance, the developer/owners of affordable housing developments are typically required to make the units affordable to lower income households for a specified period of time contingent on the requirements of individual funding programs or city incentives (such as density bonus).

Oakview Apartments
17372 Koledo Lane Family 5 4 Very Low
1 Low 2066
Oakview Apartments
17442 Koledo Lane Family 5 5 Very Low 2067
Oceana Apartments
18151 Beach Boulevard Family 77
8 Ext. Low
24 Very Low
45 Low
2027
Ocean Aire Apartments
7811 Talbert Avenue Family 65
3 Low
18 Median
44 Moderate
2068
Pacific Court Apartments
2200 Delaware Street Family 48 23 Very Low
24 Low 2069
Pacific Sun Apartments
(Colette’s Children’s Home)
17452, 17462, 17472 Keelson Lane
Family 6 6 Very Low 2062
Regency Apartments
1345-1365 Delaware Family 30 3 Low 2073
Residences at Bella Terra
7521 Edinger Avenue Family 467 28 Very Low
43 Moderate 2072
Residences at Pacific City
21060 Pacific City Circle Family 516 51 Moderate 2026
Sea Aire Apartments
725, 729, 733 Utica Family 36 36 Low 2026
Sher Lane Apartments
16112 Sher Lane Family 66 33 Very Low
33 Low 2028
Bowen Court
1978 Lake Street Senior 20 20 Very Low 2062
Emerald Cove Senior Apartments
18191 Parktree Circle Senior 162 114 Very Low
48 Low 2070
Five Points Senior Apartments
18561 Floria Street Senior 164 33 Very Low
15 Moderate 2026
Fountain Glen at Seacliff
7181 Garden Glen Court Senior 271 55 Very Low
25 Low 2062
Huntington Gardens
18765 Florida Street Senior 183 183 Very Low n/a
Pelican Harbor
18431 Beach Boulevard Senior 42
33 Extremely
Low
9 Very Low
2084
TOTALS 2,459 units

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 65

Upon expiration of a project’s affordability controls, the affordable units are at risk of being sold or converted to market rate housing. As documented in the City's Affordable Rental Housing Table above, the City has 293 deed-restricted affordable units that are at risk of conversion to market rates during the 2025-2029 Con Plan period. This includes 48 senior units and 245 family units.

Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population?

The available housing units do not meet the needs of low-income City residents, as evidenced by the high rates of housing overpayment discussed in the following section on the Cost of Housing (MA-15).

Describe the need for specific types of housing:

The following types of housing are not being provided for in the market without some level of public assistance:
 Rental housing affordable to extremely low-, low- and moderate-income households.  Rental housing with three or more bedrooms affordable to low- and moderate-income large households (5+ members).
 Studio rental units affordable to low- and moderate-income single person households.  Homeownership housing affordable to the moderate- and middle-income workforce.  Affordable, accessible housing for persons living with disabilities.  Permanent supportive housing for persons with special needs, including homeless individuals and families, persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families, transition age (emancipated foster care) youth, persons with chronic mental illness, and others.

Discussion

The City of Huntington Beach utilizes a diverse range of funding sources for housing development, rehabilitation, tenant-based rental assistance, and services for special needs and at-risk populations. However, the overall funding available to the City is limited, and it can take several years to accumulate sufficient resources for housing projects. Some funding sources, such as the remaining housing successor funds from the dissolution of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, have been allocated to the Homekey Program project for major renovation/construction of "The Oasis" at 17251 Beach Boulevard.

The City’s primary funding source for affordable housing is the federal HOME program, though unfortunately, these funds have been steadily reduced each year. Over the past five years, the City has directed its HOME funds toward a significant affordable senior housing project, Pelican Harbor at 18431 Beach Boulevard consisting of 43 units, nine of which are HOME-restricted.

Additionally, the City has supported several tenant-based rental assistance programs, which have provided housing opportunities for homeless individuals, those at risk of homelessness, seniors, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. These programs have not only facilitated access to

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 66

housing but have also provided essential support services to promote self-sufficiency and independence.

As federal HOME funds continue to decline, the City will increasingly rely on alternative funding sources, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, to finance future affordable housing initiatives.

In this context, the City must also advocate for legislative changes that would secure increased funding for affordable housing.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 67

MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a)

Introduction

Many housing challenges, such as overcrowding and cost burden, are directly linked to the cost of housing within a community. When housing costs are high in relation to household income, the prevalence of housing issues tends to be significantly higher. This section examines the affordability of housing in Huntington Beach for lower and moderate-income households.

Cost of Housing
Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change
Median Home Value 642,900 803,400 25%
Median Contract Rent 1,535 1,881 23%
Table 30 – Cost of Housing
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year)

Rent Paid Number %
Less than $500 1,725 5.1%
$500-999 1,020 3.0%
$1,000-1,499 4,755 14.1%
$1,500-1,999 12,765 37.9%
$2,000 or more 13,390 39.8%
Total 33,655 100.0%
Table 31 - Rent Paid
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Housing Affordability
Number of Units
affordable to Households
earning
Renter Owner
Units Households Units Households
30% HAMFI 1,410 6,500 No Data 4,210
50% HAMFI 2,945 4,765 1,245 4,205
80% HAMFI 14,635 7,155 2,295 6,520
100% HAMFI No Data 4,260 3,750 5,060
Total 18,990 22,680 7,290 19,995
Table 32 – Housing Affordability
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Monthly Rent
Monthly Rent ($)
Efficiency (no
bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Online Rental Survey $2,725 $2,800 $3,750 $6,250 $6,950 Fair Market Rent $2,200 $2,344 $2,783 $3,769 $4,467
High HOME Rent $1,826 $1,958 $2,352 $2,708 $3,001
Low HOME Rent $1,381 $1,479 $1,776 $2,051 $2,288
Table 33 – Monthly Rent
Data Source Comments: Online Rental Survey conducted on 02/25/2024 on the California Regional Multiple Listing System (CRMLS)

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 68

Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels?

No. The greatest need for affordable housing in Huntington Beach continues to be for extremely low-income households. However, even moderate-income households face significant challenges due to high rent levels, making it difficult to find suitable housing.

Table 32, "Housing Affordability," outlines the number of owner and renter housing units in Huntington Beach that are affordable for households within each income range, based on the affordability standard of spending no more than 30% of income on total housing costs. By incorporating data from the 2016-2020 CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) report, which details the number of owner and renter households in each income category, we can better understand the housing shortage for low- and moderate-income households.

For instance, the table reveals that there are only 4,355 rental units in Huntington Beach affordable to low-income (<50% AMI) households, while there are 11,265 lower-income renter households, creating a shortfall of more than 250% in affordable rental housing. In the case of owner-occupied housing, the 2016-2020 CHAS report identifies just 7,290 affordable homeowner units, while there are 19,995 owner households earning less than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI). These disparities between household incomes and housing costs mean a significant portion of Huntington Beach's population is spending more than 30% of their income on housing.

How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents?

High prices and low inventory keep home ownership out of reach for many Huntington Beach residents. Limited land for new development, increasing construction costs, and rising inflation rates are all anticipated to keep home prices from dropping to affordable levels for many households. At the same time, the “Great Recession” and housing crisis in 2008 and 2009 resulted in many previous homeowners becoming renters. This increased demand for rental housing has placed upward pressure on rents, negatively impacting housing affordability for renters.

How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing?

A rental survey conducted on the CRMLS in February 2025 documented a total of 169 rental units available, including three 0-bedroom units, 33 one-bedroom units, 49 two-bedroom units, 43 three-bedroom units, 36 four-bedroom units, three five-bedroom units, and two six-bedroom units. According to the survey data, the median rents by bedroom size are as follows: $2,725 for a studio/0-bedroom, $2,800 for a one-bedroom, $3,750 for a two-bedroom, $6,250 for a three- bedroom, $6,950 for a four-bedroom, $8,800 for a five-bedroom, and $10,250 for a six-bedroom rental unit.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 69

As shown in Table 33, HUD Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are significantly underestimated compared to actual market rents in February 2025. For example, a 0-bedroom studio rents for a median price of $2,725, while HUD’s reported fair market rent is $2,200, resulting in a difference of $525.

The most significant discrepancies between current rental rates and FMRs are seen in three- and four-bedroom units, with deviations of nearly $2,500 each.

The high rental market in Huntington Beach particularly affects the Section 8 rental subsidy program, administered by the Orange County Housing Authority, which relies on private landlords who request rents above the payment standards allowed.

Discussion

Housing affordability is based on the relationship between household income and housing expenses. According to HUD and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), housing is considered “affordable” if the monthly payment is no more than 30% of a household’s gross income.

Table 34 presents maximum affordable rents by income level and household size and compares that with median market apartment rents in Huntington Beach. As the table indicates, citywide average rents are above the level of affordability for all extremely low-, low- and moderate- income households. For example, the maximum affordable monthly rent for a three-person low- income household is $1,776, or up to $2,841 for moderate income household, whereas the median market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $3,750.

Income Level
Maximum Affordable Rent
Studio
(1 person)
1 Bedroom
(2 person)
2 Bedroom
(3 person)
3 Bedroom
(4 person)
Extremely Low Income
(0 - 30% AMI) $829 $948 $1,066 $1,184
Low Income
(31 - 50% AMI) $1,381 $1,578 $1,776 $1,973
Moderate Income
(51 - 80% AMI) $2,210 $2,525 $2,841 $3,156
Huntington Beach
Average Apt Rents $2,725 $2,800 $3,750 $6,250
Table 34 – Comparison of Market and Affordable Rents

Housing sales price statistics for January 2025 were gathered from the CRMLS, providing an in- depth look at the housing market in Huntington Beach. According to the data, 89 condominiums and single-family homes were sold during the month, with a median sales price of $1,355,000.

This price point is well beyond the reach of low- to moderate-income households, who struggle to afford homes in this price range.

While there are some older and more affordable units on the market, these are becoming increasingly rare. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any market-rate homes or condominiums

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 70

would be affordable to lower- or moderate-income residents, particularly those earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). For households in this income bracket, the current housing prices in Huntington Beach present an insurmountable barrier to homeownership.

The sales price data underscores a broader trend in beach communities, where housing costs are generally much higher than in other regions. In order to make homeownership accessible to low- and moderate-income buyers, it is clear that significant public subsidies are required. Without such subsidies, it is virtually impossible for these households to purchase homes at market prices, given the extreme price disparities between what they can afford and the current market rates.

This highlights the growing need for affordable housing initiatives and the importance of providing financial support to bridge the gap between market prices and the needs of lower- income buyers.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 71

MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a)

Introduction

To adequately meet the needs of residents, housing within a city must be in habitable and safe condition, free from hazards such as lead-based paint, faulty electrical wiring, or other structural or safety concerns. Housing units in poor condition pose a significant risk to the health and safety of residents, potentially leading to serious injuries or long-term health issues. In addition to the immediate risks to residents, housing in disrepair can result in considerable financial costs for the City or housing providers including costly repairs, potential legal liabilities, and a decrease in property values.

Ensuring that all housing units meet basic standards of safety and quality is crucial not only for the well-being of individuals and families, but also for maintaining the overall health of the community. Substandard housing conditions can also contribute to broader issues such as increased emergency services calls, public health concerns, and a lower quality of life for residents.

This section provides a comprehensive overview of the condition of housing throughout Huntington Beach, examining the prevalence of housing in need of repairs or upgrades and identifying areas where intervention is needed to maintain safety standards and improve living conditions for residents.

Describe the jurisdiction's definition of "standard condition" and "substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation":

The term "standard housing condition" is defined as a dwelling unit that complies with the California State Health and Safety Codes. According to this definition, substandard conditions, as outlined in the State Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, refer to a dwelling that presents any of the following hazards that could pose a risk to health or safety: (a) inadequate sanitation, (b) structural hazards, (c) nuisances, (d) electrical wiring issues, (e) plumbing problems, (f) mechanical equipment malfunctions, (g) faulty weather protection, (h) risk of fire or explosion, and other unsafe conditions.

A dwelling is generally considered suitable for rehabilitation if the cost of repairs does not exceed 75% of the unit's replacement value.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 72

Condition of Units
Condition of Units
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With one selected Condition 13,025 30% 14,980 45%
With two selected Conditions 165 0% 1,665 5%
With three selected Conditions 0 0% 25 0%
With four selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0%
No selected Conditions 30,755 70% 16,975 50%
Total 43,945 100% 33,645 100%
Table 35 - Condition of Units
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Year Unit Built
Year Unit Built
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or later 3,285 7% 2,985 9%
1980-1999 8,145 19% 6,665 20%
1950-1979 32,015 73% 22,590 67%
Before 1950 505 1% 1,400 4%
Total 43,950 100% 33,640 100%
Table 36 – Year Unit Built
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS

Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 32,520 74% 23,990 71% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 1,820 4% 920 3% Table 37 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Total Units) 2016-2020 CHAS (Units with Children present)

Vacant Units

Suitable for
Rehabilitation
Not Suitable for
Rehabilitation Total
Vacant Units
Abandoned Vacant Units
REO Properties
Abandoned REO Properties
Table 38 - Vacant Units

Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation

The age of a community’s housing stock can provide an indicator of overall housing conditions.

Typically housing over 30 years in age is likely to need rehabilitation work to major elements of

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 73

the structure, such as roofing, siding, plumbing and electrical systems. As a mature community, the majority of Huntington Beach’s housing stock consists of units older than 30 years of age, as shown in Table 36. Among owner-occupied housing, 74% of units were constructed prior to 1980, reflective of post WWII building boom throughout much of Orange County. Similarly, a substantial proportion of Huntington Beach’s rental housing is greater than 30 years in age (71%); this housing typically suffers more wear-and-tear from tenants than owner-occupied housing.

Table 35 presents the number of housing units in Huntington Beach with one or more housing problems, including: 1) lack of complete plumbing facilities, 2) lack of complete kitchen facilities, 3) more than one person per room, and 4) cost burden greater than 30 percent. As presented, approximately 30% of owner units have one or more of these problems (or “conditions”), and approximately 50% of renter units have one or more problems. The majority of these problems are associated with housing cost burden, rather than household overcrowding or the physical condition of the unit, as confirmed by Table 9 Housing Problems (among households earning up to 100 percent AMI) which identifies 650 units in Huntington Beach as lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, and 2,170 overcrowded households, in comparison to 23,230 households experiencing cost burden.

As indicated in Table 38, given the strength of Huntington Beach’s housing market, City Code Enforcement staff are unaware of any homes sitting vacant or bank-owned in need of rehabilitation or replacement.

Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low- or Moderate-Income Families with LBP Hazards

The age of the housing stock is the key variable for estimating the number of housing units with lead-based paint. Starting in 1978, the use of lead-based paint on residential property was prohibited. National studies estimate that 75 percent of all residential structures contain lead- based paint and that older structures have the highest percentage of lead-based paint. As shown Table 36, about 74% of Huntington Beach’s owner-occupied units were built prior to 1980, and of these 32,520 units, just 4% or 1,820 units have occupants that include children. Similarly, among Huntington Beach’s rental housing, 71% were built prior to 1980 (23,990 units), with children present in just 3% or 920 of these units.

Pre-1980 housing units with children pose the greatest threat of lead poisoning. With an estimated 2,740 such households in Huntington Beach, lead exposure among children is not a sizable issue. Another risk factor is household income, with lower income households having a greater risk of exposure. The 2016-2020 CHAS identifies 43 percent of Huntington Beach’s households as earning less than 80 percent HAMFIError! Reference source not found., translating to an estimated 33,355 low- and moderate- income households residing in the City's approximately 56,510 pre-1980 housing units.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 74

Discussion

As documented in Huntington Beach's 2013-21 Housing Element, City Code Enforcement staff conducted a citywide windshield survey to identify neighborhoods with deteriorating or deteriorated housing conditions. The survey focused on the exterior and publicly visible areas of units, rating each unit as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” based on several factors, such as roof condition, paint, and landscaping. A total of 318 units were identified as needing significant repair or replacement. The City is committed to maintaining housing units in compliance with standards and continues to monitor those in need of repair or replacement through its Code Enforcement Division.

In addition to the housing conditions survey, City staff identified areas of deterioration based on observed violations of the Uniform Housing Code. This effort was part of a broader strategy to identify geographic areas that meet the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines for utilizing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for targeted code enforcement and preservation activities. The survey revealed a significant deterioration issue in the area bounded by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south. This area, known as the "Special Code Enforcement Target Area," includes several census tracts and has a total population of 67,625. Of these residents, 45,300 individuals (69.99%) fall within the low- to moderate-income bracket.

Special Code Enforcement Target Area
Census Tract Total Persons Total LMI Persons Percentage 0992121 1,195 900 75.30%
0992122 1,385 895 64.60%
0992123 1,710 1,120 65.50%
0992124 1,250 890 71.20%
0992141 1,055 645 61.10%
0992142 725 395 54.50%
0992144 770 510 66.20%
0992161 1,000 575 57.50%
0992164 840 620 73.80%
0992204 1,490 825 55.40%
0992353 1,945 1,045 53.70%
0992404 2,145 1,405 65.50%
0992421 1,220 640 52.50%
0992432 1,765 930 52.70%
0992442 1,615 970 60.10%
0993052 2,120 1,755 82.80%
0993061 1,985 1,140 57.40%
0993062 885 600 67.80%
0993063 665 485 72.90%
0993065 810 435 53.70%
0993094 1,050 850 81.00%
0993102 1,240 910 73.40%
0993113 765 460 60.10%

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 75

0994021 2,615 1,975 75.50%
0994022 2,735 2,245 82.10%
0994024 1,720 1,320 76.70%
0994062 3,095 2,025 65.40%
0994101 1,160 600 51.70%
0994103 2,810 2,165 77.00%
0994112 2,480 2,055 82.90%
0994113 1,430 1,285 89.90%
0994114 1,005 655 65.20%
0994121 2,045 1,360 66.50%
0994163 2,675 1,420 53.10%
0994171 2,535 1,535 60.60%
0994183 1,890 1,510 79.90%
0995081 1,475 795 53.90%
0995083 1,930 1,615 83.70%
0995084 1,160 610 52.60%
0996041 1,945 1,085 55.80%
0997022 1,800 1,050 58.30%
0997031 1,490 995 66.80%
TOTAL 67,625 45,300 66.99%
Table 39 – Special Code Enforcement Area by Census Tract Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS for LMI estimates by Census Tract

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 76

MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b)

Introduction

The following section discusses the Housing Assistance Voucher (formerly Section 8) rental assistance program administered by the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), consisting of 628 vouchers for low-income households in use in the City of Huntington Beach (2025). The City’s inventory of 2,459 units of assisted rental housing, and 293 units at risk of conversion to market rate, is discussed in the earlier section MA-10. OCHA does not have any public housing.

Within the overall Housing Assistance Voucher rental assistance program, OCHA administers several specialized HUD programs. The three specialized programs active in Huntington Beach are: Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and Family Unification. Each of these programs is described below, and the number of participants in the City identified.

 The Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program provides permanent housing subsidies and case management services to homeless veterans with mental and addictive disorders through a collaboration of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Veteran Affairs. A total of 650 HUD- VASH vouchers are being currently utilized in Orange County, with 85 (13%) in use within Huntington Beach.

 The CoC (Continuum of Care) Program is designed to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness by providing services to help them move into transitional and permanent housing. The program aims to promote communitywide commitment to ending homelessness by funding nonprofit providers and local governments. Additionally, the housing choice voucher program allows very low-income families to choose their own housing, with the assistance of the Public Housing Authority (PHA). A total of 40 CoC families are currently receiving housing choice vouchers as of January 2025.

 Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program is a proactive initiative by HUD that assists families living in public housing or receiving Section 8 vouchers. It aims to foster economic independence by providing services such as case management, referrals, and supportive social services. Eleven households in Huntington Beach are currently enrolled in the FSS Program.

 The Family Unification Program (FUP) provides housing assistance to families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the separation of children from their parents. Under FUP, rental assistance is provided to families for whom the lack of adequate housing would result in 1) the imminent placement of the family’s child or children in out-of-home care, or 2) the delay in the discharge of the child or children to

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 77

the family from out-of-home care. Twenty-four families in Huntington Beach are currently assisted through the FUP program.

 Families assisted under OCHA’s HCV program, may move from their current unit to another unit within OCHA’s jurisdiction, or to a unit outside OCHA’s jurisdiction under Portability. Within the limitations of the regulations a participant family or an applicant family that has been issued a voucher has the right to use tenant-based voucher assistance to lease a unit anywhere in the United States providing that the unit is located within the jurisdiction of a PHA administering a tenant-based voucher program The process by which a family obtains a voucher from one PHA and uses it to lease a unit in the jurisdiction of another PHA is known as portability. There are 115 Huntington Beach residents utilizing the portability allowability.

 The Rental Assistance for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities Program provides incremental Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) for non-elderly disabled families served by PHAs with demonstrated experience and resources for supportive services.

These vouchers will enable non-elderly disabled (NED) persons residing in nursing homes or other healthcare institutions to transition into the community with appropriate services. One Huntington Beach resident is currently receiving a NED voucher.

 The Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program provides a significant opportunity for PHAs, Continuums of Care’s, and Victim Service Providers (VSPs) to develop collaborative partnerships and strategies that effectively address the needs of vulnerable populations in their communities. Through EHV, HUD provided 70,000 housing choice vouchers to local PHAs to assist individuals and families who are homeless, at-risk of homelessness, fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, or were recently homeless or have a high risk of housing instability.

Fifty-nine Huntington Beach households are currently receiving emergency housing vouchers.

Totals Number of Units
Program Type
Certificate
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total
Project
-based
Tenant
-based

Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of units
vouchers
available
628 628 85 24 1
# of
accessible
units

*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 40 – Total Number of Units by Program Type

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 78

Data Source: Orange County Housing Authority, January 2025

Describe the supply of public housing developments:

Not applicable.

Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan:

Not applicable.

Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score

Table 41 - Public Housing Condition

Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction:

Not applicable.

Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing:

Not applicable.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 79

MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c)

Introduction

Table 40 presents an inventory of emergency shelter, transitional, and permanent supportive housing facilities located within Huntington Beach, as well as in the surrounding communities of Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley and Westminster, as reported by the Orange County Continuum of Care. Transitional housing is intended to facilitate the transition of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. This type of housing limits the length of stay and re-circulates the assisted unit to another eligible individual or family. Supportive housing is defined as permanent rental housing linked to a range of support services designed to enable residents to maintain stable housing. A total of 3,301 beds were counted as part of the 2024 Orange County Continuum of Care (CoC) Housing Inventory, with 336 beds specifically available within Huntington Beach.

The narrative that follows describes these facilities, as well as homeless services available to Huntington Beach's homeless and at-risk population.

Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households

Emergency Shelter Beds
Transitional
Housing Beds
Permanent Supportive
Housing Beds
Year Round
Beds (Current
& New)
Voucher /
Seasonal /
Overflow
Beds
Current &
New
Current &
New
Under
Development
Households with Adult(s)
and Child(ren) 51 0 64 400
Households with Only
Adults 1,085 0 44 1,649
Chronically Homeless
Households 0 0 0 312
Veterans 2 0 0 207
Unaccompanied Youth 8 0 0 0
Table 40 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households

Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted at homeless persons.

The City of Huntington Beach has launched a comprehensive strategy to address homelessness.

In FY 2021/22, the City appointed a Deputy Director of Homelessness & Behavioral Health Services and created the Homeless & Behavioral Health System of Care. This system provides outreach, engagement, case management, and connects individuals to shelter, housing, and behavioral health support. While the Deputy Director's role has evolved since February 2022, the City continues to support homelessness services.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 80

The HB Cares Volunteers program, established in 2023, is a key component of the system. It has trained 21 volunteers in de-escalation, trauma-informed care, vicarious trauma, and Mental Health First Aid. Volunteers manage the homeless outreach line, ensuring a streamlined communication process, and facilitate group activities at the Navigation Center such as resume building, job skill development, recovery groups, bingo, etc. Additionally, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist began volunteering in December 2023, assisting with 62 Disabling Condition Assessments and continuing to support mental health services as needed.

The system also includes three full-time homeless outreach social workers and a social services supervisor who engage with individuals, families, veterans, and seniors at risk of or experiencing homelessness. They connect people to resources, service providers, and help secure documents for County of Orange housing programs. They work closely with local shelters, such as the Navigation Center, and partner with crisis teams like Be Well to offer comprehensive support.

Be Well OC (BWOC) in Huntington Beach employs a Mobile Crisis Response Team consisting of two operating vans and two Crisis Interventionists who provide in-community assessments and stabilization. The team is trained to offer information, referrals, transportation, and follow-up support to address mental health situations.

List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations.

The City of Huntington Beach has developed a variety of services and facilities aimed at meeting the needs of homeless individuals, particularly chronically homeless persons, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. The Navigation Center, located at 17642 Beach Boulevard, opened in December 2020 and provides emergency shelter and essential services to individuals experiencing homelessness. Operated by Mercy House, the Navigation Center can shelter up to 174 adults and couples with ties to Huntington Beach. It offers case management, access to health services, and connections to permanent housing solutions, specifically supporting chronically homeless individuals and families as they work toward housing security in a safe, stable environment.

Looking ahead, the City is still in the process of analyzing a repurposing of the Navigation Center property into a permanent navigation center and affordable housing development. It is proposed that the permanent project will offer supportive housing paired with services to chronically homeless individuals, further addressing long-term homelessness in the community. The City’s ongoing collaborations with organizations like the State of California Homekey Program, the County of Orange, National CORE, and American Family Housing help leverage additional resources and expertise, enhancing the impact of these homelessness initiatives. Through these services and facilities, Huntington Beach remains committed to providing comprehensive support

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 81

to homeless individuals and families, helping them transition from homelessness to permanent housing and stability.

Furthermore, in FY 2021/22, the City launched the HB Oasis project at 17251 Beach Boulevard, repurposing the former Quality Inn & Suites into transitional housing for up to 64 adults and households experiencing homelessness. This initiative, in collaboration with the State of California Homekey Program, the County of Orange, National CORE, and American Family Housing, provided trauma-informed, evidence-based support and services, including case management and connections to permanent housing. The HB Oasis project helped participants, including veterans and those with mental health or substance use issues, transitioning to long- term stability. In May 2024, HB Oasis was converted into permanent supportive housing and has since undergone major renovation and construction with the addition of kitchenettes to individual units and the use of project-based vouchers to assist with securing permanent housing.

Supportive services offered at HB Oasis include mental and physical health care, substance use treatment, trauma counseling, employment assistance, and support for individuals involved in the criminal justice system. These wraparound services are essential for individuals overcoming barriers to housing and self-sufficiency, especially those experiencing chronic homelessness.

Finally, the City is continuing its Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program, which has been instrumental in preventing homelessness since 2014. The program assists homeless individuals, families, seniors, and veterans by providing rental assistance to help them secure affordable housing, preventing displacement and promoting long-term stability.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 82

MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d)

Introduction

This section outlines the facilities and services available in Huntington Beach for populations with special housing needs. By offering additional support, these services enhance residents' quality of life and facilitate their transition to full independence when appropriate.

Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs.

Elderly and Frail Elderly
As presented previously in MA-10, Huntington Beach has six senior housing projects providing 842 rental units affordable to a mix of very low-, low- and moderate-income senior households.

The State Community Care Licensing Division identifies 70 residential care homes for the elderly in Huntington Beach, providing 1,052 beds for seniors 60 years of age and over (February 2025).

The majority of these residential care facilities are small (6 or fewer beds) “board and care” homes, with five larger assisted living facilities: Huntington Terrace (185 beds); Ivy Park at Huntington Beach (142 beds); Merrill Gardens (150 beds); Oakmont (111 beds); and Sea Cliff Health Care Center (84 beds). These residential facilities provide care, supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming, and may also provide incidental medical services.

For those seniors who live on their own, many have limited incomes and as a result of their age may not be able to adequately maintain their homes. The City administers a Housing Rehabilitation Program that provides low interest loans and emergency grants to assist lower income homeowners in making needed repairs. Mobile homes are also eligible for emergency rehabilitation grant assistance, a large number of which are occupied by seniors.

The City also provides monthly rental assistance to eligible very low-income senior mobile homeowners in Huntington Beach to help cover a portion of their space rent for up to 24 months.

As of March 2025, approximately 81 households were selected through a lottery process to participate in the program. Under the program guidelines, participating households are required to pay no more than 30% of their gross monthly income toward space rent, with the City covering the remaining balance up to the local fair market space rent.

The Huntington Beach Community Services/Senior Services Division operates the Senior Center at Central Park. Programs offered include recreational and social activities, a congregate and home delivered meals program, preventative healthcare, transportation services, and supportive services. The Senior Outreach Center specifically focuses on programs and services to support independent living for frail or homebound seniors.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 83

The Huntington Beach Council on Aging (HBCOA) was formed in 1973 with the mission of enhancing the dignity and quality of life of the City’s senior population through comprehensive services, education and advocacy. HBCOA publishes the monthly newsletter OUTLOOK on Active Aging, providing information on monthly activities at the Senior Center and community resources for seniors living in Huntington Beach.

Persons with Disabilities
There are a number of resources available throughout the County to serve the disabled and mentally ill residents of Huntington Beach. Table 41 below identifies some of the organizations in and near Huntington Beach that specialize in providing services for the disabled and mentally ill population.

Organization Name Type of Service Provided Population Served Ability First - Newport Mesa
Center
After School enrichment programs
for children with developmental
disabilities
Developmentally disabled youth
Alzheimer’s Family Services
Center
Provides dementia-specific adult
day health care, caregiver support,
and education outreach
Persons with dementia and their
families
Blind Children’s Learning Center
of Orange County
Braille instruction, occupational
and communication therapies, and
vision services
Children from birth to 12th grade
CSR Children’s Foundation Inc. Assists children challenged by mental or physical disabilities by
providing “once in a lifetime”
watersport experiences that can be
shared with their families.

Children with special needs
Creative Support Individualized service plans to
promote independent and fulfilling
lives
Adults with a wide range of abilities
and challenges including
intellectual disability, autism
spectrum disorder, seizure
disorder, cerebral palsy, physical
challenges, traumatic brain injury,
and mental illness.

Independent Endeavor Apartment Search, housing
application process, social security
paperwork, medical appointments,
medication monitoring,
community & personal safety,
community interaction, and social
interaction & skills

Disabled adults
Independent Options, Inc. Orange
County
Residential services, day services,
and adult family home agency
Disabled adults
Dayle McIntosh Center for the
Disabled (DMC)
Skills training, adaptive life skills,
resource/referrals, transitional
youth services, etc.

Disabled persons

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 84

Organization Name Type of Service Provided Population Served Goodwill Industries of Orange
County
Vocational evaluation, training,
and employment opportunities
Adults with physical, psychiatric,
and developmental disabilities
ICAN California Abilities Network Provides quality employment, life skills, and social programs for
Southern California’s adults with
intellectual & developmental
disabilities.

Adults with intellectual and
developmental disabilities
John Henry Foundation Medically supervised residential
facility
Mentally disabled persons
Mental Health Association of
Orange County
Medication support, case
management, vocational
rehabilitation, etc.

Mentally disabled persons
No Ordinary Moments, Inc. Coordinates the OC Regional
Center to provide services to
developmentally disabled.

Operates a supported living
program and a mobile intervention
unit/crisis team
Developmentally disabled persons
Orange County Arc Educational, vocational, and life
skills training
Developmentally disabled adults
Project Independence Support for independent living, day programs, positive behavior
supports, recreational and
vocational resources
Developmentally disabled persons
Providence Speech and Hearing
Center
Complete diagnostic and
treatment services
Persons with speech and hearing
impairments
Regional Center of Orange County Educational and vocational skills training, resources and referrals
Developmentally disabled adults
United Cerebral Palsy Association
of Orange County, Inc.

Support group, life skills training Persons with cerebral palsy and similar disabilities
Visiting Nurse Association Home
Health Systems
Home-based nursing,
rehabilitation, etc.

Ill, injured, or physically disabled
persons
Vocational Visions Health-related services and job
placement support
Developmentally disabled adults
Table 41 - Inventory of Facilities and Services for the Disabled and Mentally Ill Population: Huntington Beach and Surrounding Areas

The living arrangements for persons with disabilities depends on the severity of the disability.

Many persons live at home in an independent environment with the help of other family members. To maintain independent living, disabled persons may require assistance. This can include special housing design features for the physically disabled, income support for those who are unable to work, and in-home supportive services for persons with medical conditions.

Accessible housing can also be provided via senior housing developments.

The State Community Care Licensing Division (February 2025) identifies two small family homes for children with mental, developmental or physical disabilities (11 bed capacity) and three adult residential facilities (11-person capacity) in Huntington Beach that provide 24-hour non-medical care.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 85

Substance Abuse Facilities and Services
The Orange County Care Agency offers a variety of outpatient and residential programs aimed at reducing or eliminating alcohol and drug abuse within the community. These services include substance use disorder (SUD) treatment at different levels of care, such as Outpatient, Intensive Outpatient, Withdrawal Management (both Social Model and Medical Detox), Residential Treatment, and Aftercare/Recovery Services.

The programs provide a range of services, including crisis intervention, assessments and evaluations, individual, group, and family counseling, HIV education, pre- and post-test counseling, voluntary testing, and referrals to additional services when necessary. Outreach efforts are also made to schools and the broader community to raise awareness and offer support.

The Perinatal Program offers services at both outpatient and residential levels, focusing on promoting the health of the community by providing evidence-based treatment for pregnant and parenting women. Special emphasis is placed on supporting women who are pregnant or IV drug users. These programs aim to increase understanding of addiction and recovery, teaching coping skills, fostering safe living environments, and addressing issues such as domestic violence and abuse.

Additional specialized programs include Methadone maintenance and detoxification, other Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT), Recovery Residences, and services for individuals referred by the Orange County Collaborative Court, such as those involved in Drug and DUI courts.

Substance abuse services available to Huntington Beach residents include, but are not limited to:
 Orange County Drug & Alcohol Treatment Centers – Outpatient, Short Term and Long Term Residential for a mix of mental health and substance abuse services.  Crecent Moon Recovery – Addiction treatment center providing drug rehab services including evidence-based and medically assisted care, mental health therapy sessions, and medical detox
 SoCAL Beach Recovery – Drug and alcohol rehab, detox programs, dialectical behavior therapy, dual-diagnosis programs, and PTSD services.
 Coastline Behavioral Health – Substance abuse treatment and detoxification through inpatient, partial hospitalization programs, intensive outpatient programs, and sober living.
 Buckeye Recovery Network – Outpatient care for addictions in alcohol, benzodiazepine, cocaine, fentanyl, gabapentin, opioids, and opiates.
 Seacliff Recovery Center – Substance abuse treatment and detoxification through hospital inpatient, short-term and long-term residential services.  Hired Power Personal Recovery Assistants – Work one-on-one with clients to overcome addictive behaviors through outpatient services.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 86

 Connor Ranch Treatment Center – Alcohol, detox, recovery, residential drug rehab center.

HIV/AIDs
As the most populous city in Orange County, Anaheim receives and administers the federal Housing Opportunities for persons with AIDS (HOPWA) for the entire County, including Huntington Beach. The County's Health Care Agency is also responsible for administering federal grants provided by the Department of Health and Human Services and for collecting data on HIV/AIDS patients.

HOPWA funds are utilized to support a variety of activities on a regional basis. These services include the following:
 Supportive services and housing offered via contracts with the Orange County Health Care Agency, including:
 Short-term emergency housing and/or utility assistance  Transitional housing
 Housing coordination services
 Medical detoxification-bed services
 Tenant-based rental assistance administered by the Anaheim Housing Authority (available for residents countywide, including Huntington Beach)

Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing

Huntington Beach supports a comprehensive approach to ensuring that individuals with mental health conditions in Orange County are discharged from facilities in a manner that adheres to both legal and ethical standards. According to California Health and Safety Code Section 1262, mental health patients cannot be discharged from psychiatric, skilled nursing, or hospital facilities without a written aftercare plan. The Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) is responsible for determining the timing and appropriate location for the discharge of clients diagnosed with serious and persistent mental illnesses, both from inpatient stays and outpatient services. The County contracts with a variety of inpatient providers that offer different levels of care. These contracts ensure compliance with state law regarding "anti-dumping" policies, which prevent patients from being discharged to unsafe or unsuitable living conditions.

Before discharge, each patient is assessed to determine the appropriate level and type of residential care. Patients may be placed in Adult Residential Facilities (ARF) or Residential Facilities for the Elderly (RFE), especially if they are over 60 years old, where they can receive care and supervision. In some cases, patients are placed in more specialized settings, such as Residential Rehabilitation beds or programs, which offer enhanced services. Some individuals may return to their former residences or be placed with family members. Others are connected to clinics and placed in supported short-term housing programs, room and board facilities, or independent living arrangements, depending on their ability to live on their own and whether they have funding or employment. For those determined to be capable of independent living,

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 87

assistance is provided to transition into Supportive Housing or Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) units as they become available.

A range of agencies collaborate to ensure that individuals with mental illnesses in Orange County are provided with appropriate housing and aftercare. The Continuum of Care, OC Community Services, the Orange County Health Care Agency, Mercy House, Friendship Shelter, and several inpatient programs all play distinct yet coordinating roles. Other active organizations include Community Care Licensing, the California Hispanic Commission on Drugs and Alcohol, and the Illumination Foundation, which also contribute to the housing and support network for individuals transitioning out of inpatient care.

Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals.

91.315(e)

Huntington Beach is planning a range of initiatives in the coming year to address the housing and service needs of its special needs population. The City will allocate Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding to support various programs and activities aimed at improving the quality of life for individuals facing unique challenges. The City is committed to continuing its support for programs targeting groups such as the elderly, individuals with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, those struggling with alcohol and drug abuse, and veterans.

CDBG funds will be specifically allocated to two key initiatives: the Huntington Beach Senior Center Care Management Program, which provides vital support and resources to seniors in the community, and a homeowner rehabilitation program which provides both grants and loans that may be used to assist lower income seniors and disabled persons with accessibility improvements, ensuring that residents can remain safely in their homes.

Additionally, HOME funding will support a tenant-based rental assistance program aimed at senior mobile homeowners, helping them afford the rising costs of space rents. This program will provide rental assistance for up to 24 months, offering much-needed financial relief to seniors living in mobile homes.

In addition to supporting the senior mobile homeowner rental assistance program, HOME funding will also benefit victims of domestic violence, veterans, and other individuals with special needs through two other tenant-based rental assistance programs. Administered by Mercy House and Families Forward, these programs provide up to 24 months of rental assistance for 30 households a year, offering crucial financial support to help individuals secure stable housing.

Beyond just rental assistance, these programs are designed to assist participants in achieving long-term independence by providing services that support self-sufficiency, such as case management, life skills training, and connections to other community resources. This multifaceted approach aims to ensure that those who face significant challenges have the support they need to transition to independent living and maintain stable housing over time.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 88

For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2))

Same as above.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 89

MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e)

Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment

Huntington Beach has demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting affordable housing through various measures, including updates to its zoning ordinance and direct financial assistance to affordable housing projects. In late 2021, the City conducted public meetings to revise its Affordable Housing ordinance to better align with community needs and legal requirements. These updates aimed to provide compliance options with the law, implement current Housing Element programs, and adjust in-lieu fees and methodology to reflect current market conditions.

Despite funding constraints resulting from the loss of Redevelopment Housing Funds, which previously generated approximately $3 million annually for housing activities, the City remains dedicated to developing affordable housing. However, one of the primary challenges faced by Huntington Beach in this regard is the scarcity of vacant land suitable for residential development. Much of the underdeveloped residentially zoned land is owned by separate owners, making lot consolidation and the demolition of existing structures necessary to accommodate higher density infill development.

To address this challenge, the City has adopted alternative policy tools, such as the Amended Downtown and Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plans. These plans provide opportunities for high-density mixed-use and residential infill development, facilitating the creation of affordable housing units within the community. Through continued collaboration and innovative approaches, Huntington Beach aims to overcome barriers and enhance the availability of affordable housing for its residents.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 90

MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f)

Introduction

The tables and narrative that follow describe the local economic condition of Huntington Beach and compares the ability of the local work force to satisfy the needs of local business. The tables give data on the primary industries in the City, the total population in the labor force, the unemployment rate, occupations by sector, travel time to work, the educational attainment of Huntington Beach residents by age, and median earnings.

Economic Development Market Analysis

Business Activity
Business by Sector
Number of
Workers
Number of
Jobs
Share of
Workers
%
Share of
Jobs
%
Jobs less
workers
%
Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 590 107 1 0 -1 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 11,925 12,840 14 18 4 Construction 5,168 5,250 6 8 1
Education and Health Care Services 12,472 9,377 15 13 -2 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 6,450 3,201 8 5 -3
Information 2,301 851 3 1 -2
Manufacturing 8,019 9,991 10 14 5
Other Services 3,016 2,978 4 4 1
Professional, Scientific, Management
Services 10,180 5,531 12 8 -4
Public Administration 0 0 0 0 0
Retail Trade 8,757 9,424 11 13 3
Transportation and Warehousing 2,747 888 3 1 -2
Wholesale Trade 5,170 4,566 6 7 0
Total 76,795 65,004 -- -- --
Table 42 - Business Activity
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Workers), 2020 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs)

Labor Force
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 111,150
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 105,795
Unemployment Rate 4.83
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 14.15
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.35
Table 43 - Labor Force
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 91

Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, business and financial 35,605
Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 4,260
Service 9,565
Sales and office 24,965
Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 5,485
Production, transportation and material moving 4,305
Table 44 – Occupations by Sector
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Travel Time
Travel Time Number Percentage
< 30 Minutes 45,326 49%
30-59 Minutes 36,688 40%
60 or More Minutes 10,022 11%
Total 92,036 100%
Table 45 - Travel Time
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Educational Attainment
In Labor Force
Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force
Less than high school graduate 4,760 250 2,355
High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 13,645 715 4,050
Some college or Associate's degree 27,640 1,450 6,490
Bachelor's degree or higher 42,030 1,305 6,545
Table 46 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Educational Attainment by Age
Age
18–24 yrs 25–34 yrs 35–44 yrs 45–65 yrs 65+ yrs
Less than 9th grade 26 184 446 1,128 656
9th to 12th grade, no
diploma 685 603 464 1,018 602
High school graduate, GED,
or alternative 2,600 3,217 2,032 4,756 1,895
Some college, no degree 2,718 3,278 2,851 7,080 4,154
Associate’s degree 501 1,297 1,178 2,318 1,883
Bachelor’s degree 852 4,713 4,446 7,213 3,950
Graduate or professional
degree 55 1,227 1,945 4,880 3,710
Table 47 - Educational Attainment by Age
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 92

Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate $23,949
High school graduate (includes equivalency) $34,938
Some college or Associate’s degree $46,893
Bachelor’s degree $71,753
Graduate or professional degree $94,568
Table 48 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS

Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction?

As presented in Table 42, in Huntington Beach, the local economy includes the following primary industries:
 Arts, entertainment, and accommodations (18% of jobs)  Manufacturing (14% of jobs)
 Education and health care services (13% of jobs)
 Retail trade (13% of jobs)
 Professional, scientific, and management services (8% of jobs)  Construction (8% of jobs)

The 2020 Census estimates that jobs in the arts, entertainment, and accommodations represent 18% of all jobs, while an additional 13% of all jobs are in retail trade. The high concentration of jobs in these two industries is indicative of Huntington Beach’s prosperous tourist economy.

With beautiful beaches along the Pacific Ocean, combined with a wide variety of entertainment options, Huntington Beach welcomes over 11 million tourists throughout the year. The City boasts top-class restaurants, shopping, hotels, resorts, spas and a thriving downtown district.

The downtown district includes an active art center, an eclectic shopping district, and the International Surfing Museum. Downtown was also once the home of the famous music club “The Golden Bear,” which hosted the likes of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra. Visitors can also find the Surfing Hall of Fame and the Surfing Walk of Fame downtown. The City is also host to several special events each year including a very popular Independence Day Parade, the U.S.

Open of Surfing, the AVP Pro Beach Volleyball Series, the, an Annual Cruise of Lights Boat Tour, and a Main Street Halloween Celebration, to name a few.

Manufacturing comprises nearly 14% of all jobs in Huntington Beach mainly due to several major companies being located there such as Boeing, Quicksilver, Cambro Manufacturing, and C&D Aerospace. The 2020 Census reports approximately 10,000 manufacturing jobs in the City, with only 8,000 workers in the manufacturing sector.

Jobs in education and health care, and professional, scientific, and management services, and construction round out the top six industries in Huntington Beach.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 93

Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community:

Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create.

With nearly 50% of Huntington Beach’s employment base in the manufacturing, retail and arts/entertainment/accommodations industries combined, a large segment of the City’s economy does not necessarily require an educated workforce. However, as indicated in Table 46, 79% of Huntington Beach’s employed workforce has at least some college education. Nearly half (48%) of the employed population has a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Furthermore, approximately 75% (60,249 persons) ages 18 and over have at least some college experience.

Persons with a bachelor’s degree or higher make up 41% of the 18+ years population.

Huntington Beach has adequate transportation infrastructure to support its growing manufacturing and tourism business community. The City is served by three major freeway/highways - Interstate 405, Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1), and Beach Boulevard (Highway 39) running through the heart of Huntington Beach. Regional bus service is offered through the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), with 14 bus routes currently in Huntington Beach and the number of routes and lines adjusted by OCTA based on ridership patterns. Major bus lines, such as Greyhound and Trailways, also provide transportation to the area.

For passenger service, Amtrak stations are located in Santa Ana and Anaheim, each approximately 20 minutes away. The Union Pacific Railroad serves the City’s Gothard Street with freight transportation to this industrial corridor that forms the central spine of the community.

This rail service permits direct line shipment to the Midwest and Northwest.

And lastly, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are located 18 miles northwest and provide worldwide access to the global marketplace. The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are committed to promoting maritime commerce and international trade.

The City recognizes the importance of providing a transportation system that supports the economic vitality of the City. The Goldenwest Transportation Center at the intersection of Center Avenue and Gothard Street provides multiple bus routes and park-and-ride facilities serving transit riders. Both the City and OCTA operate demand responsive services. OCTA runs the ACCESS program, while both the City and OCTA operate the Senior Services Mobility Program.

How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction?

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 94

Huntington Beach boasts a highly educated workforce, with 34% of its labor force having completed some college or earned an associate degree, 26% holding a bachelor’s degree, and 15% attaining a graduate or professional degree. This educational composition supports the city’s primary industries and aligns with the skill sets required for many of its leading occupations. The largest occupational sector in the city is management, business, and finance, employing 43% of the labor force, followed by sales and office roles, which account for 30% of the workforce.

Additionally, 25% of the labor force holds a high school diploma or less, often working in service or retail sectors, where minimum wage is common. These individuals could potentially benefit from job training programs that could provide opportunities for career advancement.

In support of local businesses, the City of Huntington Beach has partnered with the business community to establish two Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), aimed at improving the local economy and attracting new businesses. The Downtown Business Improvement District, formed in 2004, focuses on promoting the downtown commercial area. Businesses within this district contribute an annual assessment based on their size and type, with funds being allocated to marketing and improvements through decisions made by a BID Advisory Board. Additionally, the Tourism Business Improvement District, created in 2014 after the disbanding of the Hotel/Motel BID, aims to market the City as a destination for tourists, meetings, and events. The Tourism BID is funded by a 6% assessment on gross short-term room revenue, helping to increase overnight room sales and further strengthen the City’s tourism economy. These efforts are vital in fostering business growth and improving Huntington Beach’s image as a prime destination.

The two BIDS will continue to promote job and business growth in the 2025/26 – 2029/30 Consolidated Plan period.

Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.

The City of Huntington Beach supports a variety of economic development activities that help to create and retain jobs for low- and moderate-income households. Activities supported include a commercial property locator; employment assistance in the form of referrals to resources for finding and training employees; financial assistance through the Small Business Administration; business counseling and training via a litany of not-for-profit Orange County agencies; technical assistance in permits, trademarks, environmental review, and taxes; and export and trade assistance. Micro-enterprise assistance, job training services, and technical assistance are some areas that may warrant consideration for funding during the Consolidated Plan period.

In 2024, the City of Huntington Beach completed its updated Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is designed to strengthen the local economy by focusing on business retention, attraction, and expansion. It also enhances tourism and culture, ensures responsive governance, and fosters proactive communication and collaboration. The updated plan promotes sustainable growth and active community engagement for a vibrant, resilient future for the City of Huntington Beach.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 95

This updated strategy provides a structured roadmap for economic resilience and growth, focusing on strategic business initiatives, cultural enhancement, responsive governance, and robust collaboration. With outlined milestones, the strategy aims to create a thriving, diverse, and sustainable economy for all residents and businesses, ensuring steady progress and adaptability, and positioning Huntington Beach for a prosperous future.

In terms of workforce training initiatives, the City’s Library has implemented a Adult Literacy Program, offering English speaking, reading, and writing skill development for persons 18 years and older. The goal of the program is to promote literacy and improved job skills.

The Community for Entrepreneurship & Leadership at Golden West College is an endeavor to support workforce and economic development. The program began as a collaborative of the Oak View Renewal Partnership, a nonprofit organization that provided assistance to residents of Oak View (a low-income neighborhood in Huntington Beach), and Golden West College. In July 2021, the program transitioned away from workforce development services to a finer focus of entrepreneurial education and coaching, allocating its team and resources to the success and impact of aspiring entrepreneurs. CIELO, as the program is now called, serves as a small business support system for all Orange County residents, with a focus on low-income and under-resourced individuals who lack access to resources, knowledge, and support to change their economic trajectory. CIELO aims to reduce opportunity inequality by providing participants with the resources or connections they wouldn’t otherwise have.

Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)?

No.

If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth.

As described above, Huntington Beach has prepared an Economic Development Strategic Plan which identifies the City's highest priority economic development objectives, and establishes goals, policies and recommended actions. The Strategic Plan aims to strengthen the local economy through business retention, attraction, and expansion, enhancing tourism and culture, ensuring responsive governance, and fostering proactive communication and collaboration. The plan promotes sustainable growth and active community engagement for a vibrant, resilient future, including:

 Business Retention, Attraction, & Expansion
 Retain and Grow Local Businesses: Prevent closures or relocations, support expansion, and provide resources.
 Attract New Businesses: Increase tax revenue and job opportunities by showcasing Huntington Beach’s strengths.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 96

 Market Business Opportunities: Promote local businesses to residents and visitors.  Promote a Year-Round Economy: Support businesses throughout all seasons.  Conduct Research and Make Recommendations: Gather data to support informed policymaking.

 Tourism, Culture, & Community
 Expand Tourism, Film, and Event Opportunities: Collaborate with Visit Huntington Beach to attract more visitors and events.
 Raise Awareness of Local Businesses During Special Events: Highlight and support local businesses.
 Prepare for the LA 2028 Summer Olympics: Ensure readiness to maximize economic opportunities.
 Enhance Arts and Culture: Develop new cultural programs and events.  Support the Social Economy: Boost local social venues and implement tourism enhancement programs.

 Responsive & Effective Government
 Enhance Infrastructure: Invest in key infrastructure improvements.  Promote Business-Friendly Policies: Develop policies that facilitate business growth.  Deliver Exceptional Customer Service: Simplify processes and provide high-quality services.

 Communication & Collaboration
 Engage with Stakeholders: Connect with local partners and address feedback.  Strengthen Partnerships: Work with business organizations to support local businesses.
 Share Information and Resources: Use digital platforms to disseminate valuable information.

2025 Action Plan Priorities:
 Organize business outreach visits and events.
 Market available sites and develop an economic profile.  Engage with stakeholders and build partnerships.
 Expand visibility with business recognition opportunities.  Elevate online presence with updated content.
 Deliver exceptional permitting service.
 Launch a shop/dine local campaign.
 Expand and attract new cultural/sports events.
 Lead projects to improve resident and visitor experiences.

The City may choose to utilize CDBG funds to assist in implementation. For example, the enhancement of public services, commercial façade programs and assistance with tenant improvements, job training and literacy programs, street improvements, technical assistance, business incubator support, and job retention and attraction services are all activities which can

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 97

implement the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan and are eligible uses for CDBG funding.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 98

MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion

Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")

Low- and moderate-income households are most impacted by housing problems in Huntington Beach. The City defines an area of low/mod concentration as a census block group in which a minimum of 51 percent of households earn 80 percent or below the area median income; the census block groups that meet these criteria are depicted in Figure 2 - Low- and Moderate- Income Areas, located in Appendix B. As reflected in this Figure, low- and moderate-income areas are located throughout the City.

Certain minority populations are also more affected by multiple housing problems in Huntington Beach. As shown in Table 53, among households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), Hispanic and Asian households evidence a greater percentage of housing problems than households that are White.

Households Earning 0 - 80% Area Median Income (AMI)
Total
White Non-
Hispanic Hispanic Asian
Total Households 28,935 19,245 6,010 3,210
Households with any housing
problems 20,715 12,910 4,770 2,105
% Racial/Ethnic Group with
any housing problems 72% 67% 79% 66%
Table 49 - Huntington Beach Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity Data Source: Table reflects compilation of housing problems by race/ethnicity and income derived from the 2016- 2020 CHAS, as presented previously in Tables 15-17. Housing problems include: 1) Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2) Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3) > than one person per room (overcrowded), or 4) Cost Burden > than 30%.

Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration")

A minority concentration is defined as a census block group with greater than the City average of minority population (20% for Hispanics and 15.6% for Asians). Figure 6 and 7 (located in Appendix B) depicts minority concentrations of Hispanic and Asian households, respectively, in Huntington Beach. Under this definition, several census block groups are identified as having a concentration of minorities. These areas are scattered around the City and in many cases correspond with low and moderate income areas as seen in Figure 2.

What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 99

The majority of Huntington Beach's low- and moderate-income neighborhoods coincide with the City's four Special Code Enforcement area due to high levels of housing deterioration. Within this area, the City's housing conditions survey in 2007 identified a total of 318 units as needing significant repair or replacement. These areas are the focus of increased code enforcement and neighborhood preservation activities by the City to improve the quality of life and condition of housing.

Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?

Huntington Beach is home to numerous public parks and neighborhood community centers, particularly in its low- and moderate-income areas, offering valuable resources to residents. For example, the Oak View Family and Community Center and Gymnasium provide a range of services, including recreational activities, educational programs, and human and family services.

Additionally, the Oak View Branch Library serves as an important community resource, offering a Family Literacy Program that includes individualized tutoring to support residents’ educational needs. The City of Huntington Beach uses Community Development Block Grant funds to enhance and improve these facilities, ensuring that they can better serve the needs of neighborhood residents and contribute to the overall well-being of the community.

Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?

As outlined in Section MA-45, CIELO is a new initiative designed to provide entrepreneurial education and coaching to aspiring entrepreneurs. Serving as a small business support system for all residents of Orange County, CIELO primarily focuses on low-income and under-resourced individuals who may not have access to the necessary resources, knowledge, or support to change their economic trajectory. The goal of CIELO is to reduce opportunity inequality by offering participants the resources and connections that they may not otherwise have access to, helping them overcome barriers and achieve success in their entrepreneurial endeavors. By empowering individuals with the tools and guidance they need, CIELO aims to foster economic mobility and create more equitable opportunities for all.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 100

MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households -

91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2)

Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods.

Digital equity revolves around understanding who in the United States has access to the internet, suitable devices, and the digital skills needed to navigate the online world — and who does not.

In response to the Digital Equity Act of 2021, the U.S. Census Bureau released data detailing broadband availability and usage alongside demographic information for every state. The data reveals the number of individuals in the U.S. who belong to “covered populations” as defined by the Digital Equity Act, as well as the percentage of the population living in areas without access to fixed broadband, those in households lacking a computer or broadband subscription, and those not using the internet, a PC, or a tablet. The underlying data was collected through a collaboration between the Census Bureau and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

The covered population totals include individuals who fall into one or more of eight demographic categories. These categories tend to be associated with lower levels of digital inclusion. They may lack reliable broadband services, internet-ready devices or the skills needed to connect and ensure online privacy and cybersecurity. The eight categories are:
 Individuals living in households with incomes at or below 150% of the poverty line.  Individuals 60 years of age or older.
 Veterans.
 Individuals living with one or more disabilities.
 Individuals with barriers to the English language (including English language learners and those with low literacy).
 Members of racial and ethnic minority groups.
 Individuals residing in rural areas.
 Individuals incarcerated in a nonfederal correctional facility.

According to data for Huntington Beach, less than 2.5% of the population lives in areas where fixed broadband service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload is unavailable. While broadband is accessible to 97.5% or more of the population, three census tracts still show a high percentage of households without a computing device and/or broadband subscription. For instance, in census tract 99402, 36.9% of households lack a computer or internet service. This tract is home to 80% minority residents, and 42% face language barriers.

Similarly, just under 17% of residents in census tracts 99212 and 99411 also lack computers or internet access. When combined with data on income and minority populations, it is evident that these tracts, which have high rates of digital exclusion, also face high levels of poverty and significant concentrations of Hispanic households.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 101

Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.

The top residential internet providers in Huntington Beach, including Spectrum, AT&T, Earthlink, and Frontier, contribute to a competitive broadband market in Orange County and Huntington Beach, making internet access widely available to most residents. This competition helps drive rates lower, which is particularly significant for low- and moderate-income (LMI) households, as it makes broadband more affordable. Despite the fact that almost all households in the City have computers and broadband access, lower-income households are still less likely to have their own internet subscription. However, while internet access is common, the exact percentage of income that LMI families spend on digital access remains unknown. This is an important consideration, as the cost of internet services could still place a financial strain on these families.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 102

MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3)

Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change.

Consolidated Plans are now required to consider resiliency to natural hazards within the jurisdiction, ensuring that communities are better prepared for the risks posed by climate change and other natural events. The natural hazards most strongly linked to climate change in Huntington Beach are flooding and fire hazards. Flooding can result from rising sea levels and increased rainfall, while the risk of wildfires is heightened due to hotter temperatures, dry conditions, and changing weather patterns.

To address these challenges, the City has developed strategies for resilience and mitigation through its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Natural and Environmental Hazards Element. These plans outline actions to reduce risks, improve preparedness, and ensure that the City can better cope with the impacts of climate change. This includes measures such as improving infrastructure to withstand floods, implementing fire prevention programs, and developing long-term strategies to manage hazardous materials and waste safely.

Flooding
Flooding can be caused by a number of natural events, including heavy rains and coastal storms.

Less often, floods can be caused by high tides (tidal flooding), or tsunamis. Flood events can also happen as a result of infrastructure failure; for example, if a water tank breaks. Flooding is the most common hazard in Huntington Beach.

Areas at an elevated risk of flooding are generally divided into 100-year flood zones and 500-year flood zones. The City has areas within both flood zones. As land uses and climate conditions shift and as improvements are made to flood control channels, the size of these flood zones is likely to change.

One hundred-year floods are those that have a 1/100 or 1% chance of occurring in any given year.

The 100-year flood is a regulatory standard used by Federal agencies and most states to administer floodplain management programs and is also used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the basis for flood insurance requirements nationwide. Flood insurance rates are based on FEMA designations of flood zones. Standard practice is to avoid or restrict construction within 100-year flood zones, or to engage in flood-proofing techniques such as elevating building pads or constructing walls, dams, and levees. Large portions of the City of Huntington Beach are located within a 100-year flood plain, primarily along wetlands, coastal areas, rivers, channels, and storm drains in the City. Approximately one-third of the City is located within the 100-Year to 500-Year Flood Zone.

Fire Hazards
Fires can occur in urban environments and can also impact unpopulated areas that may contain brush or grasslands. As an urbanized area surrounded by other urbanized communities,

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 103

Huntington Beach does not face the wildfire risks that are a threat to other areas of California.

Urban fires are the primary fire hazard in the City, which can be caused by electrical faults, unattended cooking, or flammable or combustible materials exposed to a heat source, among other causes. Several areas and activities pose unique urban fire challenges due to the age of buildings, the size and density of structures, and the presence of flammable or combustible materials. As a result, the City must continue to address the growing need to defend both persons and property from fires. Proactive efforts, such as fire sprinkler systems, fire alarms, fire resistant roofing and construction methods, can help reduce the frequency and severity of urban fires.

Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods.

While the City of Huntington Beach does have areas with an elevated risk of flooding, it is not considered a major hazard or constraint to housing development. Several housing projects have already been successfully built within the floodplain by implementing improvements to surrounding flood infrastructure, such as flood channels. These projects have received approval through proper mitigation measures, which include ensuring that flood risks are adequately addressed. Going forward, any new housing developments will undergo environmental reviews to ensure that flood protection measures are in place. This approach helps protect future residents, including those from low and moderate-income households, from environmental hazards like flooding.

Similarly, while fire hazards pose a risk, particularly in older areas of Huntington Beach, newer structures are designed with safety features such as fire sprinkler systems and fire-resistant materials. These features help contain fires within the building of origin and reduce the risk of spreading. However, in older neighborhoods where building materials may not meet modern fire safety standards and fire sprinklers may not be installed, there is a higher probability of structural fires spreading to neighboring buildings. This is especially true in high-density areas, where the risk of fire spreading between buildings is greater.

The City’s General Plan Safety Element ensures that areas with a higher fire risk are carefully considered in development planning. It requires the identification of lands designated as a State Responsibility Area for fire services and those within a very high fire severity zone. Fortunately, there are no lands with these designations in the areas designated for future residential development in Huntington Beach. This reduces the risk of wildfire impacts on new residential areas, though urban fire safety remains a key consideration in the City’s planning and building practices.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 104

STRATEGIC PLAN
SP-05 Overview

Strategic Plan Overview

The Housing and Community Development Strategy is the centerpiece of the Consolidated Plan. The Strategy describes:
 General priorities for assisting households
 Programs to assist those households in need
 Five-year objectives identifying proposed accomplishments

The Strategic Plan also addresses the following areas:
 Financial resources
 Anti-poverty strategy
 Lead-based paint hazard reduction
 Reduction of barriers to affordable housing
 Institutional Structure/Coordination among agencies

In establishing five-year priorities for assistance with CDBG and HOME funds, the City of Huntington Beach has taken several factors into consideration: 1) those households most in need of housing and community development assistance, as determined through the Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment, Agency consultation, the Housing and Community Development Needs Survey, and public participation process; and 2) the extent of other non-federal resources and programs available to address the needs.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 105

SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1)

Geographic Area

1 Area Name Citywide
Area Type Local Target Area
Other Area Type Description Not Applicable
HUD Approval Date Not Applicable
% of Low Mod 44.75%
Revital Type Comprehensive
Other Revital Description Not Applicable
Identify the neighborhood
boundaries for this target
area.

Citywide
Include specific housing and
commercial characteristics of
this target area.

Not applicable; this geographic area is used to identify where CDBG-funded homeless, special needs, and general community services are delivered.

How did your consultation and
citizen participation process
help you to identify this
neighborhood as a target
area?
Consultation with local service providers, City departments, and the Housing and Community Development Survey highlighted the need for funding community services in Huntington Beach. The most requested services include those for the homeless and victims of domestic violence. Additionally, the high senior population in Huntington Beach emphasizes the need for senior services.

Identify the needs in this
target area.

There is a need for community services for low- and moderate-income individuals, including the homeless, veterans, families with children, the elderly, and victims of domestic violence.

What are the opportunities for
improvement in this target
area?
Opportunities for improvement in this target area include expanding community services for vulnerable populations such as the homeless, seniors, and families with children. Additionally, there is an opportunity to improve coordination between local service providers and City departments to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income residents.

Are there barriers to
improvement in this target
area?
A key barrier to improvement in this target area is the lack of funding to address all local needs.
2 Area Name Special Code Enforcement Area
Area Type Local Target Area
Other Area Type Description Not Applicable
HUD Approval Date Not Applicable
% of Low Mod 66.99%
Revital Type Comprehensive
Other Revital Description Not Applicable
Identify the neighborhood
boundaries for this target
area.

Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 106

Include specific housing and
commercial characteristics of
this target area.

Housing owned or rented by predominantly low- and moderate-income households. Signs of property and structure deterioration seen from windshield survey and supported by census data (predominately built before 1980).

How did your consultation and
citizen participation process
help you to identify this
neighborhood as a target
area?
Consultation with Code Enforcement and Housing Divisions resulted in this area being set apart for CDBG-funded Code Enforcement programs and other programs that will, together, arrest the deterioration of the local target area.

Further, a Housing and Community Development Survey found that code enforcement and property maintenance was highly needed in the City.

Identify the needs in this
target area.

Need for code enforcement, street and alley improvements, curb cuts and ramp improvements, housing rehabilitation, and community services for low- and moderate-income households.

What are the opportunities for
improvement in this target
area?
There is an opportunity to direct federal investment to reverse the area's decline through code enforcement, homeowner rehabilitation, better infrastructure, improved public facilities, and enhanced community services.

Are there barriers to
improvement in this target
area?
The main barrier is the lack of funding to address the area's overall deterioration.

Table 50 - Geographic Priority Areas

Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA)

California. Much of the City’s residentially designated land has already been developed. Future residential development rests primarily upon the recycling of existing parcels and infill development. Surrounding Huntington Beach are the Cities of Seal Beach to the northwest, Westminster to the northeast, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa to the east, Newport Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest.

The City utilizes CDBG and HOME funds for projects and programs operated citywide. However, the majority of CDBG-funded infrastructure and facility projects are targeted to the most-needy neighborhoods: those census tracts where 51% or more of the residents are low- or moderate- income, as seen in Figure 2 in the Appendix.

Specifically, for Code Enforcement, after establishing the general definition of “deteriorated” or “deteriorating” for purposes of code enforcement, the City conducted a visual (windshield) survey of CDBG eligible areas for properties, businesses, parkways, alleys, and structures that met the definition. Based on the visual (windshield) survey, the City determined that low- and moderate-income areas within the area bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south contained the most properties with deterioration. In some cases, some structures had multiple violations per parcel.

This target area is known as “Special Code Enforcement Target Area.” Inclusive of the following census tracts, the Special Code Enforcement Target Area is comprised of 67,625 persons, 45,300, or 66.99%, of which are of low-moderate income.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 107

Table 51 - SPECIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT TARGET AREA
TOTAL POPULATION V. LOW AND MODERATE-INCOME POPULATION
2016-2020 HUD LOW MOD INCOME SUMMARY DATA

Census Tract Total Persons Total LMI Persons Percentage 0992121 1,195 900 75.30%
0992122 1,385 895 64.60%
0992123 1,710 1,120 65.50%
0992124 1,250 890 71.20%
0992141 1,055 645 61.10%
0992142 725 395 54.50%
0992144 770 510 66.20%
0992161 1,000 575 57.50%
0992164 840 620 73.80%
0992204 1,490 825 55.40%
0992353 1,945 1,045 53.70%
0992404 2,145 1,405 65.50%
0992421 1,220 640 52.50%
0992432 1,765 930 52.70%
0992442 1,615 970 60.10%
0993052 2,120 1,755 82.80%
0993061 1,985 1,140 57.40%
0993062 885 600 67.80%
0993063 665 485 72.90%
0993065 810 435 53.70%
0993094 1,050 850 81.00%
0993102 1,240 910 73.40%
0993113 765 460 60.10%
0994021 2,615 1,975 75.50%
0994022 2,735 2,245 82.10%
0994024 1,720 1,320 76.70%
0994062 3,095 2,025 65.40%
0994101 1,160 600 51.70%
0994103 2,810 2,165 77.00%
0994112 2,480 2,055 82.90%
0994113 1,430 1,285 89.90%
0994114 1,005 655 65.20%
0994121 2,045 1,360 66.50%
0994163 2,675 1,420 53.10%
0994171 2,535 1,535 60.60%
0994183 1,890 1,510 79.90%
0995081 1,475 795 53.90%
0995083 1,930 1,615 83.70%
0995084 1,160 610 52.60%
0996041 1,945 1,085 55.80%
0997022 1,800 1,050 58.30%
0997031 1,490 995 66.80%
TOTAL 67,625 45,300 66.99%

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 108

SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2)

Priority Needs

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 109

Priority
Need
Priority
Level Population
Geographic
Areas Affected
Associated
Goals Description
Basis for Relative
Priority
Priority
Housing
Needs
High  Extremely
Low
 Low
 Moderate
 Large
Families
 Families
with
Children
 Elderly
 Chronically
Homeless
 Families
with
Children
 Veterans
 Victims of
Domestic
Violence

Citywide Preserve Existing
and Create New
Affordable Housing
 Acquisition /
Rehabilitation
 New
Construction
 Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Loans and
Grants Program
 Housing
Services for
TBRA
 Tenant Based
Rental
Assistance

Sustain and
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
 Special Code
Enforcement
The need for
affordable
housing in
Huntington
Beach remains
high due to the
significant
number of
households
experiencing
cost burdens.

Housing was
determined to
be a high priority
in Huntington
Beach.

Priority
Communi
ty Facility
Needs
High  Extremely
Low
 Low
 Moderate
 Large
Families
 Families
with
Children
 Homeless
 Elderly
 Persons
with
Disabilitie
s
Citywide

Special Code
Enforcement
Area
Preserve Existing
Community and
Public Facilities
 Various TBD
Public Facilities
There is a need
for public
improvements
to ensure a
safe and
decent
environment
for its citizens.

Priority needs
in this category
could include
homeless
shelters, parks,
recreational
centers, youth
centers, and
healthcare
facilities.

Needs
Assessment and
Housing and
Community
Development
Survey found
these activities to
be highly rated
needs in
Huntington
Beach.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 110

Priority
Infrastruc
ture
Needs
High  Non-
Housing
Communit
y
Developm
ent
Citywide

Special Code
Enforcement
Area
Provide for Needed
Infrastructure
Improvements
 ADA
Improvements
(Curb
Cuts/Ramps)
 Various TBD
Infrastructure
Projects
Provide
needed
infrastructure
improvements,
including ADA
improvements,
in low/mod
neighborhoods
throughout
Huntington
Beach.

Infrastructure
improvements in
Huntington
Beach's low- and
moderate-income
neighborhoods,
as well as
enhancements to
streets and
sidewalks for
better
accessibility for
disabled
individuals, were
identified as high
priorities.

Priority
Homeless
Needs
High  Homeless
Individual
s
 Homeless
Families
with
Children
 Homeless
Veterans
 Homeless
Victims of
Domestic
Violence
Citywide Support Efforts to
Address
Homelessness
 Pathways to
Independence
 Project Hope
Alliance
 Robyne’s Nest
 StandUp for
Kids Street
Outreach
Program
 Other TBD
Homeless Public
Service
Programs
Priority
homeless
needs entails
assisting non-
profit
organizations
in serving
Huntington
Beach's
homeless
community.

Homeless services
were determined
to be a high
priority in
Huntington
Beach.

Priority
Special
Needs
High  Elderly
 Frail
Elderly
Citywide Support Agencies
that Assist Special
Needs Populations
 Senior Outreach
Center Care
Management
 Other TBD
Special Needs
Services
Priority special
needs
encompass
providing
services to the
elderly and
frail elderly.

Special needs
populations are a
high priority for
Huntington
Beach.

Priority
Communi
ty Service
Needs
High  Extremely
Low
 Low
 Moderate
 Families
with
Children
 Elderly
 Disabled
Citywide Increase Access to
Community Services
for Low- and
Moderate-Income
Persons
 Children’s
Bureau After
School Program
 Other TBD
Community
Services
Provide
needed
services to
eligible
low/mod
income
persons.

Public services for
low- and
moderate-income
persons and
families are
deemed a high
priority.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 111

Other
Housing
and
Communi
ty
Develop
ment
Needs
High Administrative Citywide Planning for
Housing and
Community
Development
 CDBG Program
Administration
 HOME Program
Administration
 Fair Housing
Services
This priority
entails
administrative
activities
needed to
implement
housing and
community
development
needs in the
City.

Other Housing
and Community
Development
Needs
encompasses the
administration of
the CDBG and
HOME programs
and is a high
priority for the
City.

Table 52 – Priority Needs Summary
Narrative

In establishing five-year priorities for assistance with CDBG and HOME funds, the City of Huntington Beach has taken several factors into consideration: 1) those households most in need of housing and community development assistance, as determined through the Consolidated Plan needs assessment, consultation, and public participation process; 2) which activities will best meet the needs of those identified households; and 3) the extent of other non-federal resources and programs available to address these needs.

Huntington Beach's primary source of funds used to address the community's housing needs is HOME. CDBG funds are directed almost entirely towards community development activities. The unmet housing needs identified in this section are based on 2016-2020 census statistics of households with housing problems compiled as part of the CHAS Databook.

Huntington Beach's priority non-community development needs include unmet community facility, infrastructure, public service, and planning needs. Identified needs and priorities reflect the results of input from various City departments, as well as input from agency consultations and the citizen participation process.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 112

SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b)

Influence of Market Conditions

Affordable
Housing Type Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type Tenant Based
Rental Assistance
(TBRA)
TBRA is the fastest way to provide affordable housing to those in need as it partners existing rental housing owners with voucher holders. With over 14,000 low- and moderate-income renter households cost burdened, the need for additional rental assistance is substantial. The challenge is that the use of TBRA is completely dependent on landlords' willingness to accept tenant-based rental assistance and to participate in a contractual relationship with Subgrantees, OCHA and/or HUD. In addition, Fair Market Rent levels are well below actual rents.

TBRA for Non-
Homeless Special
Needs
Similar market characteristics that influence the use of TBRA above are applicable to the use of TBRA to serve persons with special needs, such as veterans and senior citizens. However, special needs populations, on average, are likely have an even greater need for TBRA than the general low- and moderate-income population. An additional market characteristic that may influence the use of TBRA for special needs tenants is the willingness and ability of service providers to assist TBRA clients to remain stable in their housing.

New Unit
Production
As documented in the Needs Assessment, 76% of low- and moderate-income renter households are cost burdened, with 40% severely cost burdened. These households would theoretically qualify for new affordable housing if sufficient resources existed to build them. The cost of land, labor and materials affects the total development costs and the number of units the City can support in any given year. While funds are limited, the City will use regulatory tools - such as flexible development standards, density bonus and other incentives - to support the expansion of needed affordable housing.

Rehabilitation Based on the visual (windshield) survey, the City determined that low- and moderate- income areas within the area bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south contained the most properties with physical deterioration. Further, the potential presence of lead-based paint in the City’s 56,510 owner and rental housing units built before 1980 would theoretically qualify for rehabilitation assistance if sufficient resources existed. The City prioritizes limited CDBG and HOME resources for rehabilitation and code enforcement of substandard housing.

Acquisition,
including
preservation
With 14,090 low- and moderate-income Huntington Beach renter households cost burdened and nearly 2,000 overcrowded, these households would theoretically qualify for newly acquired and rehabilitated affordable housing if sufficient resources existed.

Typically, the City’s rehabilitation resources support combined acquisition and rehabilitation projects in partnership with non-profits that leverage City dollars with other funding sources. The cost of land, labor and materials affects the total development costs and the number of units that the City can support in any given year. Another critical issue that influences the use of funds to acquire properties for the creation or preservation of affordable units is the lack of a permanent source of financing. The elimination of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, coupled with continued reductions in the HOME entitlement, makes addressing priority housing needs more challenging.

Table 53 – Influence of Market Conditions

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 113

SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)

Introduction

The table below outlines the CDBG and HOME funding available for housing and community development activities during this Consolidated Plan period. The City receives approximately $1,121,195 in annual CDBG entitlement and $538,328 in annual HOME funds. While HOME funds are exclusively allocated for affordable housing activities, CDBG funds are primarily used for community development initiatives.

Anticipated Resources
Program
Source
of
Funds Uses of Funds
Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative
Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG Public-
Federal
Acquisition,
Planning,
Economic
Development,
Housing,
Public
Improvements,
Public Services
$1,121,195 $30,000 $228,868 $1,380,063 $4,604,780 Entitlement funds
allocation
plus
estimated
program
income
plus prior-
year
resources.

HOME Public-
Federal
Acquisition,
Homeowner
Rehab,
Multifamily
rental new
construction,
Multifamily
rental rehab,
New
construction
for ownership,
TBRA
$538,328 $125,000 $181,100 $844,428 $2,653,312 Entitlement allocation
plus
estimated
program
income and
prior-year
resources.

Table 14 - Anticipated Resources

Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied

Federal funds are essential for implementing the Consolidated Plan, as local private and non- federal funds are often insufficient to meet the significant demand for housing and services in the community. Agencies receiving CDBG and HOME funds use these resources as leverage to secure additional funding from other sources.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 114

The City also maximizes other resources through various formula grant programs. For instance, the HOME program is often matched with private and public investments, including low-income housing tax credits. Future matching funds may come from sources such as inclusionary housing in-lieu fees and residual receipts from former Redevelopment Agency loans.

HUD requires a 25% match for HOME funds used in affordable housing projects. Historically, the City has met this requirement with redevelopment tax increment funds, which were combined with HOME funds for affordable housing development. Although redevelopment tax increment funds are no longer available for matching, the City has a surplus of match funds from prior contributions by the former Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. As of September 2023, this match surplus stands at approximately $3,725,103.

If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan

Not Applicable

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 115

SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k)

Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.

Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served Huntington Beach
Community Enhancement
Division
Government Affordable Housing,
Economic Development,
Neighborhood
Improvements,
Homelessness,
Planning
Jurisdiction
Huntington Beach
Community & Library
Services Department
Government Public Facilities,
Public Services
Jurisdiction
Huntington Beach Code
Enforcement Division
Government Code Enforcement Jurisdiction
Huntington Beach Police
Department
Government Homelessness Jurisdiction
Orange County Housing
Authority (OCHA)
PHA Section 8 Rental Subsidy Countywide
Fair Housing Foundation Non-profit Organization Public Services Jurisdiction Orange County
Continuum of Care
Regional Organization Homelessness Countywide
Homeless and Special
Needs Services Providers
Non-Profit Agencies Public Services Jurisdiction
Table 55 – Institutional Delivery Structure

Assessment of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System

Huntington Beach boasts a well-established housing and community development delivery system, supported by strong City and County agencies that anchor federal programs. The City is also backed by a robust network of experienced non-profit organizations that provide a wide range of services to residents.

The Community Enhancement Division maintains close communication with other City departments when updating or revising housing policies, issues, and services. Through daily interactions, City staff implement programs, track issues of concern, and have easy access to data related to building activity, housing conditions, zoning, growth issues, employment trends, and other demographic information.

Beyond the City’s internal network, Huntington Beach collaborates with various non-profit agencies and public service groups through its federal entitlement and other resources. These agencies receive assistance from City staff in program planning, ensuring activity eligibility, compliance with federal regulations, and monitoring the timely expenditure of program funds.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 116

Agencies are required to submit quarterly and annual reports, meet federal requirements, and undergo periodic audits and on-site reviews.

Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach performs project monitoring for all rent-restricted affordable units funded by HOME, CDBG, and former Redevelopment Agency housing funds. This includes:

 Annual audits to ensure compliance with regulatory agreements and affordability covenants.
 Periodic on-site visits, including property inspections and in-depth reviews of rent- restricted affordable unit files.

As part of the Consolidated Plan process, the City gathered input from numerous housing and public service agencies through consultation workshops, interviews, and a Housing and Community Development Survey. This valuable input helped identify service needs and gaps, informing the development of the City’s five-year Strategic Plan.

Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services

Homelessness Prevention
Services
Available in the
Community
Targeted to
Homeless
Targeted to People
with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X X X
Legal Assistance X
Mortgage Assistance
Rental Assistance X X
Utilities Assistance
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X X
Mobile Clinics X X
Other Street Outreach Services X X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X
Child Care X X
Education X X
Employment and Employment
Training
X X
Healthcare X X

HIV/AIDS X X X
Life Skills X X
Mental Health Counseling X X
Transportation X X
Other
Other
Table 56 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 117

Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)

There are a variety of homeless and supportive services in the City that provide a range of care for homeless and at-risk households. These services work together, within the framework of the larger Continuum of Care to meet the needs of households.

Homeless Prevention Services
 Project Self-Sufficiency Orange County: Helps low-income single parents graduate from college or vocational training with the skills necessary to achieve economic independence. Participants are provided customized, wraparound services throughout their educational journey and transition into career.
 Interval House: This six-unit transitional housing facility in the heart of Huntington Beach provides safe housing for women and children recovering from domestic violence. Near major transportation routes, shopping, and services, the 3-bedroom apartments all have enclosed patios and in-unit laundry facilities. Interval House Crisis Shelters provides their residents counseling, education programs, and assistance in becoming self-sufficient.  Collette Children's Home: The eight-unit Colette’s Children’s Home provides transitional housing for battered/homeless mothers with children and chronically homeless women.

Support services provided include job development and retention training, parenting and life skill training, financial planning and assistance, case management services, counseling, and more.
 Senior Outreach Center: Provides services that assist elders in the City with their physical, emotional and nutritional needs through professionally trained staff and volunteers. The Outreach Center focuses on programs and services for frail or homebound seniors to promote safety, self-sufficiency and independence.
 Oak View Community Center: The Children’s Bureau, a non-profit agency, provides a variety of family support and youth development services at the Oakview Community Center, including parent education classes, in-home parenting support and case management, health education and health access assistance, domestic violence prevention and intervention, literacy programs, homework clubs, tutoring, youth clubs, teen programs and clubs, community enrichment and culturally sensitive activities.

Supportive Services
 Huntington Beach Navigation Center: The Center can shelter up to 174 adults and couples with ties to Huntington Beach. The Center, operated by Mercy House, provides access to vital services that will help individuals experiencing homelessness on the path towards housing security.
 Be Well HB: Be Well OC in Huntington Beach assists with a variety of non-emergency and non-medical, public assistance situations that have historically been handled by the Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD). Be Well HB is equipped to de-escalate and assist with mental health crisis, suicidal ideation, public assistance, non-domestic violence

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 118

family disputes, drug and alcohol abuse/addiction, welfare checks, death notifications, and homelessness (with the HB Homeless Task Force).
 Waymakers Huntington Beach Youth Shelter: The Youth Shelter offers a short-term crisis intervention residential program with the goal of family reunification. Children at risk of homelessness, institutionalization, incarceration, or hospitalization are given emergency shelter, meals, 24-hour supervision, individual, group and family counseling, academic tutoring, prevention, education, and life skills development activities as well as aftercare services.
 Beach Cities Interfaith Services (BCIS): Coordinates the provision of a variety of financial and human services for the homeless and persons at-risk of homelessness in Huntington Beach. The organization provides sack lunches for homeless individuals and grocery allotments for persons with housing. Other services offered include utility assistance, food/clothing, personal hygiene kits, counseling/referrals, transportation assistance, mail box service, and financial assistance for prescriptions. BCIS is in the process of developing an intake/case management and referral system for the homeless, with the goal of functioning as a multi-service center for the homeless in Huntington Beach.  American Family Housing (AFH): Provides a continuum of services to Huntington Beach residents, including emergency shelter in coordination with local churches; transitional housing in scattered site locations; and permanent affordable rental housing.  Salvation Army Family Service Office: From their Emergency Family Services Office in Huntington Beach, the Salvation Army provides a variety of supportive services for those in need, such as emergency utility bill and rental assistance, clothing and household items, transportation assistance, free food and school supplies.  Mental Health Association of Orange County: Serving adults with severe and persistent psychiatric disorders through direct service, advocacy, education, and information dissemination. Three outpatient recovery centers include mental health assessments, diagnosis, treatment, medication services, individual and group therapy, crisis intervention and case management, support and encouragement. Also, psychosocial consumer clubhouses, wellness centers, veterans services, and resource and referral services are available.
 Straight Talk Counseling: Offers affordable, high-quality counseling and prevention services to the community since it was founded in 1971. The mission of Straight Talk Counseling is to make available a variety of mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitative services to individuals and families in need, for whom access, or utilization of such services is limited, restricted or otherwise unavailable.  Pathways to Independence: Assists single young women from disadvantaged backgrounds through education, therapy, mentoring, housing, and healthcare, to break the cycle of poverty and abuse. The vision is to change the course of young women's lives from abuse and poverty to empowerment and self-sufficiency.

Outreach Services
 Huntington Beach City Manager’s Office: The City of Huntington Beach has established a comprehensive System of Care for those experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness with

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 119

a focus on outreach, engagement, case management, and linkage to shelter, housing, and other supportive services. The City's Homeless and Behavioral Health Division is committed to taking a positive, balanced approach to assisting the homeless with compassion while upholding our community's overall quality of life.  Project Hope Alliance: PHA's mission is to "end the cycle of homelessness, one child at a time." A proactive, education-centric approach focuses holistically on each child's development so that each child can realize a future without homelessness and become self-sufficient adults.
 Robyne’s Nest: Resources to school students in the Huntington Beach area, with little to no parental support, to complete high school and pursue a path to self-sufficiency. This includes fostering these students an increased sense of self-worth and dignity, by providing housing, mental health therapy and teaching them how to become independent and self-supporting, and by providing them life skills, counseling services in nutrition, health, finance, educational aid, job training and other related areas. Robyne's Nest focuses on the front-end of the homeless crisis by breaking the cycles of toxicity that leads to homelessness, drug/alcohol addictions, domestic violence, teen pregnancies and more.
 StandUp for Kids Street Outreach: Program provides wrap-around support aimed at moving youth facing homelessness from crisis to self-sufficiency. The youth are identified through weekly street outreach and referrals from partner agencies within the City. Youth are assessed for their immediate needs and provided with food, clothing, hygiene products, and transitional housing, as needed.

Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above

Collaboration between public agencies, assisted housing providers, and private and governmental health, mental health, and human services agencies remains essential for the effective delivery of housing and support services. To strengthen this coordination, the City of Huntington Beach continues its involvement in the Commission to Address Homelessness, working alongside regional partners to improve outcomes for individuals and families experiencing homelessness and housing instability.

The primary gap in Huntington Beach’s service delivery system is a function of the significant cuts in public and private funding and associated reductions in service. Funding cuts in the CDBG and HOME programs over the last several years, combined with the increased demand for services stemming from increases in housing and rental costs, has resulted in significant gaps in service.

Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs

The City proposes to strengthen, coordinate and integrate the governmental institutions, non- profit and private delivery systems to implement the City’s five-year strategy and to address the priority needs outlined in the Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2025/26 – 2029/30. Engaging the

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 120

community and stakeholders in the delivery of services and programs for the benefit of low to moderate residents will be vital in overcoming gaps in service delivery. The City will also utilize public notices, Community Workshops and Meetings (as appropriate), the City’s website, and other forms of media to deliver information on carrying out the Consolidated Plan strategies.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 121

SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4)

Goals Summary Information

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 122

Sort
Order Goal Name
Start
Year
End
Year Category
Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Sustain and
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
2025 2029 Affordable
Housing

Non-Housing
Community
Development
Special Code
Enforcement
Area

Citywide
Priority
Housing
Needs
$1,232,530
(CDBG)

$1,581,139
(CDBG)
Housing Code
Enforcement/Foreclosed
Property Care:
3,000 Household
Housing Unit
(Programs Under
Consideration: Special
Code Enforcement)

Rental Units
Rehabilitated:
60 Household Housing
Unit
(Programs Under
Consideration:

Homeowner
Rehabilitation Loans and
Grants Program)

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 123

2 Preserve
Existing &
Create New
Affordable
Housing
2025 2029 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Priority
Housing
Needs
$584,751
(HOME)

$1,000,000
(HOME

$1,000,000
(HOME)

$644,205
(HOME)

$935,000
(CDBG)
Homeowner Units
Rehabilitated –
2 Household Housing
Units
(Programs Under
Consideration:

Acquisition/Rehab/New
Construction)

Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
75 Households
(Programs Under
Consideration: Families
Forward TBRA Program)

Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
75 Households
(Programs Under
Consideration: Mercy
House TBRA Program)

Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
30 Households
(Programs Under
Consideration: Mobile
Home TBRA Program)

Other
330 Housing Units
(Programs Under
Consideration: Housing
Services for TBRA)
3 Support Efforts
to Address
Homelessness
2025 2029 Homeless Citywide Priority
Homeless
Needs
$477,119
(CDBG)
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
1,400 Persons Assisted
(Programs Under
Consideration: Pathways
to Independence = 200
persons; Project Hope
Alliance = 525 persons;
Robyne’s Nest = 125
persons; StandUp for
Kids = 550 persons)

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 124

4 Support
Agencies that
Assist Special
Needs
Populations
2025 2029 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Citywide Priority
Special Needs
$150,530
(CDBG)
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
825 Persons Assisted
(Programs Under
Consideration: Senior
Outreach Care
Management)
5 Increase
Access to
Community
Services for
Low- and
Moderate-
Income
Persons
2025 2029 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Priority
Community
Services
$200,530
(CDBG)
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
800 Persons Assisted
(Programs Under
Consideration:

Children’s Bureau)
6 Preserve
Community
and Public
Facilities
2025 2029 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide

Special Code
Enforcement
Target Area
Priority
Community
and Public
Facilities
$161,800
(CDBG)
Public Facility or
Infrastructure Activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
5,000 Persons Assisted
(Programs Under
Consideration: Various
TBD Public Facilities)
7 Provide
Needed
Infrastructure
Improvements
2025 2029 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide

Special Code
Enforcement
Target Area
Priority
Infrastructure
Improvements
$125,000
(CDBG)
Public Facility or
Infrastructure Activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
5,000 Persons Assisted
(Programs Under
Consideration: ADA
Improvements to Curbs
and Ramps = 2,271
persons; Various TBD
Public Facilities = 2,729
persons)
8 Planning for
Housing and
Community
Development
2025 2029 Administration Citywide Priority Other
Housing and
Community
Development
Needs
$1,121,195
(CDBG)

$269,164
(HOME)
Not Applicable.
(CDBG Program
Administration; Fair
Housing Foundation)

Not Applicable.
(HOME Program
Administration)
Table 57 – Goals Summary

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 125

Goal Name Goal Description
Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods Using CDBG funds, the City will sustain and strengthen neighborhoods by eliminating unsafe conditions and blight while improving the quality of life of residents within the community.

(Programs Under Consideration: Special Code Enforcement; Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program)
Preserve Existing and Create New
Affordable Housing
To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project’s viability, HOME funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units, and in the provision of tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA).

(Programs Under Consideration: Acquisition/Rehabilitation, New Construction, Mercy House TBRA, Families Forward TBRA, Mobile Home TBRA, and Housing Services for TBRA)
Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers.

(Programs Under Consideration: Pathways to Independence, Project Hope Alliance, Robyne’s Nest, StandUp for Kids Street Outreach; Other TBD Homeless Programs)
Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs
Populations
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide
assistance to special needs service providers.

(Programs Under Consideration: Senior Outreach Care
Management; Other TBD Special Needs Programs)
Increase Access to Community Services for
Low- and Moderate-Income Persons
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to various social service agencies for programs for youth, fair housing, anti-crime, and general public services. Services must benefit at least 51 percent low/mod persons.

(Programs Under Consideration: Children’s Bureau; Other TBD Community Services)
Preserve Community and Public Facilities Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public facilities and parks.

(Programs Under Consideration: Various TBD Public Facility Projects)
Provide Needed Infrastructure
Improvements
Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure.

(Programs Under Consideration: ADA Curb Cuts and Ramps; Other TBD Infrastructure Improvements)

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 126

Planning for Housing and Community
Development
The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements, (2) Coordination of CDBG- funded capital improvement projects, (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded housing projects, (5) Monitoring of CDBG and HOME
projects/programs to ensure compliance with federal
regulations, (6) Preparation of Annual Action Plan, and (7) Preparation of the CAPER. Up to 20% of the annual CDBG
entitlement and up to 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities.

(Programs Under Consideration: CDBG Program
Administration; Fair Housing Foundation; HOME Program
Administration)
Table 58 – Goal Descriptions

Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)

Over the next five years, the City of Huntington Beach plans to continue its efforts to address housing affordability challenges by providing tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) to households in need. Specifically, the City intends to allocate HOME funding for TBRA through partnerships with Families Forward and Mercy House, with the goal of assisting 75 homeless, senior, veteran, and/or family households each. Additionally, a separate TBRA program will be available to senior households requiring assistance with mobile home space rents. The Consolidated Plan outlines a target of assisting 30 mobile home residents over the five-year period.

In addition to these initiatives, the City is required to allocate 15% of each annual HOME entitlement allocation to support the development of affordable housing. This allocation will amount to approximately $584,751 over the next five years, which may be sufficient to fund the development of at least two affordable rental units. While no specific projects are currently under consideration for the development of affordable housing, the City remains committed to exploring potential opportunities and is open to discussions with community housing development organizations (CHDOs) interested in collaborating on future projects.

While the 5-year affordable housing goals have been established using FY 2025/26 allocations, the City reserves the right to adjust funding as needed during the course of the Consolidated Plan period, including reallocating funds to other initiatives or other TBRA providers based on emerging needs and priorities.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 127

SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c)

Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement)

Not appliable.

Activities to Increase Resident Involvements

Not applicable.

Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902?

Not applicable.

Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation.

Not applicable.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 128

SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h)

Barriers to Affordable Housing

Huntington Beach has a well-established history of supporting affordable housing initiatives. The City has implemented several provisions in its Zoning Ordinance that facilitate diverse residential development and promote affordable housing, including a density bonus ordinance, an inclusionary housing ordinance, a planned development zone, and reasonable accommodation procedures for individuals with disabilities.

However, the primary barrier to the development of affordable housing in Huntington Beach is the limited availability of vacant land suitable for residential use. Much of the underdeveloped and residentially zoned land in the City is owned by separate entities who hold smaller parcels, creating challenges for cohesive development. This situation necessitates alternative policy strategies, such as lot consolidation or the demolition of older structures, to accommodate higher-density infill development.

Beyond the challenges faced by market-rate housing development—such as high land prices and construction costs—affordable housing projects encounter additional hurdles. While there are sites with some potential to accommodate affordable housing, including those targeting special needs populations, financial assistance for these projects remains scarce and highly competitive.

Typically, a combination of funding sources is required to finance an affordable housing development, as substantial subsidies are necessary to ensure the units are affordable for extremely low, very low, and low-income households. It is not uncommon for affordable housing projects to rely on five or more funding sources to become financially viable. Each funding source may have different requirements, application processes, and deadlines, with some even requiring that financing commitments be secured before applications can proceed. Because securing financing is so critical and competitive, funding agencies often influence the scope and nature of housing projects. In recent years, funding for housing targeting special needs populations—such as veterans, individuals with mental disabilities, and the homeless—has generally been more available than for other low- and moderate-income households.

Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing

Through the administration of the CDBG and HOME programs, every effort is made to remove barriers to affordable housing through agreements with for-profit and non-profit affordable housing developers. These efforts also include working with neighborhood residents to ensure affordable housing projects are acceptable. Ongoing monitoring of “for sale” affordable units is conducted by department staff by assuring that the affordable housing covenants are recorded on title when the unit is sold. To address the decline in sources of housing funds, the City will continue to advocate for and pursue federal, state, local and private funding sources for affordable housing.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 129

Additionally, as part of the City’s Housing Element update, the City must assess and to the extent feasible, mitigate, its governmental constraints to housing for lower- and moderate-income households and persons with disabilities. The Housing Element addresses the City’s provisions for affordable housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. The following programs in the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element specifically address the variety of regulatory and financial tools used by the City to remove barriers and facilitate the provision of affordable housing:

Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation through Non-Profit Developers: Acquire, rehabilitate, and establish affordability covenants on 80 rental units.

Residential and Mixed-Use Sites Inventory: Maintain current inventory of vacant and underutilized development sites and provide developers with information on incentives.

Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: Facilitate development through flexible, form-based standards and streamlined processing. Encourage affordable housing by requiring inclusionary units to be provided on-site, or within the Specific Plan, and providing additional incentives for increased percentages of affordable units.

Inclusionary Housing Program and Housing Trust Fund: Continue implementation and re- evaluate Ordinance to provide consistency with case law and market conditions. Establish in-lieu fee amount for projects between 10-30 units.

Affordable Housing Development Assistance: Provide financial and regulatory assistance in support of affordable housing. Provide information on incentives to development community.

Affordable Housing Density Bonus: Continue to offer density bonus incentives as a means of enhancing the economic feasibility of affordable housing development.

Development Fee Assistance: Continue to offer fee reductions to incentivize affordable housing.

Specify the waiver of 100% of application processing fees in the Code for projects with 10% extremely low-income units.

Residential Processing Procedures: Provide non-discretionary development review within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Adopt streamlined review procedures for multi-family development on a citywide basis.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 130

SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d)

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs

Homelessness has been a growing challenge across the country including in the Los Angeles and Orange County regions. Contributing factors include a shortage of affordable housing, increasing poverty rates, reduced subsidies, substance abuse issues, the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill, and a rising number of individuals who may view homelessness as a lifestyle choice.

To address this issue, Orange County conducts a biennial enumeration of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals in a 24-hour period. This effort, known as the Homeless Point- in-Time (PIT) Count, is required by Congress for all communities receiving U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding for homeless programs. HUD mandates that the PIT Count take place during the last ten days of January. For 2024, the count was conducted by the County of Orange and the Orange County Continuum of Care, with the sheltered count taking place on the night of January 22, 2024, and the unsheltered count occurring from the morning of January 23 through January 25, 2024.

The 2024 PIT Count identified 7,322 homeless individuals in Orange County, marking a significant 28% increase from the 2022 count, which recorded 5,718 individuals. Specifically in Huntington Beach, the count revealed 433 total homeless persons, with 173 classified as unsheltered and 260 as sheltered. This represents an increase from the 2022 figures, where there were 330 total homeless individuals – 188 unsheltered and 142 sheltered.

The City of Huntington Beach has implemented an ambitious strategy to address and ultimately end homelessness. In FY 2021/22, the City took significant steps by appointing a Deputy Director of Homelessness & Behavioral Health Services and establishing the Homeless & Behavioral Health System. This comprehensive system aims to support individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness through outreach, engagement, case management, and connecting them with essential services such as shelter, housing, and behavioral health support. Although the Deputy Director’s position has evolved since February 2022, the City continues to staff and support homelessness services.

The HB Cares Volunteers program is an integral part of the Homeless & Behavioral Health System in Huntington Beach, serving as the backbone of the initiative and driving positive change within the community. Since its launch in 2023, the HB CARES Program has successfully recruited and trained 21 volunteers who have undergone various training sessions, including de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed care, vicarious trauma, and Mental Health First Aid. Volunteers answer the homeless outreach line daily and return calls, so those in need have a streamlined means of communication with our outreach team. Further, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist started in December 2023 and has assisted with 62 Disabling Condition Assessments.

The therapist will continue to support mental health services on an as-needed basis.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 131

The Homeless & Behavioral Health System also incorporated homeless outreach social workers who actively engaged with unhoused and at-risk of being unhoused individuals, families, veterans, and seniors. Social workers offered support by linking individuals to resources, service providers, and aiding in securing necessary documents for County of Orange housing programs.

They maintained close collaboration with local and county shelters, including the Huntington Beach Navigation Center, while also partnering with crisis response teams like Be Well to provide comprehensive assistance and support to those in need. Working in collaboration with Homeless Task Force officers, they ensured that individuals received the necessary care and resources to address their unique situations effectively.

Be Well OC in Huntington Beach (BWOC) is another component of the Homeless & Behavioral Health System. BWOC employs a Mobile Crisis Response Team (two operating vans) composed of two Crisis Interventionists who drive to locations and provide in-community assessment and stabilization services. The teams are well-trained and experienced in providing appropriate information, referrals, transportation to services, and additional follow-up support and case management - to help address mental health-related situations.

In the ensuing years covered by this Consolidated Plan, the City intends to support homeless public service programs that provide outreach and assessment of homeless individuals. Such programs could include the Pathways to Independence Program which focuses on young single women experiencing homelessness, or Project Hope Alliance, Robyne’s Nest, and StandUp for Kids Street Outreach which focus on homeless youth and providing them wrap around services unique to young individuals such as mentoring, food, clothing, housing, academic support, and educational aid.

Further, the City may continue to support the operations and services at the Navigation Center, located at 17642 Beach Boulevard. The Navigation Center, which opened in December 2020, offers 174 beds for overnight shelter and provides direct access to essential services aimed at helping individuals experiencing homelessness move towards housing stability.

These combined efforts reflect the City’s commitment to addressing homelessness and facilitating pathways to long-term housing solutions.

Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

As mentioned above, the City has partnered with Mercy House to launch the Navigation Center, an emergency homeless shelter. The facility received significant federal funding to support its operations, including CDBG, CDBG-CV (for activities related to COVID-19 prevention, preparation, and response), and HOME funding from the American Rescue Program (HOME-ARP). The Navigation Center can shelter up to 174 adults and couples under normal conditions.

In FY 2021/22, the City initiated the HB Oasis project in collaboration with the State of California Homekey Program, the County of Orange, National CORE, and American Family Housing. This

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 132

project involved acquiring and rehabilitating the former Quality Inn & Suites motel at 17251 Beach Boulevard to address homelessness in the region. HB Oasis served as interim housing for up to 62 individuals and households in Orange County's Central Service Planning Area. It provided not only transitional housing but also comprehensive property management and residential support services. The focus was on trauma-informed, evidence-based operations to support residents' reintegration into the community through robust case management and connections to permanent housing solutions.

In May 2024, the HB Oasis project transitioned to permanent supportive housing. This transition involved renovating the individual units to include kitchenettes and utilizing project-based vouchers to support long-term housing stability for its residents.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again.

In its ongoing commitment to addressing homelessness and preventing those at risk from becoming homeless, the City of Huntington Beach has implemented a series of strategic initiatives designed to support a variety of populations, including chronically homeless individuals, families with children, veterans, victims of domestic violence, and unaccompanied youth. The City’s approach is centered around facilitating the transition to permanent housing and independent living, reducing the duration of homelessness, improving access to affordable housing, and preventing recidivism among recently housed individuals. Key efforts include securing both short-term and long-term funding, collaborating with experienced service providers to leverage additional resources, and creating or securing affordable housing opportunities.

The City also provides comprehensive case management services and conducts street outreach to connect homeless individuals with available resources. One notable initiative, the conversion of the former Quality Inn Hotel into the Huntington Beach Oasis project, created 62 non- congregate transitional housing units. This project offers extensive wraparound supportive services to address challenges such as mental and physical health issues, substance use, trauma, and employment barriers. The success of this program led to the conversion of these transitional units into permanent housing in May 2024.

Similarly, the Navigation Center, supported by approximately $4.5 million in funding from CDBG, CDBG-CV, and HOME-ARP, offers a range of wraparound services to help individuals transition from emergency shelter to more stable housing. The City plans to repurpose the Navigation Center property into a permanent navigation center and affordable housing development project, which will provide both affordable housing and supportive services for chronically homeless individuals.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 133

Finally, the City intends to prioritize tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA), with plans to provide subsidies to 180 households between 2025/26 and 2029/30, further reinforcing its commitment to supporting those in need of stable housing.

Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs

To prevent homelessness and support at-risk populations, Huntington Beach actively participated in the Orange County Continuum of Care System. This system is designed to provide assistance to individuals at risk of becoming homeless, ensuring a network of support for those in need.

The City is also committed to supporting families through HOME-funded rental assistance programs. During the five-year period covered by this Consolidated Plan, the City is proposing to support three rental assistance programs that will assist a variety of vulnerable population groups in Huntington Beach. For example, Families Forward assists families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, while Mercy House targets lower-income households, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. The Mobile Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program targets senior owners of mobile homes with space rents.

Although the City does not receive Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding and therefore is not required to develop a discharge coordination policy, it remains committed to addressing this issue. The City will continue to work with the Orange County Housing Authority and the Continuum of Care Homeless Issues Task Force to develop and refine its discharge coordination policy.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 134

SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i)

Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards

As a means of better protecting children and families against lead poisoning, in 1999 HUD instituted revised lead-based paint regulations focused around the following five activities:

 Notification
 Lead Hazard Evaluation
 Lead Hazard Reduction
 Ongoing Maintenance
 Response to Children with Environmental Intervention Blood Lead Level

The City has implemented HUD Lead Based Paint Regulations (Title X), which requires federally funded rehabilitation projects to address lead hazards. Lead-based paint abatement is part of the City's Residential Rehabilitation Program and the Acquisition/Rehabilitation of Affordable Rental Housing Program. Units within rental housing projects selected for rehabilitation are tested if not statutorily exempt. Elimination or encapsulation remedies are implemented if lead is detected and is paid for by either the developer of the project, or with CDBG or HOME funds, as appropriate.

How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards?

As discussed earlier in the Housing Market Analysis, 74% of Huntington Beach’s owner-occupied units were built prior to 1980, however of these 32,520 units, only 5.6% or 1,820 units have occupants that include children. Similarly, 71% of Huntington Beach’s rental housing was built prior to 1980 (23,990 units), with children present in just 3.8% or 920 of these units. Pre-1980 housing units with children present pose the greatest threat of lead poisoning. With an estimated 2,740 such households in Huntington Beach, lead exposure among children is not a sizable issue.

Another risk factor is household income, with lower income households having a greater risk of exposure. The 2016-2020 CHAS identifies 43% of Huntington Beach's households as earning less than 80% HAMFI, translating to an estimated 24,300 low and moderate income households residing in the City's 56,510 pre-1980 housing units.

Based on the visual (windshield) survey, the City determined that low- and moderate-income areas within the area bound by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south contained the most properties with physical deterioration. Further, the potential presence of lead-based paint in the City’s 56,510 owner and rental housing units built before 1980 would theoretically qualify for rehabilitation assistance if sufficient resources existed. The City prioritizes limited CDBG and HOME resources for rehabilitation and code enforcement of substandard housing.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 135

How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?

The Huntington Beach Community Enhancement Division leads the City’s efforts to mitigate lead- based paint hazards. As part of its commitment to ensuring safe housing, all rehabilitation and tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) projects funded through CDBG and HOME are subjected to testing for lead and asbestos. If a lead hazard is identified, the City engages a lead consultant to oversee the necessary abatement or implementation of interim controls to eliminate the risk.

In addition, for Section 8 housing programs, the Orange County Housing Authority conducts annual inspections of both existing and newly available units. In all cases, any defective paint surfaces must be repaired. For units occupied by households with children under the age of six, corrective actions are taken, including testing and abatement when necessary, or abatement without prior testing if deemed appropriate to protect the health of the children. These measures reflect the City's and County’s commitment to ensuring that all housing remains safe and free from lead-based paint hazards, particularly in vulnerable households.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 136

SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j)

Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families

The 2016-2020 American Community Survey reported that 8% of City residents had incomes below the poverty level. Of greatest concern is record high rents in Huntington Beach that have placed many lower-income persons at greater risk of homelessness. As discussed previously in Section NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment, of the City's approximately 18,420 low- and moderate-income renter households, 14,090 (76%) face a cost burden of spending greater than 30% of income on rent. Additionally, 40% of the City's low- and moderate-income renters face a severe cost burden, with 7,910 spending more than 50% of income on rent.

Many of the workers who make up Huntington Beach's workforce earn modest incomes, making it challenging to afford in live in the City where they work. The analysis of rental housing costs and affordability (Section MA-15) illustrates that households earning low- and moderate-incomes (up to 80% AMI) cannot afford average market rents in Huntington Beach. In general, individuals working in lower-wage service, retail, and support roles are most likely to find themselves priced out of the rental housing market in Huntington Beach due to the high cost of living in the area.

For the homeless or those at-risk of becoming homeless, the most significant problem is the lack of affordable rental housing, which has been exacerbated by decreases in funding available through Section 8 and HOME, and the loss of approximately $3 million in annual Redevelopment Housing funds previously used to support affordable housing.

The City’s anti-poverty strategy seeks to enhance the employability of residents through the promotion and support of programs which provide employment training and supportive services, while expanding employment opportunities through the implementation of three Business Improvement Districts, and its recently completed Economic Development Strategic Plan.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 137

sustainable growth and active community engagement for a vibrant, resilient future for the City of Huntington Beach.

In terms of workforce training initiatives, the City's Library has implemented an Adult Literacy Program, offering English speaking, reading, and writing skill development for persons 18 years and older. The goal of the program is to promote literacy and improved job skills.

Finally, the City will fully comply with Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act, which helps foster local economic development and individual self-sufficiency. This set of regulations requires that to the greatest extent feasible, the City will provide job training, employment, and contracting opportunities for low or very low-income residents in connection with housing and public construction projects.

How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan

Huntington Beach's affordable housing programs are closely aligned with the City's broader goals and strategies for reducing poverty among local families and individuals. These programs work together to address both the immediate housing needs of low-income residents and the long- term economic self-sufficiency of vulnerable populations. Examples of the coordination between affordable housing initiatives and poverty reduction efforts include:

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 138

access affordable rental housing, thus easing financial strain and enabling them to allocate resources toward other basic needs, such as food, healthcare, and education.  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Programs: The City plans to utilize HOME funds to support three tenant-based rental assistance programs. These programs will provide direct rental subsidies to eligible low-income households, helping reduce the financial burden of housing costs and offering families a better chance at achieving long-term stability and upward mobility.
 Pathways to Independence Program: With CDBG funding, the City supports the Pathways to Independence program, which serves single women who are homeless or unstably housed. This program helps participants achieve economic self-sufficiency through education and personal development, providing a critical link between stable housing and the long-term reduction of poverty. By equipping individuals with the skills and support they need to succeed, the program contributes to breaking the cycle of homelessness and poverty.
 Affordable Housing Development: During the five-year period of the Consolidated Plan, the City will work to utilize HOME funds to gap finance an affordable housing project at a yet-to-be-determined location. The development of new affordable housing will directly address the need for affordable living spaces for low-income families and individuals, providing them with stable housing opportunities that can help reduce economic vulnerability and improve quality of life.

Through these initiatives, Huntington Beach’s affordable housing programs are intricately connected to the City’s poverty reduction goals. By ensuring access to affordable housing, supporting programs that enhance self-sufficiency, and developing new affordable housing units, the City is working to reduce poverty and improve the economic stability of its residents.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 139

SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230

Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements.

Huntington Beach follows monitoring procedures for CDBG-funded public service subrecipients which includes desk reviews of quarterly progress reports and expenditures, and periodic on-site visits to ensure compliance with federal regulations. All subrecipients are required by their subrecipient agreement to submit performance reports that demonstrate work is being performed in accordance with the scope of service, that evidences progress in meeting performance milestones, and that shows expenditures are allowable under the agreement. Staff also conducts periodic on-site monitoring of project activities to document compliance with HUD eligibility guidelines, performance in reaching contract goals, to determine if administrative and fiscal systems are adequate, and to ensure compliance with other crosscutting federal regulations.

CDBG-funded capital projects are monitored by regular status and fiscal reports for Davis/Bacon and Section 3 requirements throughout the course of the project, as well as frequent site visits by staff. For some projects, the City's Public Works Department outsources monitoring and project inspections on construction work.

The City is also responsible for monitoring HOME-assisted rental projects (e.g., transitional, permanent and special needs housing projects) throughout the period of affordability to ensure that these projects are in continued compliance with Federal and State regulations. Monitoring guidelines are intended to assist City staff in making informed judgments about asset management, HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) Program compliance, and management efficiency of HOME-assisted rental projects. The City’s monitoring protocol serves to determine if HOME-assisted rental housing remains affordable, its occupants are low- and very low-income, and that the property is maintained in standard condition throughout the affordability period.

Rental project monitoring occurs at three levels:

 Annually, a desk audit is performed wherein the owner/property manager will submit information certifying household sizes, household incomes and rents for all HOME- restricted units;
 An on-site visit will be conducted triennially (once every three years) during which an in- depth review will occur of all HOME and federal crosscutting requirements, e.g., affirmative marketing and tenant selection procedures;
 Upon receipt of a developer’s project pro forma, the City conducts an economic analysis to ensure that, in accordance with the City’s adopted underwriting and layering review

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 140

guidelines, the amount of warranted HOME assistance is necessary to provide affordable housing.

The City has the prerogative to monitor on-site more frequently, especially if a project is at risk because of outstanding findings or insufficient capacity.

The City shall also follow steps to monitor beneficiaries of the Homeowner Rehabilitation Program. During the pre-monitoring phase, applicants will sign a clause on the application form certifying that the property is the principal residence.

Project and financial data on CDBG and HOME-funded activities is maintained using HUD’s IDIS (Integrated Disbursement Information System) software. Use of this system allows HUD staff easy access to local data for review and progress evaluation.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 141

EXPECTED RESOURCES
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)

Introduction

Huntington Beach is an entitlement jurisdiction and as such, will receive an estimated $1,121,195 in CDBG entitlement funds, will have approximately $228,868 in prior year CDBG funds carried forward, and is estimated to receive around $30,000 in program income for a total of $1,380,063.

The City does not have any income from float-funded activities or surplus from urban renewal settlements, sale of real property, prior period adjustments, loans outstanding or written off, CDBG-acquired property available for sale, or lump sum drawdown payments. Nor is the City funding any “urgent need activities.” CDBG funds will be used for public services, housing services in support of eligible HOME activities, a homeowner rehabilitation program, code enforcement, infrastructure improvements, and CDBG administration.

The City will also receive an estimated HOME entitlement allocation of $538,328. Prior year unallocated funds of $181,100 and approximately $125,000 in program income will also be available, for a total of $844,428. The City will use HOME funds for administration of the HOME program, three tenant-based rental assistance programs, and will reserve at least 15% for a future affordable housing project. The City is also proposing to use prior-year HOME administrative funds for current year fair housing services.

In the event that final CDBG and HOME entitlement allocations differ from the estimated amounts described above, the following adjustments, as approved by the City Council, will be made to the FY 2025/26 Annual Action Plan:

CDBG Public Service Allocations
 If actual CDBG funding is less than the anticipated amount, decrease the funding allocation for each of the six recommended organizations by a proportionate share (weighted average).
 If actual CDBG funding is greater than the anticipated amount, allocate increased funds by equal amount to the six recommended organizations identified in AP-35 Capital and Housing Preservation Project Allocations
 If actual CDBG funding is less than the anticipated amount, maintain the recommended funding allocations for Special Code Enforcement and Housing Services for TBRA Program and reduce funding to Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program and Maintenance Zone Area 3 ADA Improvements equally.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 142

 If actual CDBG funding is greater than the anticipated amount, maintain the recommended funding allocations for Special Code Enforcement and Housing Services for TBRA Program and increase funding to Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program and Maintenance Zone Area 3 ADA Improvements equally.  If actual HOME funding is less than or greater than the anticipated amount, adjust the Mobile Home TBRA program accordingly. Other HOME capital programs are to remain unchanged.

Administration Allocations
 If actual CDBG funding is less than or more than the anticipated amount, adjust CDBG Administration allocation accordingly but will not exceed the 20 percent maximum requirement of the HUD CDBG allocation for 2025/26.
 If actual HOME funding is less than or more than the anticipated amount, adjust HOME Administration and Community Housing Development Organization funding reserves accordingly, but will not exceed the 10 percent and 15 percent maximum requirements of the HUD HOME allocation for 2025/26.

Another potential resource is SB-2, also known as the Permanent Local Housing Allocation funding, which was implemented in January 2019. It imposes an additional recording fee on property sales, with the aim of collecting revenues that are then distributed by the state to local jurisdictions. These funds are earmarked for financing affordable housing projects. Huntington Beach is set to receive annual revenues from this source, but it's contingent upon the certification of the 2021-2029 Housing Element by the State of California. Once the Housing Element is certified, Huntington Beach can continue to access these funds. This funding serves as a crucial resource that can be utilized to complement CDBG and HOME funds, particularly in addressing issues related to affordable housing and homelessness within the community. Leveraging these various funding sources can significantly bolster efforts to combat housing insecurity and homelessness in Huntington Beach.

The Huntington Beach Housing Authority also contributes approximately $220,000 annually from the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF) for homeless services personnel as part of the City’s Homeless Taskforce effort.

The City will pursue competitive public and private grants for the development and preservation of programs, housing, and services and work to support legislation that promotes funding for future affordable housing during the Consolidated Plan period.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 143

Anticipated Resources

Program
Source
of
Funds Uses of Funds
Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative
Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG Public-
Federal
Acquisition,
Planning,
Economic
Development,
Housing,
Public
Improvements,
Public Services
$1,121,195 $30,000 $228,868 $1,380,063 $4,604,780 Entitlement funds
allocation
plus
estimated
program
income
plus prior-
year
resources.

Table 52 - Expected Resources – Priority Table

Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied

Federal funds play a vital role in implementing the Consolidated Plan. Since local, private, and non-federal resources are often insufficient to meet the community's demand for housing and services, agencies receiving CDBG and HOME funds rely on substantial financial and in-kind support from individuals, foundations, and private organizations to address the needs outlined in the plan.

Additionally, the City leverages other resources from formula grant programs. For instance, the HOME program is supported by a range of funding sources, including private and public investments, as well as low-income housing tax credits. Other potential matching funds include inclusionary housing in-lieu fees, residual receipts from former Redevelopment Agency loans, and State SERAF loan repayments from former Redevelopment Low/Mod Housing Funds.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 144

The City has also combined CDBG and CDBG-CV funds with local funding to support the operation of the Navigation Center, an emergency homeless shelter initially established to provide a safe place for people experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic. The center has since become a permanent shelter for Huntington Beach's homeless population.

Historically, the City has used former redevelopment tax increment funds and surplus contributions from the Redevelopment Agency to meet the 25% match requirement for HOME funds. Although redevelopment tax increment funds are no longer available for future matches, the City continues to use the surplus for this purpose. As of September 2023, the surplus stands at approximately $3,725,103, providing a valuable resource for meeting match requirements and supporting affordable housing development.

If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan

The City Council approved the acquisition of property at 17631 Cameron Lane, which was developed as an emergency homeless shelter to address the needs of the homeless population.

This aligns with the priority need identified in the previous 2020/21–2024/25 Consolidated Plan and continues to be a priority in the 2025/26–2029/30 Consolidated Plan.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 145

ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives

Goals Summary Information

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 146

Sort
Order Goal Name
Start
Year
End
Year Category
Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Sustain and
Strengthen
Neighborhoods
2025 2026 Affordable
Housing

Non-Housing
Community
Development
Special Code
Enforcement
Area

Citywide
Priority
Housing
Needs
$246,506
(CDBG)

$381,139
(CDBG)
Housing Code
Enforcement/Foreclosed
Property Care:
600 Household Housing
Unit (Special Code
Enforcement)

Rental Units
Rehabilitated:
12 Household Housing
Unit (Homeowner
Rehabilitation Loans and
Grants Program)
2 Preserve
Existing &
Create New
Affordable
Housing
2025 2026 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Priority
Housing
Needs
$200,000
(HOME

$200,000
(HOME)

$128,841
(HOME)

$235,000
(CDBG)
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
15 Households
(Families Forward TBRA
Program)

Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
15 Households
(Mercy House TBRA
Program)

Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
6 Households
(Mobile Home TBRA
Program)

Other
36 Housing Units
(Housing Services for
TBRA)
3 Support Efforts
to Address
Homelessness
2025 2026 Homeless Citywide Priority
Homeless
Needs
$97,119
(CDBG)
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
280 Persons Assisted
(Pathways to
Independence = 40
persons; Project Hope
Alliance = 105 persons;
Robyne’s Nest = 25
persons; StandUp for
Kids = 110 persons)

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 147

4 Support
Agencies that
Assist Special
Needs
Populations
2025 2026 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Citywide Priority
Special Needs
$30,530
(CDBG)
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
165 Persons Assisted
(Senior Outreach Care
Management)
5 Increase
Access to
Community
Services for
Low- and
Moderate-
Income
Persons
2025 2026 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Priority
Community
Services
$40,530
(CDBG)
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
160 Persons Assisted
(Children’s Bureau)
6 Provide
Needed
Infrastructure
Improvements
2025 2026 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide

Special Code
Enforcement
Target Area
Priority
Infrastructure
Improvements
$125,000
(CDBG)
Public Facility or
Infrastructure Activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit:
5,000 Persons Assisted
(ADA Curbs Cuts and
Ramps in MZ 3 = 2,271
persons)
7 Planning for
Housing and
Community
Development
2025 2026 Administration Citywide Priority Other
Housing and
Community
Development
Needs
$224,239
(CDBG)

$53,833
(HOME)
Not Applicable.
(CDBG Program
Administration; Fair
Housing Foundation)

Not Applicable.
(HOME Program
Administration)
Table 3 – Goals Summary

Goal Descriptions

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 148

(Projects: Special Code Enforcement; Homeowner
Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program)
Preserve Existing and Create New
Affordable Housing
To the extent possible, based upon the availability of funds and a project’s viability, HOME funds will be used to assist affordable housing developers in the acquisition, construction and/or rehabilitation of low-income rental and/or owner housing units, and in the provision of tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA).

(Projects: Mercy House TBRA, Families Forward TBRA, Mobile Home TBRA, and Housing Services for TBRA)
Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide assistance to homeless service providers.

(Projects: Pathways to Independence, Project Hope Alliance, Robyne’s Nest, StandUp for Kids Street Outreach)
Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs
Populations
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide
assistance to special needs service providers.

(Project: Senior Outreach Care Management)
Increase Access to Community Services for
Low- and Moderate-Income Persons
Using CDBG public service funds, the City will provide
assistance to various social service agencies for programs for youth, fair housing, anti-crime, and general public services.

Services must benefit at least 51 percent low/mod persons.

(Project: Children’s Bureau)
Provide Needed Infrastructure
Improvements
Using CDBG funds, the City will provide financial assistance to improve public infrastructure.

(Projects: ADA Curb Cuts and Ramps)
Planning for Housing and Community
Development
The City will conduct the following administration/planning activities: (1) General Administration of CDBG and HOME Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements, (2) Coordination of CDBG- funded capital improvement projects, (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded housing projects, (5) Monitoring of CDBG and HOME
projects/programs to ensure compliance with federal
regulations, (6) Preparation of Annual Action Plan, and (7) Preparation of the CAPER. Up to 20% of the annual CDBG
entitlement and up to 10% of the HOME entitlement is allowed for administration activities.

(Projects: CDBG Program Administration; Fair Housing
Foundation; HOME Program Administration)
Table 61 – Annual Action Plan Goal Descriptions

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 149

PROJECTS
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)

Introduction

The City plans to undertake the following CDBG and HOME-funded activities during FY 2025/26 to address its priority housing and community development needs. All proposed activities are eligible and meet program service targets. Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach has not exceeded any of its maximum allocations for CDBG public services, CDBG administration, or HOME administration. With an estimated CDBG allocation of $1,121,195, the City of Huntington Beach will allocate $168,179 for public services, representing 15% of the CDBG entitlement. This Action Plan proposes to allocate the following to 2025/26 public services: Pathways to Independence ($20,530); Project Hope Alliance ($20,530); Robyne’s Nest ($40,529); StandUp for Kids ($15,530); Senior Outreach Care Management ($30,530); and Children’s Bureau ($40,530).

CDBG regulations also permit a maximum allocation of 20% of the annual entitlement, or $224,239, for CDBG administration activities. The City has allocated this entire amount to CDBG Administration. Lastly, a maximum of 10% of the annual HOME entitlement, $53,833, will be allocated to HOME Program Administration in FY 2025/26.

Consistent with the City’s Draft Citizen Participation Plan for 2025/26-2029/30 (to be adopted with this Consolidated Plan), the Annual Action Plan may contain a list of “back-up” projects to be activated during the given program year due to one or more of the following circumstances:
 Additional funding becomes available during the program year from the close out of current projects that were completed under budget.
 More program income becomes available than originally estimated and budgeted in the Annual Action Plan.
 If, during the development of the Annual Action Plan, the City of Huntington Beach has not definitively decided which public facility or infrastructure improvement project to fund, the City may opt to categorize each option as a “back-up” project until further project and budget planning is performed. Initiation and funding of one or more of the “back-up” projects would not constitute a substantial amendment as defined in the Citizen Participation Plan. Preferential consideration will be given to those projects that demonstrate the ability to spend CDBG funds in a timely manner, consistent with the City’s goal to meet CDBG timeliness rules, as well as those projects that meet the needs of the community as defined in the Consolidated Plan.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 150

Projects

# Project Name
1 Special Code Enforcement
2 Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program
3 Families Forward Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program 4 Mercy House Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program
5 Mobile Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program
6 Housing Services for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program 7 Pathways to Independence
8 Project Hope Alliance
9 Robyne’s Nest
10 StandUp for Kids Street Outreach
11 Senior Center Care Management
12 Oak View Community Center – Children’s Bureau
13 ADA Improvements in Maintenance Zone 3
14 CDBG Administration
15 HOME Program Administration
16 Unallocated HOME CHDO Reserve (CR) Funds
Table 62 – Project Information

Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs

The highest priority is given to the needs of the lowest-income residents, recognizing their increased vulnerability to displacement, homelessness, and other severe housing challenges due to limited financial resources and various other hardships they may face.

The Consolidated Plan highlights several barriers to addressing underserved needs, including the persistent high demand for public services and the insufficient funding available to meet the community’s needs, particularly in housing. This plan allocates resources specifically aimed at overcoming these challenges.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 151

AP-38 Project Summary

Project Summary Information

1 Project Name Special Code Enforcement
Target Area Special Code Enforcement Target Area
Goals Supported Sustain and Strengthen Neighborhoods
Needs Addressed Priority Housing Needs
Funding CDBG: $246,506
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.202 (c) - Code Enforcement National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(1) - Low Mod Area Benefit

Funding will be used to support two (2) full-time Code
Enforcement Officers (CEO) to support code enforcement
in the Special Code Enforcement Target Area. As the City ages, certain areas within the City of Huntington Beach need ongoing, proactive property maintenance
inspections by code enforcement to maintain a safe,
habitable living environment. Thus, with continued code enforcement efforts and education, the quality of life and housing standards are maintained. The Special Code
Enforcement Program benefits the community overall by
working to upgrade the housing stock within
deteriorating/deteriorated areas.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
600 housing units
Location Description Special Code Enforcement Target Area Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 152

2 Project Name Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Priority Housing Needs
Funding CDBG: $381,139
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.202 - Housing/Rehab: Single Unit Residential
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit

The Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program
assists lower-income households with much-needed home
repairs and improvements. Available to eligible
homeowners is a $75,000 loan to pay rehabilitation costs for a single-family home, town home, or condominium.

The City charges a 3% simple interest. Repayment of the loan is deferred until the home is sold, transferred, or refinanced.

The City also offers a one-time grant not to exceed $20,000 to low-income homeowners for deferred maintenance and
health and safety-related household repairs. Qualified
households may include owners of mobile homes.

The Homeowner Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Program
will also fund operation costs associated with the
implementation program.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
12 housing units
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 153

3 Project Name Families Forward Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Priority Housing Needs
Funding HOME: $200,000
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit

Families Forward will continue administering a Tenant
Based Rental Assistance Program with a goal of assisting 15 households with short and medium-term rental assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services.

Target Date 06/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
15 households
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 154

4 Project Name Mercy House Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Priority Housing Needs
Funding HOME: $200,000
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit

Mercy House will continue administering a Tenant Based
Rental Assistance Program with a goal of assisting 15
households with short and medium-term rental
assistance as well as housing relocation and stabilization services.

Target Date 06/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
15 households
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 155

5 Project Name Mobile Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Priority Housing Needs
Funding HOME: $128,841
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.205(a)(1) – Tenant Based Rental Assistance
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit

The City of Huntington Beach will offer a Mobile Home
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program to seniors (age
62+) with at least one year of mobile home residency. The homeowners must also be very low income (50% area
median income) or below and preference will be given to veterans, extremely low income, or to seniors who are
severely cost burdened (paying over 50% of their income on housing). The program proposes assisting 6 households with much needed rental assistance.

Target Date 06/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
6 households
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 156

6 Project Name Housing Services for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Priority Housing Needs
Funding CDBG: $235,000
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (k) – Housing Services National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) - Low Mod Housing Benefit

The City will allocate $235,000 in CDBG funds to be used to pay costs in support of activities eligible for funding under the HOME program. This activity will fund services such as housing counseling in connection with tenant-based rental assistance, inspections, tenant selection, and management of the three Huntington Beach Tenant Based Rental
Assistance Programs.

Target Date 06/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
36 households
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 157

7 Project Name Pathways to Independence
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Priority Homeless Needs
Funding CDBG: $20,530
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(2) -
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

The mission of Pathways to Independence is to transform the lives of single young women from disadvantaged
backgrounds through education, therapy, mentoring,
housing, and healthcare, to break the cycle of poverty and abuse. Pathways to Independence plans to utilize City of Huntington Beach CDBG funds to support a residential
program, which empowers low-income young women
with the financial security to complete their college
education and achieve upward mobility. Support from the City of Huntington Beach CDBG Program will offset
expenses to support program staff, utilities, and
transportation costs for clients and case managers.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
40 persons (homeless)
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 158

8 Project Name Project Hope Alliance
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Priority Homeless Needs
Funding CDBG: $20,530
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(2) -
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

PHA's mission is to "end the cycle of homelessness, one child at a time." PHA utilizes a unique program
methodology - placing full time, professional case
managers directly on school campus for the purpose of
serving the educational and social-emotional needs of
students experiencing homelessness. Project Hope
Alliance has continued their work at Huntington Beach
High School, Valley Vista High School, Westminster High School and Ocean View High School. PHA continues to host four case managers at our four partner HBUHSD schools to work with students experiencing homelessness, providing intensive, individualized, and long-term care that includes resources for academic guidance, social-emotional
mentorship, transportation, technology, basic needs, and external referrals for additional needs.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
105 persons (homeless)
Location Description Project Hope Alliance is located in Costa Mesa, CA; however, services will be offered at various schools in Huntington Beach, including:

Huntington Beach High School: 1905 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Valley Vista High School: 9600 Dolphin Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Westminster High School, 14325 Goldenwest St.,
Westminster CA 92683
Oceanview High School: 17071 Gothard Street,
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 159

9 Project Name Robyne’s Nest
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Priority Homeless Needs
Funding CDBG: $40,529
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(2) -
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

The mission of Robyne's Nest is to identify at-risk and homeless high school students and provide them a path to become stable and productive citizens. Robyne's Nest
helps high school students in the Huntington Beach area who have little to no parental support with academic,
financial, and life skills. They assist students with security, routine, and a place to belong. Their purpose is to enable students to complete their high school diploma and
continue onward with college, trade school, or military programs. Robyne's Nest provides housing resources;
basic needs such as food, clothing, and supplies;
educational assistance such as tutoring, Chromebooks,
school supplies, and fees; and overall help with health and wellbeing in the form of counseling, therapy, mentoring, and life skills classes.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
25 persons (homeless)
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 160

10 Project Name StandUp for Kids Street Outreach Program Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Support Efforts to Address Homelessness Needs Addressed Priority Homeless Needs
Funding CDBG: $15,530
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201 (c) - Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208 (a)(2) -
Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

StandUp for Kids Street Outreach provides wrap-around
support aimed at moving youth facing homelessness into
safe and stable housing. Youth are assessed for their
immediate needs and provided with food, clothing,
hygiene products, and transitional housing as needed.

Youth are then linked with a volunteer mentor who assists the youth to create a pathway to self-sufficiency and to obtain safe and stable housing. This pathway can include assistance, job search and resume strategies, household and budget management, and home-finding assistance.

Mentoring normally continues for six months, and
sometimes much longer. Huntington Beach citizens will
benefit through creating new self-supporting,
contributing members of their communities.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
110 persons (homeless)
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 161

11 Project Name Senior Services Care Management
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Support Agencies that Assist Special Needs Populations Needs Addressed Priority Special Needs
Funding CDBG: $30,530
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(e) - Public Services/Senior Services
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) - Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

The CDBG funded Senior Center Care Management project
will consist of two part time staff who will assist over 165 at-risk, older adult, Huntington Beach residents in fiscal year 2025/26. Various services will be provided to these residents and can include thorough intake, need
assessment, care plan development, service
implementation, as well as provision of senior specific information and referrals. Additional direct services to address unmet needs in the areas of nutrition, mobility, home safety, housing insecurity, access to services,
emotional and social support needs are also provided to ongoing care management clients. Services can be short or long-term, depending on individual needs. Many of those served through this program lack the ability to access
services on their own and do not have an adequate
support system to assist. Most older adults served by care management are individuals and couples, with low
incomes and who are at-risk. Care Managers work closely with community partners, local resources, County
agencies, faith-based groups, philanthropic organizations and other City departments to help optimize the lives of our most vulnerable and isolated citizens. For all these reasons, this project positively impacts the residents of Huntington Beach.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
165 persons (seniors)
Location Description The Senior Services Care Management Program is located at 18041 Goldenwest Street, Huntington Beach; however,
the service is available to elderly persons citywide.

Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 162

12 Project Name Children’s Bureau
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Increase Access to Community Services for LMI Persons Needs Addressed Priority Community Services
Funding CDBG: $40,530
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(e) - Public Services/Youth Services
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) - Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

The Oak View Family Resource Center (FRC) is located in the Oak View enhancement area where many of the
families are linguistically isolated, which creates a need for specialized services. The Children's Bureau provides after school recreation in a safe environment, promoting
healthy activity, and social interaction, as an alternative to unsupervised, unstructured, high-risk activity. CDBG funds pay for staffing for the after-school recreation program, as well as for related costs for supplies, equipment and
services.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
160 persons (youth)
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 163

13 Project Name ADA Curb Cuts in Maintenance Zone 3
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Provide for Needed Infrastructure Improvements Needs Addressed Priority Infrastructure Needs
Funding CDBG: $125,000
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.201(c) - Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements/Other
National Objective Citation: 24 CFR 570.208(a)(2) - Low Mod Limited Clientele Benefit

Residents and visitors with disabilities utilize ADA ramps to access street intersections when traveling on city
sidewalks. CDBG funds will be used to remove existing
curbs and gutters that act as an architectural barrier to sidewalk and street accessibility, particularly for persons with severe disabilities. The curbs and gutters will be removed in the area known as Maintenance Zone 3, which
has been evaluated for specific ADA pavement and
concrete improvements.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
2,271 persons (disabled)
Location Description Census tracts: 099406, 099603, 099604, and 099605 Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 164

14 Project Name CDBG Program Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding CDBG: $224,239
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 570.206(a) - Administration and Planning/General Program Administration
National Objective Citation: Not Applicable

The City will conduct the following
administration/planning activities: (1) General
Administration of CDBG Program, including preparation of budget, applications, certifications and agreements; (2) Coordination of CDBG-funded capital improvement
projects; (3) Coordination of Public Service Subrecipients, (4) Coordination of HOME-funded housing projects; (5)
Monitoring of CDBG projects/programs to ensure
compliance with federal regulations; and (6) Preparation of the CAPER. Up to 20% of the annual CDBG entitlement
is allowed for administration activities.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
Not applicable.

Location Description Not applicable.

Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 165

15 Project Name HOME Program Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Planning for Housing and Community Development Needs Addressed Other Housing and Community Development Needs Funding HOME: $53,833
Description Eligibility Citation: 24 CFR 92.207(a) - General Management, Oversight and Coordination
National Objective Citation: Not Applicable

The City of Huntington Beach Community Enhancement
Division is responsible for administering the HOME
program. Up to 10 percent of the HOME allocation will be used to provide for staffing and other program
administration costs associated with the HOME program,
including planning, reporting, monitoring, and IDIS setup and maintenance.

In addition to the 2025/26 HOME Program Administration
activities identified above, available FY 2020/21 HOME
Administration funds will be allocated to 2025/26 fair
housing services to be provided by the Fair Housing
Foundation, preparation of the Annual Action Plan, and
staff salaries. Available 2021/22 HOME Administration
funds will be allocated to monitoring existing HOME units and staff salaries.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
Not applicable.

Location Description Not applicable.

Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 166

16 Project Name Unallocated HOME CHDO Reserve Funds
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Not Applicable
Needs Addressed Not Applicable
Funding HOME: $261,754
Description Unallocated HOME Funds available for the development of affordable housing with a local CHDO.

Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type of families that will
benefit from the proposed activities
Not applicable.

Location Description Citywide.

Planned Activities Same as description.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 167

AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)

Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed

Huntington Beach, situated in northwestern Orange County, California, is an urbanized coastal community characterized by extensive residential development. With much of the residentially designated land already developed, future residential growth primarily depends on the reuse of existing parcels and infill development. The City is bordered by Seal Beach to the northwest, Westminster to the northeast, Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa to the east, Newport Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest.

CDBG and HOME funds in Huntington Beach are allocated for projects and programs citywide, with a focus on addressing the needs of the most vulnerable neighborhoods, particularly those where 51% or more of the residents are low- or moderate-income.

For Special Code Enforcement efforts, the City conducted a visual survey of CDBG-eligible areas to identify properties, businesses, parkways, alleys, and structures with violations. This survey identified areas within the vicinity bounded by Bolsa Chica Street to the west, Bolsa Avenue to the north, Brookhurst Street to the east, and Atlanta Avenue to the south as having significant deterioration issues. This designated area, known as the "Special Code Enforcement Target Area," encompasses several census tracts with a total population of 67,625 people. Of these residents, 45,300 individuals, or 69.99%, fall within the low- to moderate-income bracket.

Geographic Distribution

Target Area Percentage of Funds
Citywide 89%
Special Code Enforcement Target Area 11%
Table 64 - Geographic Distribution

Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically

The City is committed to using CDBG funds to improve all Huntington Beach communities. Public services will reach eligible residents citywide, providing much-needed services to Huntington Beach’s youth, homeless, and senior populations. Nearly 90% percent of the City’s federal budget for FY 2025/26 will be allocated to projects that provide citywide benefits.

Also, alleviating blight motivates investments in the Special Code Enforcement Target Area. The Special Code Enforcement Program aims to transform the area by identifying substandard residential and commercial properties and seeing to it that code deficiencies are resolved. Eleven percent of the City’s federal budget for 2025/26 will be used to fund these services.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 168

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)

Introduction

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 15
Non-Homeless 15
Special-Needs 6
Total 36
Table 65 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement

One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 36
The Production of New Units
Rehab of Existing Units
Acquisition of Existing Units
Total 36
Table 66 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type

Discussion

In FY 2025/26, the City of Huntington Beach plans to allocate $528,841 in HOME funds to support three tenant-based rental assistance programs. Families Forward and Mercy House will operate two of these programs, each aimed at assisting 15 households each comprising of homeless individuals, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. The third program, managed by GRC Associates, is specifically designed to aid senior residents of mobile home communities facing escalating space rent costs.

Additionally, the City anticipates having an unallocated balance of approximately $261,754 in HOME funds, which it intends to allocate towards a new Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) affordable housing project in the future.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 169

AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)

Introduction

The City of Huntington Beach does not have any public housing developments. However, it benefits from the services of the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), which manages Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) for residential units within Huntington Beach. Currently, 687 households in Huntington Beach receive Section 8 vouchers from OCHA.

Additionally, OCHA administers various other voucher programs, including 40 Continuum of Care, 11 Family Self-Sufficiency, 24 Family Unification, one Non-Elderly Disabled, 115 Portability, 85 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing, and 59 Emergency Housing Vouchers. However, the waiting list for these programs is currently closed.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing

Not applicable.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership

Not applicable.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance

Not applicable.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 170

AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i)

Introduction

Describe the jurisdictions’ one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs

The HB Cares Volunteer Program, a key component of the Homeless & Behavioral Health Program, plays a vital role in outreach to homeless individuals and assessing their needs. Since its launch in 2023, the program has successfully recruited and trained 21 volunteers, equipping them with skills in de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed care, vicarious trauma, and Mental

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 171

Health First Aid. Volunteers are responsible for answering the daily homeless outreach line and returning calls, providing a streamlined communication channel for individuals seeking help. In addition, a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist joined the team in December 2023, assisting with 62 Disabling Condition Assessments. The therapist will continue to offer mental health support on an as-needed basis.

The Homeless & Behavioral Health System also incorporated homeless outreach social workers who actively engaged with unhoused and at-risk of being unhoused individuals, families, veterans, and seniors. Social workers offer support by linking individuals to resources, service providers, and aiding in securing necessary documents for County of Orange housing programs.

They maintain close collaboration with local and county shelters, including the Huntington Beach Navigation Center, while also partnering with crisis response teams like Be Well to provide comprehensive assistance and support to those in need. Working in collaboration with Homeless Task Force officers, they ensure that individuals receive the necessary care and resources to address their unique situations effectively.

Be Well OC in Huntington Beach (BWOC) is another component of the Homeless & Behavioral Health System that provides outreach to Huntington Beach’s homeless population. BWOC employs a Mobile Crisis Response Team composed of two operating vans and two Crisis Interventionists who drive to locations and provide in-community assessment and stabilization services. The teams are well-trained and experienced in providing appropriate information, referrals, transportation to services, and additional follow-up support and case management to help address mental health-related situations.

Further, over the course of the years covered by this Consolidated Plan, the City intends to support homeless public service programs that offer outreach and assessment for homeless individuals. In FY 2025/26, for example, the Pathways to Independence Program focuses on young single women experiencing homelessness, while Project Hope Alliance, Robyne’s Nest, and StandUp for Kids Street Outreach focus on homeless youth and providing wrap around services unique to young individuals such as mentoring, food, clothing, housing, academic support, and educational aid.

Finally, the City may continue to support the operations and services at the Navigation Center, located at 17642 Beach Boulevard. The Navigation Center, which opened in December 2020, offers 174 beds for overnight shelter and provides direct access to essential services aimed at helping individuals experiencing homelessness move towards housing stability.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

The City has partnered with Mercy House to launch the Navigation Center, an emergency homeless shelter. The facility received significant federal funding to support its operations, including CDBG, CDBG-CV (for activities related to COVID-19 prevention, preparation, and response), and HOME funding from the American Rescue Program (HOME-ARP). The Navigation

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 172

Center can shelter up to 174 adults and couples under normal conditions and will continue to operate in FY 2025/26.

In FY 2021/22, the City initiated the HB Oasis project in collaboration with the State of California Homekey Program, the County of Orange, National CORE, and American Family Housing. This project involved acquiring and rehabilitating the former Quality Inn & Suites motel at 17251 Beach Boulevard to address homelessness in the region. HB Oasis served as interim housing for up to 62 individuals and households in Orange County's Central Service Planning Area. It provided not only transitional housing but also comprehensive property management and residential support services. The focus was on trauma-informed, evidence-based operations to support residents' reintegration into the community through robust case management and connections to permanent housing solutions.

The City of Huntington Beach is implementing a comprehensive approach to address homelessness, with a focus on both immediate relief and long-term solutions. The strategy involves securing both short-term and long-term funding, collaborating with experienced service providers, and creating affordable housing opportunities. The City's key efforts aim to support various populations, including chronically homeless individuals, families with children, veterans, victims of domestic violence, and unaccompanied youth.

A central initiative is the Navigation Center, which has received around $4.5 million in funding from CDBG, CDBG-CV, and HOME-ARP grants. This center offers wraparound services to help individuals transition from emergency shelter to more stable housing. The City plans to repurpose the property into a permanent facility that will provide affordable housing and supportive services for chronically homeless individuals.

Additionally, the City continues to prioritize tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA), with plans to offer rental subsidies to 36 households in 2025/26. Families Forward is responsible for providing rental assistance to households with children, while Mercy House focuses on supporting those experiencing homelessness, victims of domestic violence, and veterans. Another program is also in place to provide space rent relief for senior mobile homeowners for up to 24 months.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 173

By focusing on both immediate housing solutions and long-term support, Huntington Beach is working to not only reduce homelessness but also prevent those recently housed from falling back into homelessness.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs

The City is also committed to supporting families through HOME-funded rental assistance programs. In FY 2025/26, the City is proposing to support three rental assistance programs that will assist a variety of vulnerable population groups in Huntington Beach. As mentioned above, Families Forward assists families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness, while Mercy House targets lower-income households, homeless persons, veterans, and victims of domestic violence.

The Mobile Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program targets senior owners of mobile homes with space rents.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 174

AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)

Introduction

Huntington Beach has demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting affordable housing through various measures, including updates to its zoning ordinance and direct financial assistance to affordable housing projects. Despite funding constraints resulting from the loss of Redevelopment Housing Funds, which previously generated approximately $3 million annually for housing activities, the City remains dedicated to developing affordable housing. However, one of the primary challenges faced by Huntington Beach in this regard is the scarcity of vacant land suitable for residential development. Much of the underdeveloped residentially zoned land is owned by separate owners, making lot consolidation and the demolition of existing structures necessary to accommodate higher density infill development.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment

Additionally, as part of the City’s Housing Element update, the City must assess and to the extent feasible, mitigate, its governmental constraints to housing for lower and moderate-income households and persons with disabilities. The Housing Element addresses the City’s provisions for affordable housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. The following programs in the City's 2013-2021 Housing Element specifically address the variety of regulatory and financial tools used by the City to remove barriers and facilitate the provision of affordable housing:

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 175

Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation through Non-Profit Developers: Acquire, rehabilitate, and establish affordability covenants on 80 rental units.

Residential and Mixed-Use Sites Inventory: Maintain current inventory of vacant and underutilized development sites and provide developers with information on incentives.

Inclusionary Program and Housing Trust Fund: Continue implementation and re-evaluate Ordinance to provide consistency with case law and market conditions. Establish in-lieu fee amount for projects between 10-30 units.

Affordable Housing Development Assistance: Provide financial and regulatory assistance in support of affordable housing. Provide information on incentives to the development community.

Affordable Housing Density Bonus: Continue to offer density bonus incentives as a means of enhancing the economic feasibility of affordable housing development.

Development Fee Assistance: Continue to offer fee reductions to incentivize affordable housing.

Specify the waiver of 100% of application processing fees in the Code for projects with 10% extremely low-income units.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 176

AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs

The City of Huntington Beach has identified long-range strategies, activities, and funding sources to implement the goals in the areas of housing and community development services for the benefit of the residents.

 The City will continue to seek other resources and funding sources to address the biggest obstacle to meeting the community's underserved needs, which is the lack of funding and/or inadequate funding.
 The City will look for innovative and creative ways to make its delivery systems more comprehensive and will continue existing partnerships with both for-profit and not-for- profit organizations.
 The City will use HOME and CDBG funds to concentrate on both affordable rental housing, tenant-based rental housing, and homeowner rehabilitation programs.  The City is currently addressing certain housing needs with federal funds, such as availability, condition, and fair housing practices to prevent homelessness.  The City is also addressing community development needs with federal funds, such as infrastructure, improving public facilities and code enforcement.  The City is working with surrounding jurisdictions on a regional approach to meeting the underserved needs.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing

The City’s Consolidated Plan has identified the preservation of existing, and the creation of new, affordable housing as an implementing goal during the 2025/26-2029/30 timeframe. The City will continue to maintain the Affordable Housing Viewer on its website to allow the public to view where affordable housing units are located in the City.

The City will continue to offer funding to tenant based rental assistance programs in Huntington Beach through a combination of CDBG and HOME funds. In FY 2025/26, the City will allocate $235,000 in CDBG and nearly $528,841 in HOME funds to assist 36 households with rental assistance. The City will offer rental assistance to both eligible Huntington Beach renters, as well as to senior mobile home residents to help with increasing space rents in Huntington Beach’s mobile home park communities.

Furthermore, the City will continue its residential rehabilitation programs available to Huntington Beach homeowners. The first program offers a one-time grant of up to $20,000 to eligible lower- income homeowners to make emergency and health or safety-related household modifications.

The second program offers a loan of up to $75,000 with an interest rate of 3% for single family home and multifamily rental housing improvements. Collectively, the City is proposing to assist 12 lower-income households with rehabilitation assistance in FY 2025/26.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 177

Lastly, to supplement the cost of the City’s effort to update the streamlining process of affordable housing, the City may be awarded an SB 2 Planning Grant Program grant funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development once the 2021-2029 Housing Element is certified. Huntington Beach is slated to receive approximately $550,000 per year to leverage CDBG and HOME funds in the areas of affordable housing and homelessness.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards

As a means of better protecting children and families against lead poisoning, in 1999 HUD instituted revised lead-based paint regulations focused around the following five activities:

 Notification
 Lead Hazard Evaluation
 Lead Hazard Reduction
 Ongoing Maintenance
 Response to Children with Environmental Intervention Blood Lead Level

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families

Huntington Beach has a strategy to help reduce poverty among local families and individuals.

These programs work together to address both the immediate housing needs of low-income residents and the long-term economic self-sufficiency of vulnerable populations. Examples of the poverty reduction efforts include:

 Housing Choice Rental Assistance Program: Over 600 low and extremely low-income households in Huntington Beach participate in the Housing Choice Rental Assistance Voucher Program, which is administered by the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). This program directly supports poverty reduction by helping these households access affordable rental housing, thus easing financial strain and enabling them to allocate resources toward other basic needs, such as food, healthcare, and education.  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Programs: The City plans to utilize HOME funds to support three tenant-based rental assistance programs. These programs will provide direct rental subsidies to eligible low-income households, helping reduce the financial burden of housing costs and offering families a better chance at achieving long-term HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 178 stability and upward mobility. The City’s goal is to provide a total of 36 households with TBRA in FY 2025/26.
 Pathways to Independence Program : With CDBG funding, the City will support the Pathways to Independence program, which serves single women who are homeless or unstably housed. This program helps participants achieve economic self-sufficiency through education and personal development, providing a critical link between stable housing and the long-term reduction of poverty. By equipping individuals with the skills and support they need to succeed, the program contributes to breaking the cycle of homelessness and poverty. Pathways to Independence plans to enroll 40 women into their program in FY 2025/26.
 Affordable Housing Development: During the five-year period of the Consolidated Plan, the City will work to utilize HOME funds to gap finance an affordable housing project at a yet-to-be-determined location. The development of new affordable housing will directly address the need for affordable living spaces for low-income families and individuals, providing them with stable housing opportunities that can help reduce economic vulnerability and improve quality of life.

Actions planned to develop institutional structure
The City proposes to strengthen, coordinate and integrate the governmental institutions, non- profit and private delivery systems to implement the City’s five-year strategy and to address the priority needs outlined in the Consolidated Plan for Fiscal Years 2025/26 – 2029/30. Engaging the community and stakeholders in the delivery of services and programs for the benefit of low to moderate residents will be vital in overcoming gaps in service delivery. The City will also utilize public notices, Community Workshops and Meetings (as appropriate), the City’s website, and other forms of media to deliver information on carrying out the Consolidated Plan strategies.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
In an ongoing effort to bridge the gap of various programs and activities, the City has developed partnerships and collaborations with local service providers and City departments that have been instrumental in meeting the needs and demands of the homeless, low-income individuals and families, and other special needs. The array of partners include, but are not limited to: the Huntington Beach Police Department, Library Services, Community Services, and Public Works Departments; Mercy House, Families Forward, Colette’s Children’s Home, AMCAL, Orange County Community Housing Corporation, Jamboree Housing, National CORE, Community SeniorServ, Project Self Sufficiency, Alzheimer’s Family Services, StandUp for Kids, Robyne’s Nest, Project Hope Alliance, Pathways to Independence, the Fair Housing Foundation, the Orange County Housing Authority, 2-1-1 Orange County, and OC Community Services (Orange County Continuum of Care). During FY 2025/26, the City will continue to develop these partnerships.

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 179

PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)

The City of Huntington Beach participates in HUD's CDBG Program that is used for creating decent affordable housing, suitable living environments, and economic opportunities. The program year (2025/26) will begin on July 1, 2025. The FY 2025/26 CDBG allocation of approximately $1,121,195 will be used to implement CDBG projects and programs during the program year.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)

Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.

1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $0

2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan
$0

3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements $0

4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. $0

5. The amount of income from float-funded activities $0 Total Program Income $0

Other CDBG Requirements

1. The amount of urgent need activities $0

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN 180

HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)

A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section

92.205 is as follows:

The City will provide grants, interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing deferred payment loans or residual receipts loans permitted under 24 CFR 92.206 (b) (1). The City will not institute other forms of investment forms not described in the aforementioned section nor provide loan guarantees described under 24 CFR 92.206 (b) (21).

A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:

The City is not administering a homebuyer program with CDBG or HOME funds as part of its 2025/26 Annual Action Plan. The Annual Plan, therefore, does not describe resale or recapture guidelines as required in 92.254.

A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:

Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:

The City is not proposing to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing rehabilitated with HOME funds. Thus, since the City does not propose to undertake refinancing, the City is not required to discuss its financing guidelines required under 24 CFR

92.206(b).

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX B

FIGURES
Figure 1 2020 Census Tracts and Block Groups
Figure 2 Low- and Moderate-Income Areas
Figure 3 Population in Poverty
Figure 4 Severe Renter Overpayment
Figure 5 Severe Renter Overcrowding
Figure 6 Hispanic Population
Figure 7 Asian Population

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX C

FY 2025/26 CERTIFICATIONS

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX D

APPLICATION

FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
(SF 424) FOR CDBG PROGRAM

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX E

ASSURANCES –

NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
(SF 424-B) FOR CDBG PROGRAM

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX F

ASSURANCES –

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
(SF 424-D) FOR CDBG PROGRAM

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX G

APPLICATION

FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
(SF 424) FOR HOME PROGRAM

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX H

ASSURANCES –

NON-CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
(SF 424-B) FOR HOME PROGRAM

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX I

ASSURANCES –

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
(SF 424-D) FOR HOME PROGRAM

HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX J

PUBLIC NOTICES
HUNTINGTON BEACH 2025/26 – 2029/30 CONSOLIDATED PLAN

APPENDIX K

AGENCY AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

COMMENTS

OUDQJH&RXQ W\5HJLRQDO
$VVHVVPHQWRI)DLU+RXVLQJ

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
Orange County i 25-29 Regional AFH

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all individuals and organizations that contributed to the planning process, including, but not limited to, the following:

The individuals and organizations (including Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The Cambodian Family, and Orange County Families Forward) who attended the in-person and virtual community meetings.

The organizations that participated in the stakeholder interviews and focus groups, including Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family S helter, Domus Development, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County.

Staff from all jurisdictions that participated in the planning effort, with additional thanks to staff from:
• The Cities of Costa Mesa, La Habra, and Santa Ana, for hosting in-person community meetings.
• The County of Orange and the Cities of Anaheim, Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Ana, and Rancho Santa Margarita for advertising the in -person and virtual community meetings through various channels.
• The City of Santa Ana, which served as lead agency responsible for coordinating the development of this report.

Document Version
Last updated: March 27, 2025
Orange County ii 25-29 Regional AFH

Cover Photo Credit
The cover photograph for this report was provided courtesy of C&C Development. The photograph features Terraces at Santiago in the City of Santa Ana’s Station District.

Terraces at Santiago is an award -winning 36-unit urban infill transit -oriented multifamily affordable rental housing development featuring a mix of two -, three-, and five-bedroom apartments. In keeping with surrounding neighborhoods, this property was designed with Spanish/Santa Barbara architectural influences. Exterior detailing accents include wrought iron, decorative gables, wa ll sconces, decorative arches, decorative wood rafter rails, decorative painted wood shutters, and recessed stucco elements with wrought iron lattice.

The building is LEED Gold Certified.

Orange County iii 25-29 Regional AFH

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 II. Community Participation Process ...................................................................................... 3 A. Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................................................. 3 B. Community Meetings ....................................................................................................... 3 III. Fair Housing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 6 A. Demographic and Housing Summary ............................................................................ 6 B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration ................................................................ 38 C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) ............................... 60 D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity ............................................................................. 66

1. Education ..................................................................................................................... 66

2. Employment ................................................................................................................ 80

3. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 92

4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods ................................................................... 99

5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods ............................................ 112

6. Disability and Access ................................................................................................ 120

7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity ................................................... 124 E. Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................ 129 F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing .............................. 143 IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan .............................................................................. 146 A. Orange County Urban County ..................................................................................... 146

1. Unincorporated Orange County .............................................................................. 149

2. Brea ............................................................................................................................. 156

3. Cypress ....................................................................................................................... 159

4. Dana Point .................................................................................................................. 161

5. La Palma ..................................................................................................................... 165

6. Laguna Beach ............................................................................................................ 170

7. Laguna Hills ............................................................................................................... 174

8. Laguna Woods ........................................................................................................... 179 Orange County iv 25-29 Regional AFH

9. Los Alamitos .............................................................................................................. 182

10. Placentia ..................................................................................................................... 184

11. San Juan Capistrano ................................................................................................. 189

12. Seal Beach ................................................................................................................. 191

13. Stanton ....................................................................................................................... 193

14. Villa Park .................................................................................................................... 194

15. Yorba Linda ................................................................................................................ 196 B. Aliso Viejo ...................................................................................................................... 199 C. Anaheim ......................................................................................................................... 201 D. Buena Park ..................................................................................................................... 206 E. Costa Mesa .................................................................................................................... 209 F. Fountain Valley .............................................................................................................. 213 G. Fullerton ......................................................................................................................... 215 H. Garden Grove ................................................................................................................ 225 I. Huntington Beach ......................................................................................................... 228 J. Irvine ............................................................................................................................... 229 K. La Habra ......................................................................................................................... 240 L. Laguna Niguel ............................................................................................................... 244 M. Lake Forest ..................................................................................................................... 249 N. Mission Viejo.................................................................................................................. 251 O. Newport Beach .............................................................................................................. 253 P. Orange ............................................................................................................................ 255 Q. Rancho Santa Margarita............................................................................................... 258 R. San Clemente ................................................................................................................ 261 S. Santa Ana ....................................................................................................................... 264 T. Tustin .............................................................................................................................. 268 U. Westminster ................................................................................................................... 272

Orange County 1 25-29 Regional AFH

I. Executive Summary
The Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) provides communities an opportunity to assess their progress toward the goals of eliminating housing discrimination and promoting access to housing opportunity for both current and future residents . Jurisdictions that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership s Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds, complete an AFH at least once every five years, consistent with the Consolidated Plan cycle, as part of their obligations under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the Cranston- Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.

As a fair housing planning document, t he AFH facilitates HUD grantee compliance with statutory and regulatory requirement s to affirmatively further fair housing. Affirmatively furthering fair housing entails taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing applies to all activities a nd programs within a jurisdiction related to housing and urban development.

This AFH is a collaborative effort among the following jurisdictions:
• Orange County and the Urban County Program participating cities of Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach, Stanton, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. • The HUD Entitlement Cities of Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, City of Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster.

To prepare the AFH, jurisdictions first must identify fair housing issues. A fair housing issue refers to a condition within a specific geographic area that restricts fair housing choice or limits access to opportunity. Fair housing issues may include ongoing local or regional segregation/concentration or lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.

To identify fair housing issues, HUD recommends that jurisdictions gather and analyze data. For this AFH, the jurisdictions analyzed data on the following topics:
• Demographics
• Segregation or Concentration/Integration
• Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty • Disparities in Access to Opportunity

Orange County 2 25-29 Regional AFH

• Housing Needs
• Discrimination Complaints
The data utilized in the analysis are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 , housing discrimination complaint data provided by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) , and information gathered through the community participation process (described below).

The ACS data utilized in the assessment are from the 2018-2022 five-year estimates, which were the most current data across all participating jurisdictions at the time the analysis was conducted.

After analyzing the data and identifying fair housing issues, jurisdictions then must identify contributing factors. A contributing factor is a ny condition that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues. For each fair housing issue and its contributing factors, jurisdictions must then develop fair housing goals. A fair housing goal is a specific, meaningful action that can reasonably be expected to create meaningful positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by increasing fair housing choice or reducing disparities in access to opportunity.

For the contributing factors and fair housing goals in this AFH, the jurisdictions built upon the extensive work they have already done preparing their most recent Housing Elements, which cover an eight-year planning period. As part of the state-mandated Housing Element, California jurisdictions must conduct a fair housing assessment that includes an analysis of fair housing issues, identification of factors that create and/or contribute to those issues, and development of g oals and meaningful actions to af firmatively further fair housing.

Progress toward reaching the goals identified in the Housing Element must then be periodically reported to the state.

A summary of the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and fair housing goals for each jurisdiction can be found in Section IV of this AFH.

Orange County 3 25-29 Regional AFH

II. Community Participation Process
To develop the AFH, information was also gathered from residents, housing professionals, and service providers. Incorporating information from these sources is important for ensuring that the AFH reflects community needs and knowledge that may not be discernible from other data sources. The community participation process for this AFH involved the following efforts:

A. Stakeholder Consultation
Four one -on-one interviews, and two focus groups were conducted during January and February 2025 with organizations that provide fair housing services and/or housing and services to protected class groups throughout the County. The interviews and focus group sessions discussed the fair housing issues frequently encountered by the organizations, the underlying causes for those issues, and ongoing efforts currently to address them.

Participants also discussed additional actions the ir organizations would recom mend.

Invitations to participate in the stakeholder consultation activities were sent to approximately 78 organizations identified by the jurisdictions involved in the planning process. Fourteen organizations, as well as staff from two of the participating jurisdictions, participated in these consultations, including: Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family Shelter, Domus Development, City of Garden Grove, City of Lake Forest, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County. Information gathered through these consultations is incorporated throughout this report.

B. Community Meetings
A total of six community meetings were held in March 2025 to gather public input on the fair housing issues impacting residents of Orange County, and the factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of those issues. These meetings included two virtual meetings and four in -person meetings held at the dates, times, and locations listed below.

In-person community meetings:
• March 5, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 5, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 6, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at La Habra City Hall, Festival Room, 110 E. La Habra Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631

Orange County 4 25-29 Regional AFH

• March 6, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Costa Mesa City Hall, Community Room, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Virtual community meetings:
• March 7, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
• March 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
Outreach to advertise the community meetings included the following efforts:
• City of Anaheim notified the 250 members of their Homeless Collaborative and community stakeholders.
• City of Aliso Viejo posted a copy of the notice to their City website and shared on social media and city newsletters.
• City of Buena Park posted the public notice on the City website and City Hall bulletin board.
• City of Fountain Valley posted the public notice on the City website • City of Fullerton published the public notice in the Fullerton Observer newspaper, placed the notice on the City of Fullerton website, and placed copies of the notice at various public facilities and libraries as well as over 25 affordable housing sites. • City of Irvine sent copies of the notice to subrecipient partners and other interested parties.
• City of Laguna Niguel posted the public notice on the City website and social media channels.
• City of Mission Viejo posted the public notice on the City website. • City of San Clemente posted the public notice on the City website. • City of Santa Ana published the public notice for the public meetings in six languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic) including the following publications: Orange County Register, La Opinion, Nguoi Viet Daily News, Korea Times, World Journal, and Beirut Times.
• City of Rancho Santa Margarita posted the public notice on bulletin boards outside City Hall, OCFA Station 45, and Trabuco Canyon Water District. • County of Orange sent information regarding the virtual community meetings to community centers in the unincorporated areas of the County.

A total of fifteen individuals participated in these meetings to share their knowledge on fair housing issues and contributing factors in Orange County. These included representatives from the following organizations: Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The Cambodian Family, Orange County Families Forward, City of Fountain Valley, and City of Buena Park. Information gathered through these meetings is incorporated throughout this report.

Orange County 5 25-29 Regional AFH

Orange County 6 25-29 Regional AFH

III. Fair Housing Analysis
A. Demographic and Housing Summary
Table 1 – Demographics, shows demographic information for the population of Orange County overall, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions0F 1, the participating HUD
Entitlement Cities, and the region 1F

2. These data are from the Census Bureau’s 201 8-2022
American Community Survey 5 -year Estimates. Table 2 – Demographic Trends , shows similar data over time, dating back to 1990. These tables indicate the following:

Population
Orange County has a population of 3,175,227. The largest cities in the County are Anaheim (population 347,111), Santa Ana (population 311,379), and Irvine (population 304,527). The Urban County population is 585,178.

Race/Ethnicity
Orange County’s population is majority-minority; however, the largest population group is White (38.46%). Hispanic residents comprise the second largest population group (33.93%), followed by Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), who make up 21.77% of the County population. African Americans account for 1.54% of the County population.

Compared to the region, Orange County has a higher proportion of White and AAPI residents, and a smaller proportion of Hispanic and Black residents.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• The Urban County, Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Clemente have a significantly higher2F
3 proportion of White residents.
• Anaheim, La Habra, and Santa Ana have a significantly higher proportion of Hispanic residents.
• Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, and Westminster have a higher proportion of AAPI residents.

Since 1990, the County population has become more diverse, transitioning from a White majority in 1990 to a majority-minority population today. The number of White residents in

1 The Orange County Urban County comprises the County unincorporated area, twelve (12) cities with populations under 50,000 (participating cities) and two (2) cities, Placentia and Yorba Linda, with populations over 50,000 (metropolitan cities).
2 The region is defined by HUD as the Los Angeles -Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which comprises Los Angeles and Orange counties.
3 For this analysis, “significantly higher” means that the percentage of residents of a particular race/ethnicity in a city is at least 10% higher than the percentage of residents of the same race/ethnicity in the County overall.

Orange County 7 25-29 Regional AFH

the County declined each decade, while the number of Hispanic and AAPI residents grew.

The number of Black residents increased between 1990-2010 but declined over the past decade. These same trends are generally shared with the region and across the Urban County and HUD Entitlement Cities, with the following exceptions:
• In the region, the Black population has been declining since 2000. • In Aliso Viejo , the population of all racial/ethnic groups, including White , has increased in each decade.
• In Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach , the AAPI population has declined over the last decade.
• In Fountain Valley and Garden Grove, the Black population has been declining since 2000.
• In Irvine, the White and Black population s have been increasing since 2000, in addition to growing Hispanic and AAPI populations.
• In La Habra, the Black population continued to grow after 2010. • In Laguna Niguel and Lake Forest, the White population increased during the 1990s before declining over the subsequent decades , and the Black population has continued to grow over the last decade.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the White population increased during the 1990s before declining over the last two decades.
• In San Clemente, the White population grew between 1990 -2010, before shrinking slightly over the last decade; and the AAPI population fell over the last decade. • In Santa Ana, the Black population has been falling since 1990, and the Hispanic population has been declining since 2000.
• In Tustin, the Black population has been declining since 1990.

National Origin
Orange County has a foreign-born population of 937,254 (29.52% of the total population 3F 4).

The primary countries of origin for the foreign -born population are Mexico (9.17% ) and Vietnam (4.69%).

In the region, 32.52% of the population is foreign born, which is slightly higher than in Orange County.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Newport Beach, Orange, and San Clemente have significantly lower percentages of foreign-born residents.

4 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B05006

Orange County 8 25-29 Regional AFH

• Garden Grove, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher percentages of foreign-born residents. In these cities, the main countries of origin for the foreign-born population are:
o Garden Grove: Vietnam and Mexico
o Irvine: China (excluding Taiwan), Korea, and India
o Santa Ana: Mexico and Vietnam
o Westminster: Vietnam and Mexico
Since 1990, the County’s foreign -born population has increased in each decade, with the most dramatic increase occurring during the 1990s. In comparison, • The foreign-born population in the region grew between 1990-2010 and has been declining since 2010.
• The foreign-born population has declined in the following jurisdictions:
o The Urban County, Anaheim, La Habra, Orange, and San Clemente, where the foreign-born population has been declining since 2010.
o Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, where the foreign -born population has been declining since 2000. However, in Santa Ana, foreign-born residents still make up approximately half of the total population.
• In Irvine, the foreign-born population has continued to grow rapidly, nearly doubling since 2010.

Limited English Proficiency
Individuals who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those who primarily speak a language other than English and speak English “less than very well .” In Orange County, there are 539,484 LEP individuals4F
5, which is equal to approximately 16.99% of the
population. The primary languages spoken by the LEP population in the County are Spanish (11.72%) and Vietnamese (3.45%).

In the region, 21.95% of the population is LEP, which is slightly higher than in Orange County.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, have significantly lower percentages of LEP residents.
• Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher percentages of LEP residents. In these cities, the primary languages spoken by the LEP population are:
o Anaheim: Spanish and Vietnamese

5 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601

Orange County 9 25-29 Regional AFH

o Buena Park: Spanish and Korean
o Garden Grove: Vietnamese and Spanish
o Santa Ana: Spanish and Vietnamese
o Westminster: Vietnamese and Spanish
Between 1990-2010, the County’s LEP population increased. Since 2010, the County’s LEP population has declined, though it remains well above the 1990 LEP population. In comparison:
• The LEP population in the region grew during the 1990s but has been declining since 2000.
• The LEP population has grown each decade since 1990, including since 2010, in the Urban County jurisdictions, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Westminster. • The LEP population has been declining since 2000 in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana.
• In Garden Grove, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, the LEP population declined between 2000-2010, but has increased since 2010.

Age
Approximately 63.2% of the Orange County population is between the ages of 18 and 64;

15.38% are aged 65 and older, and 21.42% are younger than 18. The age distribution of the population in the region is similar. In comparison to the County overall, the Urban County, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and Newport Beach all have slightly older populations, with over one-fifth of their population aged 65 and older.

Since 1990, the County’s population has been getting older. Currently, the County’s population has a smaller proportion of the population (when compared to 1990) in both the “Under 18” and “18-64” year-old age categories, and a higher proportion of the population in the “65+” age category. The same general trend is evident in the region and all other jurisdictions, except for Aliso Viejo, where the percentage of the population under age 18 has increased, and the percentage of the population aged 65 and older has decreased, since 1990.

Families with Children
In Orange County, approximately 41.56% of families have children. This is slightly higher than the region, where 40.02% of families have children. Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo and Tustin have significantly higher percentages of families with children (52.06% and 52.64%, respectively), and in Irvine, over half (50.45%) of families have children.

Orange County 10 25-29 Regional AFH

• Laguna Niguel, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Westminster have the lowest percentages of families with children, although the percentages are not significantly lower than those for the County overall.

The percentage of families with children in the County is lower today than it was in 1990, when 48.04% of families had children. This is also true in the region and the other jurisdictions, with the following exceptions:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and Tustin, where the current percentage of families with children is higher than it was in 1990.

Table 1 – Demographics

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 11 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 12 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 13 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 14 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 15 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 16 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 17 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 1 – Demographics (continued)

Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.

Orange County 18 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 2 – Demographic Trends

Orange County 19 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)

Orange County 20 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)

Orange County 21 25-29 Regional AFH

The following paragraphs d escribe housing patterns, including tenure, cost burden, and the location of renters and owners.

Tenure
Table 3 - Housing Tenure, shows data on housing tenure for the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This table indicates the following:

In Orange County overall, the homeownership rate is 56.5%. This is higher than the homeownership for the region, which is 48.7%. Among the jurisdictions, • The following have a comparable homeownership rate (within five percentage points of the County’s rate)
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o La Habra
o Newport Beach
o Orange
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is lower than the homeownership rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points , indicating a higher percentage of households are renters:
o Anaheim
o Costa Mesa
o Irvine
o Santa Ana
o Tustin
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is higher than the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Fountain Valley
o Laguna Niguel
o Lake Forest
o Mission Viejo
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o San Clemente

Orange County 22 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 3 – Housing Tenure

Orange County 23 25-29 Regional AFH

Cost Burden
Table 4 – Cost Burden shows data on housing cost burden for the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates. Cost burden is defined as spending more than 30% of monthly gross income on housing -related costs. This table presents the following:

In Orange County overall, over half (53.2%) of all renters are cost burdened. The rate is significantly lower for homeowners (30.3%). These rates are comparable to the experience of owners and renters across the region. Among the jurisdictions, • The following have a comparable rate of cost burdened renters (within five percentage points of the County’s rate)
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Costa Mesa
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o Irvine
o Laguna Niguel
o La Habra
o Mission Viejo
o Orange
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o Santa Ana
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost-burden rate that is lower than the rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o Newport Beach
o San Clemente
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost-burden rate that is higher than the rate for the County overall, by at least five percentage points , meaning a higher percentage of renters in these jurisdictions are cost burdened compared to the County overall:
o Anaheim
o Fountain Valley
o Lake Forest
o Tustin

Orange County 24 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 4 – Cost Burden

Orange County 25 25-29 Regional AFH

Location of Renters and Owners
Map 1 – Housing Tenure. is a series of maps showing the distribution of renter households in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were produced by California HCD to facilitate the fair housing planning process 5F

6. On the maps,
the darker shaded areas have a higher proportion of renter households. These maps reflect the following:
• In Orange County overall, renters are concentrated in the north, west, and central parts of the County. Moving east and south from the border with L os Angeles County, a higher percentage of housing units are owner-occupied.

Within the participating jurisdictions, there are concentrations of renter -occupied and owner-occupied housing in the following areas:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions there are relatively few areas with a high percentage of renter households, with the exceptions of Placentia, which has high concentrations of renter households in the southwest corner of the city and in parts of the city near CSU -Fullerton; and Los Alamitos, which has a high concentration of renters in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive . Conversely, there are various parts of the Urban County jurisdictions with relatively high concentrations of owner households, including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated area to the east of Yorba Linda, North Tustin, Seal Beach (outside the Naval Weapons Station), Rossmoor , Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, and Northwest Brea.
• In Aliso Viejo there is a relatively high percentage of renter households south of SR- 73 between Aliso Viejo Parkway and Woodfield Park, and a relatively high percentage of owner households along the southern and western edges of city, south of SR-73 and west of Pacific Park Drive and Wood Canyon Drive.
• In Anaheim there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the Census Tracts north of SR-91 in Northeast Anaheim; between the Convention Center and I- 5, and around Angel Stadium, in the southeastern part of the city; and in the Census Tract south of I -5 bounded by Lincoln Ave nue and Brookhurst St reet, in the northwestern part of the city. There is a relatively high percentage of owner households in Anaheim Hills.
• In Buena Park there is a relatively high percentage of renters in the Census Tracts just north of I-5.

6 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing

Orange County 26 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Costa Mesa there are relatively high concentrations of renter households north of SR-55 in the downtown area, and west of Orange Coast College ; and there is a relatively high percentage of owner households north of Adams Avenue. • In Fountain Valley there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the neighborhoods south of Talbert Avenue and west of Brookhurst St reet, and in the neighborhood just to the west of Mile Square Regional Park. • In Fullerton there are relatively high percentages of renter households in and around CSU Fullerton and along Highland Ave between SR -91 and Orangethorpe Avenue (adjacent to the Fullerton Metrocenter shopping mall); and there are relatively high percentages of owner households in Census Tracts between CSU Fullerton and Brea Boulevard, and between Harbor Boulevard and the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve. • In Garden Grove, there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in West Garden Grove, compared to the rest of the city.
• In Huntington Beach there are high percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city, as well as in the area surrounding the Huntington Club country club. • In Irvine there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the southwestern part of the city—specifically in the Census Tracts west of Harvard Ave, around San Remo Park, and north of UC Irvine in University Town Center; and near the I-5/I-405 interchange—specifically in the Census Tracts encompassing the Irvine Medical and Science Complex, the Irvine Spectrum Center, and East Irvine. • In La Habra there are a relatively high percentage of owner households in the neighborhoods south of SR-90 and west of Euclid St.
• In Laguna Niguel there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the southeast corner of the city (bordering San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point), adjacent to the El Niguel County Club, and in the neighborhoods between Crown Valley Pkwy and Alicia Pkwy.
• In Lake Forest there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the northeast of the city (to the north of SR -24) and in the southwest of the city (south of Trabuco Rd and west of Ridge Route Dr).
• In Mission Viejo there are relatively high percentages of owner households throughout the city, with some renters located in the southern part of the city. • In Newport Beach there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in the Newport Coast community, and a relatively high percentage of renters around the Newport Beach Country Club.
• In the City of Orange there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the southwestern corner of the city, west of SR -57 and I -5, and relatively high percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city. • In Rancho Santa Margarita there is a relatively high percentage of owner households throughout the city, with some renters located in the neighborhoods just to the east of SR-241 between Antonio Pkwy and Santa Margarita Pkwy.

Orange County 27 25-29 Regional AFH

• In San Clemente there is a relatively high percentage of renter households in the neighborhoods south of Max Berg Plaza Park, and relatively high percentages of homeowners in a number of neighborhoods to the north and northwest. • In Santa Ana there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the downtown area and in the neighborhoods southeast of downtown. • In Tustin there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the neighborhoods adjacent to SR -55 south of I -5, and relatively high percentages of owner households in the northeast part of the city.
• In Westminster there are relatively high percentages of renters in the neighborhoods just north and south of Westminster Blvd between Hoover St. and Beach Blvd.

Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 28 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 1 – Housing Tenure – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 29 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 30 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 1 – Housing Tenure – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 31 25-29 Regional AFH

The following analysis describes the d emographics of residents of publicly supported housing.

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity, provides the demographics of residents of different types of publicly support housing programs, including Public Housing, Project -Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. This table shows that, in Orange County:
• The majority of publicly supported housing is provided through the HCV Program (over 20,000 households with HCVs countywide). Additionally, there are approximately 4,000 units in Project-based Section 8 properties and approximately 100 units in Other Multi family properties. There are no Public Housing units in the County.
• A significant portion of households with HCVs are headed by an AAPI individual (41.16%), followed by households headed by a White individual (25.32%), then Hispanic-headed households (21.12%), and then Black households (7.06%). • Project-based Section 8 units have a similar racial composition to the HCV Program overall; however, the percentages of households headed by AAPI and White individuals are higher (47.11% and 33.06% respectively), and households headed by Hispanic and Black individuals are lower (15.19% and 1.77% respectively).

Within the participating jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of publicly supported housing units varies:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of households in the HCV Program and in Project -based Section 8 units matches the County overall, with the one exception being that the number of AAPI and White households in Project -based Section 8 units are equal (each comprise 36.75% of those units).
• In Aliso Viejo, the only publicly supported housing available is through the HCV Program. Two-thirds of households using HCVs in the city are White. • In Anaheim, there are Project -based Section 8 developments in addition to households using HCVs. In the Project -based Section 8 units, the majority of households are AAPI. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households make up the largest single group of voucher recipients, followed by AAPI and White households. • In Buena Park, the overwhelming majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI. In the HCV Program, approximately one-third of households are Hispanic, 25% AAPI, 25% White, and nearly one-fifth of households are Black. • In Costa Mesa, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White, and there are no Black households in Project-based Section 8 units.

Orange County 32 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Fountain Valley, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are AAPI, and there are no Black households in Project-based Section 8 units.
• In Fullerton, nearly all of the households in Project -based Section 8 units are AAPI and the majority of households in Other Multifamily program units are White. In the HCV Program, White and Hispanic families each make up approximately one-third of households, and Black and AAPI families each make up approximately 14% of households.
• In Garden Grove, a large majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are AAPI (over 80% in each program). • In Huntington Beach, over 50% of households in Project -based Section 8 units are AAPI and around one-third are White. In the HCV Program, over 40% of households are White and around one-third are AAPI.
• In Irvine, White households are the majority in Project -based Section 8 and Other Multifamily program units and are the largest share of households in the HCV Program (46.76%). In the HCV Program, Black households are the second largest racial/ethnic group, comprising approximately one-fifth of households. • In La Habra, Hispanic households are the majority of HCV Program participants. The second largest racial/ethnic group is White households, who comprise 25% of households in the program. In Project -based Section 8 units, Hispanic, White, and AAPI each comprise approximately one-third of households. • In Laguna Niguel, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Lake Forest, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city. • In Mission Viejo, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing included in the HUD-provided data. (However, per the City’s Housing Element and other local sources, there are various publicly supported housing developments in the city.)
• In Newport Beach, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Orange, White and Hispanic households each comprise a slightly more than 40% of households in Project -based Section 8 units, and approximate ly one -third of households in the HCV Program. AAPI households make up around 25% of households in the HCV Program.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city. • In San Clemente, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.

Orange County 33 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Santa Ana, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units and in the HCV Program are AAPI. The second largest racial/ethnic group in each of these programs is Hispanic households.
• In Tustin, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI (over 70%) and approximately one -fifth are White. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households are the largest group (38%), followed by White households (33%). • In Westminster, AAPI households are the majority in both Project -based Section 8 units and in the HCV Program.

Orange County 34 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 653 6.67% 2,696 27.54% 6,055 61.84% 374 3.82% Project-Based Section 8 9,108 23.49% 6,733 17.37% 10,666 27.51% 12,058 31.10% Other Multifamily 1,706 32.43% 450 8.55% 1,173 22.30% 1,909 36.29% HCV Program 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Households 1,741,265 40.51% 332,330 7.73% 1,458,220 33.92% 666,628 15.51% 0-30% of AMI 242,025 29.00% 96,395 11.55% 355,100 42.55% 122,168 14.64% 0-50% of AMI 425,645 28.94% 149,340 10.16% 661,570 44.99% 203,018 13.81% 0-80% of AMI 682,980 30.49% 208,645 9.31% 990,690 44.22% 310,058 13.84% Orange County, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 1,362 33.06% 73 1.77% 626 15.19% 1,941 47.11% Other Multifamily 71 68.27% 8 7.69% 10 9.62% 6 5.77%
HCV Program 5,776 25.32% 1,610 7.06% 4,819 21.12% 9,390 41.16% Total Households 537,517 51.84% 16,903 1.63% 241,657 23.30% 186,863 18.02% 0-30% of AMI 63,893 40.68% 2,935 1.87% 52,308 33.30% 34,051 21.68% 0-50% of AMI 119,885 41.29% 5,251 1.81% 102,916 35.45% 55,867 19.24% 0-80% of AMI 206,268 43.82% 8,396 1.78% 160,512 34.10% 85,187 18.10% Orange County Urban County
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 154 36.75% 11 2.63% 96 22.91% 154 36.75% Other Multifamily 21 87.50% 0 0.00% 3 12.50% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 729 31.81% 164 7.16% 420 18.35% 969 42.30%
Total Households 123,567 64.87% 3,074 1.61% 30,302 15.91% 29,493 15.48% 0-30% of AMI 14,141 57.02% 339 1.37% 5,608 22.61% 4,234 17.07% 0-50% of AMI 27,749 57.61% 644 1.34% 10,983 22.80% 7,883 16.36% 0-80% of AMI 46,897 59.09% 1,298 1.64% 17,045 21.48% 12,551 15.82% Aliso Viejo, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 109 66.09% 17 10.60% 23 13.90% 14 8.60%
Total Households 12,570 67.58% 380 2.04% 2,120 11.40% 2,830 15.22% 0-30% of AMI 960 67.37% 85 5.96% 100 7.02% 205 14.39%
0-50% of AMI 1,675 66.07% 180 7.10% 195 7.69% 385 15.19% 0-80% of AMI 3,540 65.98% 250 4.66% 555 10.34% 770 14.35% Anaheim, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 58 21.48% 14 5.19% 51 18.89% 146 54.07% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 1,273 26.52% 430 8.96% 1,788 37.25% 1,290 26.89% Total Households 36,390 36.39% 2,688 2.69% 41,509 41.51% 17,464 17.46% 0-30% of AMI 5,410 26.79% 670 3.32% 10,364 51.32% 3,345 16.56% 0-50% of AMI 10,610 27.99% 1,214 3.20% 19,969 52.68% 5,429 14.32% 0-80% of AMI 17,010 28.83% 1,723 2.92% 30,514 51.72% 8,554 14.50% Buena Park, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 13 11.40% 1 0.88% 5 4.39% 95 83.33% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 174 24.25% 127 17.65% 232 32.25% 184 25.54% Total Households 7,540 32.34% 835 3.58% 7,705 33.05% 6,830 29.29% 0-30% of AMI 885 21.74% 250 6.14% 1,545 37.96% 1,300 31.94% 0-50% of AMI 1,820 22.28% 315 3.86% 3,590 43.94% 2,270 27.78% 0-80% of AMI 3,180 25.68% 515 4.16% 5,020 40.53% 3,440 27.78% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.

Orange County 35 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Costa Mesa, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 69 65.09% 0 0.00% 19 17.92% 18 16.98% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 376 57.17% 23 3.50% 107 16.24% 149 22.64%
Total Households 25,230 61.75% 695 1.70% 10,105 24.73% 3,870 9.47% 0-30% of AMI 3,720 54.35% 105 1.53% 2,380 34.77% 480 7.01% 0-50% of AMI 6,395 51.45% 175 1.41% 4,680 37.65% 955 7.68% 0-80% of AMI 10,960 53.71% 285 1.40% 6,955 34.08% 1,800 8.82% Fountain Valley, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 10 14.29% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 59 84.29% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 99 19.23% 6 1.21% 44 8.55% 363 70.42%
Total Households 10,409 55.16% 175 0.93% 2,166 11.48% 5,794 30.70% 0-30% of AMI 1,305 49.25% 0 0.00% 227 8.57% 1,015 38.30% 0-50% of AMI 2,299 51.26% 25 0.56% 472 10.52% 1,539 34.31% 0-80% of AMI 4,214 52.51% 70 0.87% 1,036 12.91% 2,529 31.51% Fullerton, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 5 5.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.00% 94 94.00% Other Multifamily 38 79.17% 3 6.25% 5 10.42% 2 4.17%
HCV Program 264 38.23% 96 13.99% 232 33.64% 95 13.71%
Total Households 20,005 44.40% 1,448 3.21% 11,890 26.39% 10,615 23.56% 0-30% of AMI 3,305 37.49% 344 3.90% 2,835 32.16% 2,100 23.82% 0-50% of AMI 5,515 37.14% 434 2.92% 5,350 36.03% 3,205 21.58% 0-80% of AMI 9,305 38.61% 789 3.27% 8,375 34.75% 4,965 20.60% Garden Grove, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 34 13.28% 3 1.17% 4 1.56% 215 83.98% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 133 4.98% 35 1.30% 219 8.24% 2,270 85.23%
Total Households 14,254 29.92% 592 1.24% 13,550 28.44% 18,417 38.66% 0-30% of AMI 2,160 20.26% 165 1.55% 3,100 29.08% 5,054 47.42% 0-50% of AMI 3,865 20.48% 204 1.08% 6,200 32.86% 8,244 43.69% 0-80% of AMI 7,080 23.55% 303 1.01% 10,125 33.68% 12,043 40.06% Huntington Beach, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 133 35.00% 4 1.05% 41 10.79% 200 52.63% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 461 42.58% 50 4.61% 166 15.36% 399 36.88%
Total Households 53,650 71.15% 753 1.00% 10,855 14.40% 8,114 10.76% 0-30% of AMI 5,730 60.89% 115 1.22% 2,140 22.74% 1,220 12.96% 0-50% of AMI 11,035 62.66% 183 1.04% 3,905 22.17% 2,105 11.95% 0-80% of AMI 20,055 65.89% 323 1.06% 6,110 20.08% 3,205 10.53% Irvine, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 428 59.03% 24 3.31% 42 5.79% 231 31.86% Other Multifamily 12 52.17% 5 21.74% 2 8.70% 4 17.39%
HCV Program 682 46.76% 282 19.34% 246 16.84% 243 16.67% Total Households 45,515 50.61% 1,800 2.00% 6,788 7.55% 33,230 36.95% 0-30% of AMI 6,055 45.27% 230 1.72% 1,145 8.56% 5,260 39.33% 0-50% of AMI 9,580 46.56% 510 2.48% 1,939 9.42% 7,670 37.28% 0-80% of AMI 16,010 49.11% 625 1.92% 2,959 9.08% 11,750 36.04% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.

Orange County 36 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.

Orange County 37 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 87 62.31% 21 14.87% 24 17.06% 6 4.50%
Total Households 11,890 69.59% 285 1.67% 2,674 15.65% 1,855 10.86% 0-30% of AMI 1,095 66.57% 0 0.00% 440 26.75% 60 3.65%
0-50% of AMI 1,855 61.22% 50 1.65% 805 26.57% 215 7.10% 0-80% of AMI 3,525 65.58% 65 1.21% 1,295 24.09% 355 6.60% San Clemente, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 52 73.24% 0 0.00% 9 12.68% 9 12.68% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 100 72.35% 5 3.82% 26 18.61% 6 4.62%
Total Households 19,495 79.56% 130 0.53% 3,264 13.32% 965 3.94% 0-30% of AMI 1,820 67.16% 20 0.74% 605 22.32% 35 1.29%
0-50% of AMI 3,980 70.76% 20 0.36% 1,264 22.47% 65 1.16% 0-80% of AMI 6,420 72.62% 55 0.62% 1,809 20.46% 225 2.55% Santa Ana, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 44 5.47% 9 1.12% 202 25.12% 462 57.46% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 191 10.86% 69 3.89% 537 30.49% 958 54.41%
Total Households 12,430 16.55% 899 1.20% 50,935 67.83% 9,959 13.26% 0-30% of AMI 1,570 8.63% 159 0.87% 13,565 74.59% 2,745 15.09% 0-50% of AMI 3,405 9.76% 299 0.86% 26,460 75.88% 4,400 12.62% 0-80% of AMI 6,150 11.63% 529 1.00% 39,210 74.16% 6,440 12.18% Tustin, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 20 19.42% 0 0.00% 10 9.71% 73 70.87% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 192 33.12% 86 14.95% 219 37.88% 79 13.70%
Total Households 10,485 40.69% 604 2.34% 7,710 29.92% 6,084 23.61% 0-30% of AMI 1,480 39.31% 160 4.25% 1,465 38.91% 589 15.64% 0-50% of AMI 2,660 34.08% 240 3.07% 3,535 45.29% 1,134 14.53% 0-80% of AMI 4,595 34.93% 375 2.85% 5,965 45.34% 1,874 14.25% Westminster, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 3 3.03% 0 0.00% 1 1.01% 95 95.96% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 122 5.13% 21 0.87% 103 4.33% 2,131 89.46%
Total Households 9,270 34.01% 203 0.74% 5,165 18.95% 12,121 44.47% 0-30% of AMI 1,595 22.62% 14 0.20% 1,195 16.95% 4,154 58.92% 0-50% of AMI 2,800 23.64% 24 0.20% 2,260 19.08% 6,599 55.71% 0-80% of AMI 4,685 27.38% 79 0.46% 3,630 21.22% 8,397 49.08% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.

White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander

Orange County 38 25-29 Regional AFH

B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration
The following analysis describes segregation/concentration levels, identifies the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation/concentration, and explains how these levels and patterns have changed over time.

Table 6 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends , displays how segregated /concentrated or integrated various racial/ethnic groups are in the region, the Orange County Urban County, and the HUD Entitlement Cities using a Dissimilarity Index, which is calculated using data from the 2010 Decennial Census. The Dissimilarity Index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is commonly used for assessing residential segr egation/integration between two groups. Dissimila rity index values indicate the following:
• Values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation/concentration)
• Values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation/concentration • Values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation/concentration
Please note two key shortcomings of these data:

1. The data only measure segregation between Black and White, Hispanic, and White, and AAPI and White residents. As a result, no conclusions can be drawn regarding segregation among Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents.

2. The data measure segregation only within each jurisdiction and do provide insights into racial/ethnic segregation across jurisdictional boundaries.

Table 6 shows that, in the region, there are high levels of segregation between Black and White residents and between Hispanic and White residents, and there is moderate segregation between AAPI and White residents. Since 1990, segregation between Black and White residents has declined, while segregation between Hispanic/White and AAPI/White has increased.

In Orange County the following jurisdictions are highly integrated, indicating low levels of segregation/concentration among the groups analyzed:
• The Urban County jurisdictions – While segregation levels are higher compared to 1990, they have trended downward since 2000 for Black/White and Hispanic/White residents.
• Aliso Viejo – Since 1990, concentrations of Hispanic and AAPI residents have been increasing but remain low.

Orange County 39 25-29 Regional AFH

• Anaheim – Segregation levels between Black/White and AAPI/White have been increasing since 1990. Segregation level between Hispanic/White were high in 2000 but have since declined.
• Buena Park – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low. • Fountain Valley – Since 1990, segregation levels between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White have been increasing but remain low. • Fullerton – Segregation level between AAPI/White is increasing but remains low. • Garden Grove – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low. • Huntington Beach – Segregation level between Black/White increased between 2000-2010 but remains low.
• Irvine – Segregation levels between the groups analyzed decreased between 2000 - 2010.
• La Habra – Since 1990, segregation between Black/White residents has increased, though remains low, and segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White has decreased.
• Laguna Niguel – Between 1990-2010, concentrations of Black and Hispanic residents increased, though remain low.
• Lake Forest – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Mission Viejo – Between 1990-2010, concentration of Hispanic residents increased, though remains low.
• Newport Beach – Between 1990 -2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Orange – Between 1990-2010, segregation between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Rancho Santa Margarita – Concentration by race/ethnic group has increased since 1990 but remains low.
• Westminster – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low.

In Orange County the following jurisdictions have moderate levels of segregation between at least two of the racial groups analyzed (no jurisdictions in the County have high levels of segregation):
• Costa Mesa – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.

Segregation levels declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. • Santa Ana – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents, and between AAPI and White. Segregation levels between Hispanic/White residents declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. Since 1990, segregation between AAPI/White residents has increased.
• Tustin – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.

Segregation levels declined between 2000-2010 but remain moderate.

Orange County 40 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends

Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 55.32 55.50 54.64 30.48 36.54 35.55 1.79 6.49 8.90 Black/White 72.75 68.12 65.22 32.90 35.33 34.07 15.82 12.66 11.59 Hispanic/White 60.12 62.44 62.15 36.26 42.43 39.52 0.19 14.88 15.67 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.46 46.02 45.77 32.65 36.76 37.16 0.31 4.86 7.94 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 29.33 31.57 31.56 18.17 22.07 21.40 29.84 36.88 34.33 Black/White 22.16 25.87 27.69 21.76 23.51 25.25 30.17 27.07 27.67 Hispanic/White 38.77 40.24 38.70 26.64 33.21 30.85 34.52 45.33 41.88 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.23 17.28 21.53 11.56 13.87 16.44 30.36 31.94 30.59 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 14.25 22.27 23.54 25.53 31.16 30.52 25.05 31.79 32.16 Black/White 27.24 27.57 26.28 30.60 31.84 26.53 22.19 23.11 23.45 Hispanic/White 21.64 28.33 29.59 33.72 39.98 38.28 27.67 32.64 33.20 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.85 22.12 23.58 30.41 33.48 35.24 27.45 34.97 33.98 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 21.11 23.44 21.58 16.49 21.55 18.01 28.18 26.72 24.14 Black/White 21.45 19.99 24.20 42.99 27.84 19.37 12.56 13.25 19.36 Hispanic/White 28.10 33.37 30.09 21.98 22.79 17.88 33.93 30.96 28.59 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.86 20.11 18.25 18.18 22.57 18.73 40.48 38.69 36.53 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 9.17 12.98 16.34 9.39 15.38 17.28 13.67 15.17 15.75 Black/White 13.82 22.75 16.24 12.43 12.16 9.52 18.03 20.63 16.83 Hispanic/White 13.34 20.76 22.79 15.72 26.10 27.63 12.26 18.75 20.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.37 12.68 13.82 8.84 11.06 13.46 20.00 16.83 13.98 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 13.20 15.04 17.04 23.75 24.25 22.59 5.43 12.26 14.07 Black/White 21.92 19.85 15.96 24.17 24.63 24.89 7.18 12.64 13.35 Hispanic/White 14.33 18.29 18.21 30.31 29.99 26.95 5.73 19.52 23.13 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.99 23.74 25.92 19.44 22.28 22.53 6.70 8.56 9.55 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 21.89 25.93 16.76 47.77 49.28 46.49 26.33 36.73 32.93 Black/White 13.86 19.08 14.93 36.53 27.91 25.15 42.49 35.11 29.02 Hispanic/White 27.16 32.90 23.71 53.09 53.61 50.00 31.13 48.20 42.54 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 14.66 14.76 16.56 43.10 46.77 46.87 19.20 17.74 19.76 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 24.58 28.05 31.59
Black/White 11.56 14.18 17.62
Hispanic/White 30.31 29.74 31.83
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.15 29.73 34.65
Lake Forest, CA
Note 1: Data Source: Decennial Census, accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Westminster, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Orange, CA
Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Aliso Viejo, CA
Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Orange County Urban County
Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA La Habra, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA

Orange County 41 25-29 Regional AFH

The following analysis identifies areas with relatively high segregation/concentration and integration and indicates the predominant groups living in each area.

Race/Ethnicity
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration, is a series of maps showing racial/ethnic concentrations in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps are published by California HCD using methodology from the Othering & Belonging Institute, which combines various measures of segregation and integration (including a dissimilarity index) , and uses data from 2020. On these maps, dark red indicates areas where people of color (POC) experience high levels of segregation /concentration; green indicates areas where White residents experience high levels of segregation/concentration; yellow indicates areas that are racially/ethnically integrated.

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity , is a series of maps showing the predominant racial/ethnic group by Census Tract in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. The colors indicate different racial/ethnic groups, and the relative strength of the shading indicates the extent to which one group is dominant over the next most populous group (with d arker shading indicating a higher concentration of that racial/ethnic group). These maps were created by California HCD using 2017-2021 ACS data, to facilitate fair housing planning. 6F
7 Collectively, the maps illustrate that in Orange County overall, there are areas of high POC segregation/concentration in the central and northern parts of the County (including the cities of Santa Ana, Westminster, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Fullerton), and there are areas of high White segregation/concentration along the entire coast (including Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Paint, Capistrano Beach, and San Clemente) and in the southern part of the County (including Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and Rancho Santa Margarita).

Within each participating jurisdiction, there are areas of high segregation/integration in the following locations:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are areas of h igh White segregation in Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Santa Margarita, North Tustin, Seal Beach , Yorba Linda, north ern Placentia, Villa Park, and Orange Park Acres.
o There are areas of high POC segregation in Stanton (which are predominantly Hispanic or AAPI), Cypress (which are predominantly AAPI), northern Yorba

7 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing

Orange County 42 25-29 Regional AFH

Linda (which are predominantly AAPI), La Palma (which are predominantly AAPI), and San Juan Capistrano (which is predominantly Hispanic). o There are areas of i ntegration including the Atwood neighborhood in Placentia, which is predominantly Hispanic ; Brea just northwest of the SR- 90/SR-57 interchange, which is a predominantly Hispanic area ; and in Los Alamitos, in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive, which is predominantly Hispanic. • In Aliso Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northern and eastern parts of the city. • In Anaheim, the map shows integrated areas in Southeast Anaheim (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group), in western Anaheim west of Brookhurst Street (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group in many neighborhoods, and AAPI residents are the predominant group in a few others), and in the neighborhoods between Modjeska Park and Palm Lane Park in the Hermosa Village community (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group). The map shows another integrated area in Northeast Anaheim, to the north of SR-91. However, this is primarily an industrial/commercial area. The city also has neighborhoods of high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods north of downtown and along SR - 91, and neighborhoods south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The Anaheim Hills area demonstrates a high White segregation.
• In Buena Park, most of the city is considered an area of low-medium segregation with the exception of the following areas: the northeast corner of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and is predominantly AAPI; the neighborhood between I -5, Artesia Boulevard, Beach Boulevard, and the L os Angeles County border is also considered an area of high POC segregation, and is predominantly Hispanic; and the neighborhoods south of Boisseranc Park between Dale Street and the nurseries, is considered a racially integrated area. • In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods between downtown and the Costa Mesa Country Club are areas of high POC segregation, with a predominantly Hispanic population.

The neighborhoods in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive) are all areas of high White segregation, as are the neighborhoods north of the Country Club and the neighborhoods between Estancia High School and Canyon Park.
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of Census Tracts are considered areas of high POC segregation, and many have a predominantly AAPI population (particularly north of Warner Ave nue). The neighborhoods surrounding the intersection of Magnolia Street and Ellis Avenue in the city’s southwest, and between Brookhurst Street and Ward Street south of I-405, are considered areas of high White segregation.

Orange County 43 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Fullerton, there are various neighborhoods that are considered racially integrated, including in the area around CSU Fullerton and extending west to Fullerton College, and in the southwest area of the city. There are also areas considered to have high POC segregation, including most of the neighborhoods west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Malvern Avenue, which are predominantly AAPI areas. • In Garden Grove , the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation except for West Garden Grove. In West Garden Grove, the residential neighborhoods west of Knott Street are considered areas of high White segregation.

East of Knott Street is primarily industrial and commercial land uses. In the high POC segregation areas, AAPI residents are the predominant group west of 9th Street and Hispanic residents are the predominant group east of there. • In Huntington Beach , most of the city ’s neighborhoods are predominantly White, with the exception of one Census Tract in the center of the city that is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Irvine, there are a number of Census Tracts considered to be areas of high POC segregation, some of which are predominantly AAPI and others are predominantly White. These areas include the neighborhoods between I -405 and UC Irvine , the Westpark community north of I-405, the neighborhoods between Como Channel and I-5, and the Northwood community north of I -5. There are also areas of high White segregation in Irvine, including the neighborhood bounded by Turtle Rock Drive the area surrounding the Strawberry Farms Golf Club, the Woodbridge community north of I-405, and the neighborhood west of the Oak Creek Golf Club. Please note that data was unavailable for many parts of the city, as indicated by the grey shading. • In La Habra , there are various neighborhoods considered to have high POC segregation, including neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. The city also has two racially integrated areas, one that extends across its border to the west (between SR-90 and the railroad tracks) and another that extends across its border to the south (south of SR -90 and east of Euclid St).
• In Laguna Niguel, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northeastern and eastern parts of the city. • In Lake Forest , most of the city’s neighborhoods have a predominantly White population. There are predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in the southeast corner of the city, along El Toro R oad, and t he northwest corner of the city is predominantly AAPI.
• In Mission Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration in the southern, northern, and western parts of the city.

Orange County 44 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Newport Beach, the entire city is classified as an area of high White segregation. • In Orange, most of the city to the north and east of Villa Park is considered an area of high White segregation, and most of the city to the south and west of Villa Park is considered an area of low-medium POC segregation. In the low-medium segregation areas, the neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic west of Glassel Street with a high concentration of Hispanic residents in the neighborhoods north of Walnut Ave nue. The neighborhoods between Glassel St reet and SR -55 are predominantly White, and the neighborhoods east of SR-55 and south of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic. There is one area in the city that is considered integrated. This area lies to the south of Villa Park and runs south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue toward El Modena. • In Rancho Santa Margarita , most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low -medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the neighborhoods east of SR-241 between Antonio Parkway and Santa Margarita Parkway.
• In San Clemente , the majority of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of one Census Tract encompassing neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as low-medium concentration with a predominantly White population.
• In Santa Ana, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly Hispanic population except for the Riverview West community which is predominantly AAPI. There are some areas of low-medium POC segregation in the city, including the neighborhoods north of I -5, Floral Park, West Floral Park, Fisher Park, Morrison/Eldridge Park, Riverglen, Casa de Santiago, and neighborhoods south of Warner Avenue. There is one integrated area in the southern part of the city between Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping Mall, where White residents are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, there are racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I -5. These are surrounded by neighborhoods of low-medium segregation that are a mix of predominantly White, Hispanic, and AAPI.
• In Westminster, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly AAPI population with a few exceptions. The northwestern corner of the city, between I -405 and Bolsa Chica R oad is an area of high White segregation. Across I -405 from those neighborhoods is an integrated area with a predominantly Hispanic population (west of Edwards Avenue). This area includes mobile home parks near the intersections of SR-22 and I-405.

Orange County 45 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 46 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 47 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 48 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 49 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 50 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 51 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 52 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis compares the locations of publicly supported housing with the areas of concentration.

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing, is a series of maps showing the location of federal- and state-subsidized housing in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from California Housing Partnership 7F

8. On the maps, t he size of each dot
correlates to the number of publicly -supported housing units in an area —larger dots indicate higher numbers of units. The shading of the Census Tract s indicates the percentage of renter occupied housing units in that Tract that are supported by a HCV, including both tenant -based and project -based vouchers. The darker shading indicates higher percentages of vouchers.

The locations of publicly supported housing on these maps align with the areas of segregation and integration on Map 2 (Racial/Ethnic Segregation/Integration), in the following places:

8 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing

Orange County 53 25-29 Regional AFH

• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and areas of high POC segregation in the following places:
▪ Cypress – in the neighborhood around King Elementary School, in the north of the city.
▪ Placentia – in the southwest corner of the city
▪ Stanton – throughout the city
▪ San Juan Capistrano – in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74)
o There is overlap between areas without any publicly supported housing and either low HCV use or no data on HCV use, and areas of high White segregation, the following places:
▪ Rossmoor, Seal Beach, North Tustin, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, and Dana Point
• In Aliso Viejo, there are publicly supported units and higher percentages of units with vouchers in the south of city, which is an area of high White concentration. • In Anaheim, there are multiple publicly supported housing developments downtown and north of downtown, which are high POC segregation areas. The map also shows a concentration of vouchers in the high POC segregation area between Santa Ana River and Orangethorpe Ave nue, east of Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station and west of Imperial Highway (SR-90). However, this is largely a commercial/industrial area with few housing units. In the western part of the city, around Western High School, there is also a cluster of publicly supported housing developments in a racially integrated area.
• In Buena Park, most publicly supported housing units are located in between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), which is a low-medium segregation area like most of the city.
• In Costa Mesa, the largest number of publicly supported housing units and the highest concentration of vouchers is in high POC segregation area located downtown and west of downtown.
• In Fountain Valley, the location of publicly supported housing units and highest concentrations of vouchers mirrors the high POC segregation areas. • In Fullerton, publicly supported housing units are mostly clustered in the center of the city, which is a low-medium segregation area.
• In Garden Grove, there are lots of publicly supported housing units in the center of city along Garden Grove Boulevard , which is a high POC segregation area.

There are no publicly supported housing units in West Garden Grove, which is an area of high White segregation.

Orange County 54 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Huntington Beach, the map shows publicly supported housing units located in the center of the city. Local data identify affordable housing projects distributed broadly across the city.
• In Irvine, the high POC segregation areas north of I-405 overlap with the location of publicly supported housing units. In other parts of the city where there is high voucher use and multiple publicly supported housing developments, there is no segregation data available.
• In La Habra, publicly supported housing units are located in the city’s center and north neighborhoods, which are all low-medium or high POC segregation areas. • In Laguna Niguel, the map shows one public supported housing development (near the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and La Paz Road ) and a small concentration of voucher use in northwest part of city , which is a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that another development in the western part of the City also receives vouchers.
• In Lake Forest, there are publicly supported housing units in the northwest, near the intersection of SR-241 and Alton Parkway. There are a smaller number of units in the south of the city, along El Toro Road.
• In Mission Viejo, the map shows two publicly supported housing developments in the southern part of the city . One of these developments , in the southeast, aligns with a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that there are additional publicly supported housing developments that are not reflected in the HUD-provided data.
• In Newport Beach, there are two publicly supported housing developments (one east and one west of Newport Center) , both of which are in high White segregation areas.
• In Orange, all publicly supported housing units and households with vouchers are located to the west and south of Villa Park ( which are low-medium segregation areas). There are no units or vouchers in use to the east of Villa Park, where it is a high White segregation area. The largest publicly supported housing development (biggest blue dot) is in the integrated area to the south of Villa Park, running south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue towards El Modena.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no publicly supported housing units. There are some vouchers in use in the northeast part of the city that is a low-medium concentration area
• In San Clemente, there is a c luster of publicly supported housing units in the low- medium concentration area north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park. • In Santa Ana, a significant number of publicly supported housing units are located downtown and southeast of downtown, both of which are high POC segregation areas. There is a h igher concentration of vouchers, as well as some publicly

Orange County 55 25-29 Regional AFH

supported housing units, west of the Santa Ana River, which is also a high POC segregation area.
• In Tustin, there is a large concentration of publicly supported housing units in the south. Segregation data for this area are unavailable; however, according to Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity) the population is predominantly AAPI. • In Westminster, the location of publicly supported housing units and areas with highest concentration of vouchers aligns with the high POC segregation areas in the central part of the city. There are no publicly supported housing units, and fewer vouchers in use, in the western parts of the city that are high White segregation , racially integrated, and low-medium segregation areas.

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 56 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region (HCV Only)

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 57 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 58 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 59 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above (including siting decisions of private or publicly supported housing or the location of residents using Housing Choice Vouchers).

Broadly speaking, the patterns of residential segregation /concentration by race – both between and within jurisdictions in Orange County and across the United States – are due, in part, to:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation, which created many of the residential patterns that still exist today.
• Local land use and zoning laws that have perpetuated patterns of racial segregation, some of which remain in place, while others which have been removed but continue to have lasting effects.
• Market factors, including the high cost of land and existing housing throughout Orange County, constrain the development of new affordable housing and limit access for families to existing housing.

Orange County 60 25-29 Regional AFH

• Discrimination in the private housing market, including source -of-income discrimination, driven in part by a lack of knowledge of state and federal fair housing laws and regulations, which in turn limits housing mobility. • There are numerous ethnic enclaves of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other groups throughout Orange County. These enclaves provide a sense of community and a social network that may help newcomers preserve their cultural identities.

However, these active choices should not obscure the significant impact of structural barriers to fair housing choice and discrimination.

Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that segregation/concentration patterns in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity) areas. • Lack of housing mobility for some minority groups based on a lack of credit history coupled with high demand for affordable housing across the County, which permits landlords and property management companies to prioritize applicants based on credit history.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to segregation /concentration in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.

C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) The following analysis identifies R/ECAPs and/or groupings of R/ECAP tracts.

HUD defines racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) as Census Tracts that meet both of the following criteria:
• a non-White population of 50 percent or more, and
• a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or a poverty rate that is three or more times the average Tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

The analysis in this report uses a measure of segregation and concentrated poverty created by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California HCD. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map ’s poverty concentration and racial segregation filter aligns with HUD's R/ECAP methodology but is designed to more effectively reflect the level of racial and ethnic diversity in many parts of California. This measure uses the following criteria to define Census Tracts as “High Segregation and Poverty” areas:
• Tracts and rural block groups where at least 30 percent of the population is living below the poverty level (note that college and graduate students are removed from

Orange County 61 25-29 Regional AFH

the poverty calculation in the filter in Census Tracts where they comprise at least 25% of the population); and
• Tracts that have a Location Quotient (LQ) higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color. The LQ measures relative segregation by calculating how much more segregated a Census Tract is relative to a larger area (in this case, the County).

Compared to the measure used by HUD (which is an absolute threshold of non - White population in a Census Tract), this measure better captures inequality operating on individuals at the neighborhood level.

Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas, indicates racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Orange County (note that the only R/ECAP areas are located in the central part of the County). This map was created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data. This map show s R/ECAPs in the following areas:
• Placentia – in the southwestern corner of the city, south of Orangethorpe Avenue • Anaheim – northeast of Disneyland, along Ball Road and I-5 • Garden Grove – in the northern part of the city to between Brookhurst St reet and Gilbert Street, north of Chapman Avenue
• Santa Ana – covering multiple Census Tracts in the downtown • Costa Mesa – on the west side of downtown and the area southwest of downtown (between Newport Avenue (SR-55) and Placentia Avenue, south of 19th Street).

Orange County 62 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes and identifies the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs, and how these demographics compare with the overall demographics of the area.

To identify the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs and compare them to the overall demographics of the surrounding areas, we look at the areas designated as “High Segregation and Poverty” on Map 5 (High Segregation and Poverty Areas) in relation to the demographic information on Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity). The analysis finds that R/ECAPs in Orange County are predominantly Hispanic. Specifically, • In Placentia, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods to the west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim. The neighborhoods to the east are predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.
• In Costa Mesa, the R/ECAP area is predominantly Hispanic, as are the adjacent neighborhoods to the north and west. The Census Tracts to the east, across Newport Avenue, are all predominantly White.
• In Garden Grove, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic and is surrounded by Census Tracts that are predominantly AAPI.

Orange County 63 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Santa Ana, the R/ECAP Tracts are predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.

The following analysis d escribes how R/ECAPs align with the location of publicly supported housing.

Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs, shows the location of public-supported housing in Orange County in comparison to the location of the R/ECAP s (outlined in red).

This map shows no overarching patterns between the location of publicly supported housing and R/ECAPs.
• In Placentia, the R/ECAP area is home to one public housing development of 50-100 units, and between 5 -15% of renter -occupied units in the Tract utilize a voucher — which is similar to other Tracts in the city.
• In Anaheim, there are no publicly supported housing units in the R/ECAP Tract, and fewer than 5% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP Tract utilize a voucher. • In Costa Mesa, the largest publicly supported housing development in the city is located on the northern boundary of the R/ECAP area. There is no data on voucher usage in the Tract.
• In Garden Grove, 15 -30% of renter -occupied units in the R/ECAP tract utilize a voucher, which is similar to a number of other non -R/ECAP Tracts in the city. There are no publicly supported housing developments in the R/ECAP Tract. • In Santa Ana, fewer than 5% of renter -occupied housing units in the R/ECAP areas utilize a voucher ; however, there are various publicly supported housing developments within the boundaries of the R/ECAP area.

Orange County 64 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs

Source: Created by authors using map from California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 65 25-29 Regional AFH

The following analysis d escribes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

In the most recent Housing Elements prepared and adopted by each jurisdiction, the following factors were identified that contribute to the existence of R/ECAPs in these jurisdictions.

In Placentia:
• Lack of affordable housing, which limits housing mobility. • Limited participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. • Land use and development practices that constrain affordable housing development.
• Private discrimination in housing, due in part to a lack of fair housing knowledge and enforcement.

In Anaheim:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation have created many of the residential patterns that still exist today. Additionally, the high cost of land and existing housing in Anaheim (and throughout Orange County) are significant constraints to the development of new affordable housing and access for families to existing housing.

In Costa Mesa:
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families. • Lack of affordable housing due to both governmental and market constraints.

In Garden Grove:
• Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes, due to high land and development costs in the region, public opposition to new development, and land use and zoning laws.
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families. • Limited access to financial services.
• Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency. • Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.

In Santa Ana:
• Lack of fair housing education and outreach.
• Lack of affordable housing.

Orange County 66 25-29 Regional AFH

D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following paragraphs analyze disparities in access to opportunity for education, employment, transportation, poverty, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, disability and access, and patterns in any disparities to access to opportunity.

1. Education
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (below), includes a School Proficiency Index, which measures the proximity various racial/ethnic groups have, based on where they live, to neighborhoods with high-performing schools. School proficiency is measured using school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams. The index is based on a range of 0 to 100 , with higher scores indicating better proximity to high - performing schools.

Table 6 shows the following disparities in access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods with high performing schools. Access is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, and highest for White and AAPI residents. Access is especially low for Black residents living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, Hispanic residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools, and this disparity is even more pronounced for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Compared to the region, access is better across all groups and there are smaller disparities between groups.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups. • In Anaheim, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups in the city and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.

Access also t ends to be worse for residents living below the FPL, with Hispanic residents living below the FPL having the least access to neighborhoods with high- performing schools.
• In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Residents in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools than their counterparts regionwide, and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the region.
• In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have less access to neighborhoods with high - performing schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic

Orange County 67 25-29 Regional AFH

residents living below the FPL. Generally, residents in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools than their counterparts regionwide, and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the region.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools is high for all groups, with little disparity between race/ethnic groups, except for Native Americans living below the FPL, who have relatively poor access. • In Fullerton, access to neighborhoods with high performing schools is comparable to the region, with relatively low access and evidence of racial/ethnic disparities.

Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.
• In Garden Grove, Hispanic residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with high -performing schools, though these disparities are less pronounced than in the region as a whole.
• In Huntington Beach, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with high -performing schools, and these disparities are more pronounced for residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools is high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups. • In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups, though residents living below the federal FPL have less access to these types of neighborhoods. Hispanic residents living below the federal FPL, in particular, have the least access compared to other groups. • In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools is moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups. • In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools is high for all groups.
• In Orange, there are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with high - performing schools, with Black and Hispanic residents having less access than other groups. These disparities are less pronounced than in the region overall —this is because, Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents of Orange have better access to these kinds of neighborhoods than their counterparts in the region overall, while White and AAPI residents of Orange have less access. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.

Orange County 68 25-29 Regional AFH

• In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools is moderately high for all groups with few disparities between groups. • In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools is relatively low for all groups and there are significant disparities between race/ethnic groups.

Hispanic and Native American residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools.
• In Tustin, Hispanic and Native American residents living below the FPL have significantly less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other groups.
• In Westminster, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups.

Orange County 69 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 65.19 68.03 67.43 77.63 73.13 54.59 21.35 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.07 33.82 35.34 87.25 79.02 40.72 11.92 Hispanic 35.53 39.72 35.73 86.48 77.78 43.70 12.36
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.03 61.94 57.64 85.13 75.98 51.11 13.13 Native American, Non-Hispanic 48.40 50.70 48.58 81.04 75.36 45.88 17.68 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.66 60.62 59.62 83.19 78.51 56.98 18.46 Black, Non-Hispanic 24.12 28.03 26.41 88.34 81.07 36.90 11.74 Hispanic 25.05 33.70 29.50 89.09 80.94 44.63 10.63
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.45 57.59 51.41 88.58 80.61 52.88 11.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 33.63 39.10 36.05 84.43 78.22 47.65 16.22 Orange County Urban County, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.48 81.89 74.59 60.92 67.05 46.96 24.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 69.50 75.53 68.16 74.64 71.50 44.07 15.23 Hispanic 58.20 67.52 59.65 75.35 73.08 45.50 15.65
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.64 76.68 67.46 77.05 70.10 43.85 13.93 Native American, Non-Hispanic 68.87 73.43 68.92 69.65 69.78 46.01 19.49 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 68.31 77.99 69.03 62.05 71.85 49.98 24.26 Black, Non-Hispanic 57.08 70.54 60.65 74.14 71.46 42.77 13.74 Hispanic 40.26 56.48 46.97 79.38 77.74 45.63 12.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.82 72.84 58.95 82.14 75.35 40.98 10.57 Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.71 78.50 58.72 80.71 75.06 48.72 12.85 Aliso Viejo, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 86.40 83.80 89.60 25.37 76.58 67.81 44.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 85.66 83.41 89.02 26.10 79.11 67.21 44.13 Hispanic 84.11 84.55 88.33 26.59 79.32 68.55 43.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 87.35 84.31 89.76 24.91 75.76 67.91 44.68 Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.17 83.12 88.93 26.36 79.02 67.87 44.33 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 82.37 81.49 87.38 28.15 80.65 67.31 43.92 Black, Non-Hispanic 96.00 90.96 92.00 20.00 71.00 68.85 44.00 Hispanic 87.11 86.95 88.83 25.18 80.76 67.92 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 79.67 82.36 87.60 28.86 79.35 68.30 43.19 Native American, Non-Hispanic 89.00 73.76 91.00 20.00 71.00 64.40 46.00 Anaheim, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 57.74 51.16 55.99 86.30 72.67 43.78 11.42 Black, Non-Hispanic 42.85 39.66 45.37 89.16 78.00 36.96 8.52 Hispanic 36.00 27.30 39.83 90.59 79.51 50.51 7.89
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 49.75 44.50 50.68 87.98 75.45 37.02 9.49 Native American, Non-Hispanic 44.95 36.79 46.32 89.37 77.46 48.18 8.95 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 45.90 40.49 46.79 89.04 77.96 42.96 9.09 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.74 34.14 37.42 89.65 79.84 31.61 7.85 Hispanic 29.41 22.31 35.78 91.71 81.27 52.65 7.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.63 44.33 47.94 88.35 76.64 30.85 9.12 Native American, Non-Hispanic 28.04 34.19 30.87 92.22 79.80 57.77 8.38 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Orange County 70 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Buena Park, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.45 68.12 55.62 88.37 74.04 32.63 5.85 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.36 56.49 50.18 88.38 76.06 36.64 5.75 Hispanic 45.66 56.38 48.40 87.86 75.87 38.65 5.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.85 56.16 88.51 74.65 34.48 5.98 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.49 66.44 52.73 88.12 74.89 31.49 5.74 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.80 63.19 53.10 88.01 75.46 34.13 5.82 Black, Non-Hispanic 34.70 61.54 49.56 89.06 79.09 51.37 6.30 Hispanic 36.05 49.35 44.29 87.95 77.28 40.67 5.51
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.60 62.69 52.02 88.88 76.16 33.32 5.99 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.17 70.34 82.13 88.84 71.20 32.56 6.92 Costa Mesa, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72 Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65 Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58 Black, Non-Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50 Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46 Native American, Non-Hispanic 50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03 Fountain Valley, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.99 77.95 66.97 88.74 72.84 63.54 10.36 Black, Non-Hispanic 63.35 74.50 64.34 89.00 77.04 67.34 9.23 Hispanic 61.51 73.48 61.11 89.32 76.51 64.27 9.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.19 74.62 62.14 88.86 73.78 61.25 9.43 Native American, Non-Hispanic 71.09 77.77 66.67 88.24 73.04 61.75 9.83 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 73.72 79.47 71.04 88.66 70.86 60.63 12.98 Black, Non-Hispanic 59.12 85.62 60.95 89.98 80.00 64.77 7.03 Hispanic 62.05 75.52 64.05 88.78 73.78 52.61 10.82
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.02 71.44 61.18 88.82 76.72 64.70 8.84 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.00 58.70 39.00 91.00 79.00 33.65 9.00 Fullerton, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 62.61 56.65 61.50 87.07 76.65 55.54 8.66 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.62 47.75 52.52 88.60 79.69 50.90 7.95 Hispanic 42.72 39.02 45.92 88.92 79.56 48.09 7.72
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.92 66.82 67.55 86.58 74.57 45.70 8.74 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.94 46.15 50.35 88.41 78.82 50.79 7.98 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 55.56 50.27 55.74 89.34 80.78 56.42 8.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.98 38.56 45.43 90.92 83.87 43.50 7.52 Hispanic 37.93 36.39 41.66 89.84 80.77 46.43 7.60
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.46 64.03 66.38 88.24 78.20 51.50 8.57 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.11 42.19 54.89 87.14 77.59 36.66 7.59 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Orange County 71 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Garden Grove, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 51.61 62.62 46.45 89.02 75.00 36.85 5.30 Black, Non-Hispanic 41.29 55.63 41.33 89.90 78.05 34.48 5.93 Hispanic 38.31 49.57 38.53 90.25 78.44 36.49 6.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.53 57.58 38.40 89.26 78.09 26.41 6.31 Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.49 57.15 40.82 89.84 77.88 33.27 6.01 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 43.98 59.78 40.82 89.70 77.12 33.92 5.82 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.36 52.83 42.46 88.39 77.73 22.40 6.08 Hispanic 33.96 47.89 37.29 90.91 80.88 38.03 6.46
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 34.39 57.31 37.26 89.10 78.63 24.49 6.43 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.46 59.54 38.35 90.71 82.88 20.33 5.55 Huntington Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 73.22 76.09 73.40 86.19 75.11 39.88 27.16 Black, Non-Hispanic 66.28 64.48 68.38 86.93 77.62 44.20 22.24 Hispanic 56.39 62.72 61.50 86.96 78.62 46.28 19.14
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 70.78 72.77 69.79 85.78 74.36 43.09 23.36 Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.29 73.74 70.28 86.49 76.42 41.44 25.86 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.07 73.38 72.99 86.92 77.44 38.84 27.86 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.90 56.51 58.56 88.62 80.11 43.69 17.85 Hispanic 42.73 56.09 51.58 87.45 81.23 47.75 14.39
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.40 65.76 67.00 86.92 78.76 42.40 23.92 Native American, Non-Hispanic 72.02 78.94 63.69 86.00 64.39 36.61 26.65 Irvine, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 75.51 91.83 85.86 86.03 75.70 82.98 24.62 Black, Non-Hispanic 71.46 90.47 85.50 87.62 77.90 85.02 24.34 Hispanic 71.82 91.30 84.30 87.17 77.18 84.06 24.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.27 91.74 86.27 86.36 76.01 81.99 24.03 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.19 91.00 86.39 86.51 77.19 85.15 24.45 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 74.06 91.44 81.96 88.76 79.32 87.44 26.01 Black, Non-Hispanic 70.68 91.56 89.17 86.53 76.94 79.65 24.23 Hispanic 72.33 89.99 77.69 89.76 80.78 89.91 26.12
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.04 93.12 76.85 88.34 80.05 88.66 27.79 Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.05 92.63 64.82 92.82 83.98 89.60 26.21 La Habra, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 54.95 45.37 49.14 85.13 74.94 24.60 9.57 Black, Non-Hispanic 51.87 41.91 49.43 85.67 76.39 21.77 9.50 Hispanic 49.15 38.57 41.33 85.10 76.65 25.54 9.56
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 63.20 44.08 62.32 84.33 71.22 22.13 9.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 51.76 43.96 45.26 84.53 75.07 26.27 9.56 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 56.10 47.10 49.00 84.46 74.26 24.56 9.48 Black, Non-Hispanic 52.83 41.39 42.26 87.37 77.76 28.47 9.43 Hispanic 46.12 36.01 37.54 85.25 76.92 28.33 9.70
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.15 40.10 53.86 86.17 73.95 25.19 9.48 Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.40 39.69 33.09 88.64 77.34 23.54 9.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Orange County 72 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Laguna Niguel, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.15 78.68 81.92 20.01 65.30 24.83 44.29 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.53 78.56 81.05 20.78 66.76 27.40 43.54 Hispanic 74.16 77.79 80.90 21.60 68.64 26.05 42.93
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 76.21 79.74 81.58 21.17 67.10 30.29 43.17 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.38 78.54 81.49 20.46 66.97 23.45 45.40 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 76.39 77.56 79.65 20.30 66.57 26.91 43.73 Black, Non-Hispanic 71.95 74.35 89.13 22.25 72.54 11.92 43.47 Hispanic 75.89 78.28 79.36 21.25 67.62 30.40 44.20
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.56 80.73 75.10 23.52 71.49 42.28 41.54 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Lake Forest, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.36 72.36 81.64 32.24 69.42 71.33 42.33 Black, Non-Hispanic 73.27 69.65 81.67 32.34 70.96 72.67 42.25 Hispanic 67.04 66.07 76.36 31.35 73.18 70.57 39.94
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 73.63 72.58 82.39 32.16 69.56 73.34 42.56 Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.43 68.97 79.14 32.03 71.55 69.17 41.59 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.42 68.73 79.06 32.70 72.03 71.31 41.04 Black, Non-Hispanic 80.40 60.52 86.90 25.18 69.16 38.16 45.46 Hispanic 63.26 57.73 67.26 26.85 71.64 76.10 35.45
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.70 65.12 73.73 35.90 75.46 69.11 39.66 Native American, Non-Hispanic 27.00 62.47 60.00 31.00 85.00 71.40 34.00 Mission Viejo, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.64 76.96 76.49 20.23 60.25 21.34 46.11 Black, Non-Hispanic 79.61 72.77 76.94 20.85 64.05 27.65 45.55 Hispanic 77.56 73.46 73.81 20.70 64.44 27.95 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 80.69 77.17 77.29 20.55 60.53 22.69 45.63 Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.23 74.24 74.50 21.07 62.03 22.20 46.25 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 80.70 78.05 76.43 20.42 61.66 22.41 46.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 70.69 76.42 81.54 21.23 69.77 27.61 43.31 Hispanic 73.93 74.29 66.28 20.00 66.08 35.01 41.77
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.62 76.39 81.02 20.31 65.65 30.45 42.20 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Newport Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.31 90.17 82.88 86.59 75.16 90.40 41.36 Black, Non-Hispanic 78.86 89.72 81.85 86.92 76.61 90.54 40.65 Hispanic 79.04 88.93 81.76 86.93 76.81 89.82 40.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.48 91.60 85.94 83.05 68.64 89.19 38.80 Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.22 88.29 81.86 88.35 78.06 91.17 40.73 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 78.99 89.20 83.30 87.76 78.81 90.38 43.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 78.71 86.38 78.21 89.58 85.43 87.99 48.46 Hispanic 82.46 87.75 81.41 88.28 77.88 89.87 41.76
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.34 88.97 82.79 88.43 76.05 92.09 39.15 Native American, Non-Hispanic 77.00 89.17 88.00 93.00 85.00 95.55 40.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Orange County 73 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

Orange, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 59.85 60.76 61.19 87.39 72.03 69.31 10.04 Black, Non-Hispanic 52.12 48.57 51.47 89.40 77.99 78.41 8.77 Hispanic 48.30 50.65 52.77 88.89 76.83 76.42 9.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.06 58.78 59.94 87.51 72.50 67.82 9.94 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.37 55.48 56.10 88.33 74.75 73.95 9.39 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 57.04 52.92 58.45 89.18 76.75 78.49 9.16 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.85 42.16 41.19 83.58 78.05 89.55 9.52 Hispanic 45.47 53.35 53.02 89.09 76.93 73.57 9.08
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.82 43.86 48.07 89.57 79.90 81.30 8.42 Native American, Non-Hispanic 64.21 51.31 53.78 90.52 79.37 86.78 8.55 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 87.82 84.08 87.29 19.01 61.49 12.75 54.08 Black, Non-Hispanic 85.22 82.80 86.30 20.39 66.64 13.57 53.73 Hispanic 84.08 80.19 85.16 21.29 69.41 11.83 54.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 86.50 84.59 87.52 19.55 63.25 12.85 53.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.05 82.04 86.50 20.09 66.32 11.54 53.88 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 83.99 77.97 85.14 20.86 67.77 9.82 54.55 Black, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Hispanic 79.71 72.25 79.75 22.39 74.90 7.51 54.71
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 92.08 91.03 89.00 16.53 50.91 17.71 53.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a San Clemente, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.02 73.91 77.79 15.18 58.61 30.53 54.50 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.72 74.47 77.50 15.14 58.28 33.23 53.99 Hispanic 64.41 66.23 74.88 16.13 64.05 28.18 54.33
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 77.00 75.99 77.85 14.57 56.60 36.23 53.93 Native American, Non-Hispanic 70.21 72.47 77.11 16.20 60.72 31.36 54.49 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 72.53 69.89 77.05 15.87 60.90 29.70 54.94 Black, Non-Hispanic 33.81 63.97 69.04 14.71 67.68 30.34 53.00 Hispanic 64.44 65.67 75.42 15.59 64.76 30.60 54.22
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.99 79.46 77.89 13.66 59.13 42.42 53.36 Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.92 82.92 81.47 13.38 53.61 35.91 53.08 Santa Ana, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 43.58 40.95 48.31 92.62 80.95 74.89 10.29 Black, Non-Hispanic 37.22 34.86 40.19 92.78 81.04 67.18 10.60 Hispanic 27.34 28.45 33.05 92.92 80.41 62.17 11.06
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 37.32 41.90 37.03 92.43 79.82 52.24 10.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 30.92 33.84 37.35 92.65 79.81 61.51 10.65 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 36.59 35.69 45.31 92.55 81.75 72.63 10.59 Black, Non-Hispanic 30.40 34.66 39.64 91.94 82.25 76.57 10.44 Hispanic 22.21 27.00 30.56 93.36 82.18 60.87 10.98
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.22 40.88 35.66 92.11 80.53 46.13 10.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 22.28 21.56 35.82 93.35 79.06 60.67 11.72 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Orange County 74 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)

By comparing the School Proficiency Index in Table 6 to the demographic data in Table 1 (Demographics), a pattern emerges showing that cities where all residents have access to neighborhoods with high -performing schools , have a lower percentage of Hispanic residents than the County overall. In other words, Hispanic residents are concentrated in cities with fewer high -performing schools. Specifically, in the following cities, the School Proficiency Index is 70 or higher for every racial/ethnic group, and the pe rcentage of the population that is Hispanic is lower than the countywide percentage of 33.93%:
• Aliso Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 83 for all groups, and 20.02% of the population is Hispanic.
• Fountain Valley, where the School Proficiency Index is over 73 for all groups, and

17.08% of the population is Hispanic.
• Irvine, where the School Proficiency Index is over 90 for all groups, and 11.24% of the population is Hispanic.
• Laguna Niguel, where the School Proficiency Index is over 77 for all groups, and

16.10% of the population is Hispanic.
• Mission Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 72 for all groups, and

19.67% of the population is Hispanic.

Tustin, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 63.67 71.61 73.97 89.66 78.12 75.92 12.00 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.37 60.11 64.18 92.75 83.81 83.31 10.82 Hispanic 44.93 51.70 59.55 93.52 85.08 86.73 9.74
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 54.59 67.08 73.12 90.92 80.48 78.28 12.30 Native American, Non-Hispanic 58.55 62.31 69.02 91.12 81.54 81.61 10.47 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 50.82 67.17 68.54 92.03 82.78 82.13 11.15 Black, Non-Hispanic 53.03 52.08 60.97 93.61 85.87 88.59 9.55 Hispanic 33.68 38.03 51.91 95.23 88.33 88.99 8.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 51.22 62.44 67.76 91.95 82.30 84.23 11.07 Native American, Non-Hispanic 21.99 34.26 62.35 95.29 87.57 92.46 8.78 Westminster, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 49.67 72.09 47.64 86.39 76.49 42.87 6.57 Black, Non-Hispanic 40.88 69.65 44.06 86.96 78.34 40.93 6.86 Hispanic 35.08 63.82 39.25 87.10 78.73 37.10 6.50
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 35.42 65.32 39.47 87.81 79.49 29.74 7.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.72 69.82 44.55 87.26 77.82 41.17 6.24 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.88 69.22 42.57 86.90 77.90 37.35 6.79 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.08 67.37 41.25 85.75 77.20 41.57 7.92 Hispanic 32.07 60.97 36.24 86.89 78.84 40.17 5.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 31.20 62.98 38.17 87.91 80.04 31.20 7.13 Native American, Non-Hispanic 37.94 63.01 34.15 89.90 81.79 23.92 8.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Orange County 75 25-29 Regional AFH

• Newport Beach, where the School Proficiency Index is over 88 for all groups, and

10.47% of the population is Hispanic.
• Rancho Santa Margarita , where the School Proficiency Index is over 80 for all groups, and 20.41% of the population is Hispanic.

Map 7 – Education Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s Education Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data8F

9. The Education Composite Score for a particular Census Tract is based on four indicators, all of which are based on enrollment-weighted averages of the three schools closest to the tract’s center point 9F 10:
• Math and Reading Proficiency , where “Proficiency” is the percentage of students performing at grade-level in the 4th grade.
• High School Graduation Rate , which is calculated using California Department of Education data on the percent of students who graduate in four years. • Student Poverty , which is measured as the percentage of students that do not receive free and reduced-price lunch.

A tract’s composite score is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. Each indicator that falls above the regional median adds one point to the final score. On the map s, the categories equal the following scores:
• Highest: >3-4
• High: >2-3
• Moderate: >1-2
• Low: 0-1
These maps, along with Map 3 showing the predominant race/ethnicity in each area, show the following relationship between residency patterns and proximity to proficient schools by race/ethnicity:
• In the County overall,
o Cities in the central County have the lowest education scores, indicating that residents in these areas are less likely to live near high quality schools. Areas in the southern County, along the coast, and in the unincorporated areas in the north and east parts of the County, have the highest education scores.

9 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 10 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp

Orange County 76 25-29 Regional AFH

Low education score areas generally correspond to areas where the population is predominantly Hispanic.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o Brea and Los Alamitos have high education score s and are predominantly White in most but not all areas.
o Cypress has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI and White population.
o La Palma has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI population o Yorba Linda, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Tustin, unincorporated areas of the County, Laguna Woods, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, all have the highest education scores and are predominantly White.
o Dana Point has a mix of education scores, all areas are predominantly White. o Placentia has low education scores in the southeast, which align with the predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
o San Juan Capistrano has low education score areas that are a mix of predominantly Hispanic and predominantly White neighborhoods. • In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have the highest education score and are predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, most of the city ’s neighborhoods have low education scores and are predominantly Hispanic. The exception is Anaheim Hills, which is both predominantly White, and has the highest education scores. • In Buena Park, there are neighborhoods with low education scores in the city’s center and southeast, which are also areas of predominant Hispanic population. • In Costa Mesa, the southwest quarter of the city has low education scores. This area is a mix of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in and around downtown, and predominantly White neighborhoods to the west.
• In Fountain Valley, almost all of the city’s neighborhoods have high education scores.

These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI. • In Fullerton, neighborhoods in the south of the city have l ow education scores and are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents. • In Garden Grove, the neighborhoods with low education score areas in the east are predominantly Hispanic, and the neighborhoods with low education scores in the northwest are predominantly Hispanic and AAPI.
• In Huntington Beach, the neighborhoods with the highest education scores correlate to areas that are predominantly White, which is most of the city. One area of the city with low education scores has a predominantly Hispanic population. • In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have the highest education score . These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI.

Orange County 77 25-29 Regional AFH

• In La Habra, neighborhoods with low education scores are located in the center and eastern part of the city, which are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Lake Forest, all neighborhoods have high education score s and most are predominantly White, except in the southeastern corner of the city, along El Toro Road, which is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods have high education scores , and most are predominantly White except in the southern part of the city. • In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods have high education score s and are predominantly White.
• In Orange, neighborhoods in the western half of the city have low education scores and are predominantly Hispanic. The neighborhoods with the highest education scores are in the eastern half of the city. The high education score areas north and west of Villa Park are predominantly White, and the high education score areas south and west of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In San Clemente, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Santa Ana, neighborhoods with low education score areas comprise most of the city, and are areas where population is predominantly Hispanic. • In Tustin, the neighborhoods with low education scores are predominantly Hispanic and White , and the neighborhoods with the h ighest education scores are predominantly AAPI.
• In Westminster, there is a mix of moderate, high, and highest education score areas.

There is one part of the city with low education scores, in the north. This area is predominantly Hispanic.

Orange County 78 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 7 – Education Score – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 79 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 7 – Education Score – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 80 25-29 Regional AFH

2. Employment
Table 6 includes a Jobs Proximity Index, which measures the physical distance between where residents of different races/ethnicities live and the location of jobs. A higher index value indicates better access to employment opportunities. Table 6 also includes a Labor Market Index, which measures the unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percentage of the population age d 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. A higher index value indicates that residents live in a n eighborhood with higher labor force participation and human capital.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force participation and human capital in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region , there are significant disparities in both the Jobs Proximity and the Labor Market Index. The Jobs Proximity Index is the lowest for Black residents, especially those living below FPL. It is also low for Hispanic residents. White residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods close to jobs . The Labor Market Index is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, especially those living below FPL, and h ighest for White residents. Generally, the Labor Market Index is lower for individuals living below FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force partici pation and human capital. However, there are disparities between racial/ethnic groups, with Hispanic residents having significantly less access than other groups, and White residents having more access.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. This is also true for access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices, the city performs significantly better than the region overall. • In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Black and AAPI residents have the least access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices, the city is comparable to the region overall, with low- to-moderate scores and significant disparities between groups. • In Buena Park, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs.

There is moderate access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and

Orange County 81 25-29 Regional AFH

human capital, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities—Hispanic residents have the least access to these neighborhoods. Compared to the region, access is higher for Hispanic and Black residents in the city.
• In Costa Mesa, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is high for all races/ethnicities, with only slight disparities —Hispanic residents have the least access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is also high for all races/ethnicities, but with significant disparities between races/ethnicities—again Hispanic residents have the least access. On both indices, the city performs better than the region overall for all racial/ethnic groups.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital, is relatively high for all groups except for Native American residents living below the FPL, who have very low index values for each measure.
• In Fullerton, all race/ethnicities have moderate access to neighborhoods close to jobs, with slight disparities between groups —AAPI residents have the least access of any group. Regarding access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, th ere are some disparities between groups (with Hispanic residents having the least access), and index values for Hispanic, Black, and AAPI residents are higher than their counterparts regionwide. • In Garden Grove, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with some disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access. Compared to the region, all groups in Garden Grove have less access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force part icipation and human capital is also relatively low for all groups in the city, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities. Access is lowest for Hispanic and AAPI residents. Compared to the region, the Labor Market Index in the city is higher for Black and Hispanic residents, and lower for all others. • In Huntington Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively low for all groups, with few disparities between races/ethnicities. Overall, groups in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital; however, there are large disparities between groups. Hispanic residents, and especially those living below the FPL, have the least access to these neighborhoods. • In Irvine, access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than the region) .

The only significant disparities are for Black residents living below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and Native American residents living below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. There are disparities, however, in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic

Orange County 82 25-29 Regional AFH

residents and Native American residents living below FPL have the least access of all groups. Compared to region, Hispanic, Black and AAPI residents in the city have more access, while White residents have less access.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is lower than the region for all groups, with little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity between groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively high, and higher than region, for all groups . There is very little disparity between groups, except for Black residents below FPL, who have very low access to neighborhoods close to jobs. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is higher than in the region for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanic, AAPI, and Native American residents living below FPL, all of whom have significantly less access.
• In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanics living below FPL, for whom access is relatively low compared to other city residents but is still higher than in the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, is high for all groups, with very little disparity between groups.
• In Orange, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher than the region, but there are some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI and White residents. There are also disparities in a ccess to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Black and Hispanic residents overall, and Black and AAPI residents living below FPL have the least access. However, access is higher for all groups (except White residents), in comparison to the region.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with no disparit ies between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with some disparities—Hispanic residents living below FPL have the least access. • In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with very little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than in the region), with some disparity—namely, Hispanic residents living below FPL have less access. • In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in region, with some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI residents, especially those living below FPL. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is lower than in the region for all groups except Black residents, and

Orange County 83 25-29 Regional AFH

there are significant disparities in access—Hispanic residents have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group. • In Tustin, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in region, with some disparities between races/ethnicities—White residents have the least access . Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is higher than in the region, with some disparities—Hispanic residents have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group.
• In Westminster, there are disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs by race/ethnicity. Native American residents living below FPL, and AAPI residents, have the least access . There are some disparities in a ccess to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital by race/ethnicity —Native American residents living below FPL and Hispanic and AAPI residents overall, have less access.

Compared to the region, access in the city is slightly better for Black and Hispanic residents, worse for all other groups.

The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their ability to obtain a job.

Map 8 – Economic Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s Economic Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data10 F

11. The Economic Composite Score for a particular Census Tract is based on four indicators 11F
12:
• Poverty Rate – Measured as the percentage of the Tract residents who live above 200 percent of the FPL (the 200 percent threshold is used to account for the higher cost of living in California compared to other regions of the United States). • Adult Education Rate – Measured as the percentage of adults aged 25 years and older in each Tract, who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. • Employment Rate - Measured as the percentage of individuals in each Tract ages 20 to 64 who are employed in either the civilian labor force or the armed forces. • Home Value – Measured as the median home value (dollars) of owner -occupied housing units in each tract.

11 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 12 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp

Orange County 84 25-29 Regional AFH

The composite score for each Tract is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. On the map, a higher numerical score indicates more positive economic outcomes.

These maps show the following relationship between residency patterns and economic outcomes, including employment:
• Countywide, there is a s imilar pattern to the education scores, with cities in the central County tending to have lower economic scores than cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the southern, northern, and eastern parts of the County. Low score areas generally correspond to areas where the population is predominantly Hispanic of AAPI, whereas the high score areas correspond to predominantly White areas.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are generally good economic outcomes in Cypress, Yorba Linda, North Tustin, La Palma , Los Alamitos , unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda , Brea, North Tustin, Orange Park Acres, Villa Park, Seal Beach (except for the Tract where Leisure World, a retirement community, is located), Rossmoor , Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Ladera Ranch, and Capistrano Beach. o There is a mix of economic outcomes in the following places:
▪ Placentia, where there are lower economic scores in the southwest corner of the city, which is predominantly Hispanic.
▪ Laguna Woods and North Laguna Hills , which are predominantly White and have lower economic scores.
▪ San Juan Capistrano, where there are lower economic scores in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I -5 and the Ortega Highway (SR -74), which is also a high POC segregation area and predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration. • In Anaheim, neighborhoods with lower economic scores include neighborhoods considered to be areas of high POC segregation, including those north of downtown and along SR-91, and south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. Conversely, Anaheim Hills has high economic scores and is predominantly White.
• In Buena Park, the neighborhoods between I-5 and SR-91 have the lowest economic scores in the city. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The northeastern corner of the city, which is predominantly AAPI, has the highest economic scores in the city. • In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods in and surrounding downtown, on the west side of Newport Boulevard have the lowest economic scores. These are also areas that are predominantly Hispanic.

Orange County 85 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores. • In Fullerton, there is a general north/south divide between areas with higher and lower economic scores. The southeastern neighborhoods, which are predominantly Hispanic, have the lowest economic scores , while the northern half of the city , predominantly White and AAPI neighborhoods, have the highest economic scores. • In Garden Grove, economic scores are moderate north of Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and are higher in West Garden Grove. Economic scores are generally lower south of SR-22.
• In Huntington Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores. • In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except in the area surrounding UC Irvine, and in the neighborhoods east of the intersections of SR-133 and I-5—these are predominantly AAPI.
• In La Habra, the areas with the lowest economic scores are the same areas with high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho St reet to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. • In Laguna Niguel, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration. • In Lake Forest, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except for in the southeastern corner, which is a predominantly Hispanic area. • In Mission Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration. • In Newport Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are all areas of high White segregation. • In Orange, neighborhoods across the city have good economic scores. The best economic scores are in the neighborhoods north and east of Villa Park, where the population is predominantly White and classified as an area of high White segregation. The neighborhoods with lower economic scores are located west of Glassel Street and north of Walnut Avenue, which is a predominantly Hispanic area. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and a re generally areas of high White concentration.
• In San Clemente, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration. • In Santa Ana, there are neighborhoods with low economic scores in much of the central and western parts of the city, which correspond to the areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic , except for the Riverview West community, which is predominantly AAPI . Neighborhoods with higher economic scores are in the northern and southern parts of the city, which are areas of low - medium segregation.

Orange County 86 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Tustin, all neighborhoods have good economic scores except for one neighborhood south of I-5 and west of SR-55, adjacent to Santa Ana. This is also a predominantly Hispanic area and is classified as an area of high POC segregation. • In Westminster, economic scores are lowest in the central part of the city, in the neighborhoods south of Westminster Boulevard, east of Hoover Street, and north of Bolsa Avenue. These are all areas of predominantly AAPI population.

Map 8 – Economic Score – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 87 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 8 – Economic Score – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 88 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 8 – Economic Score – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 89 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 8 – Economic Score – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the groups that are least successful in accessing employment.

Table 7 - Labor Force Participation and Unemployment, shows 2018-2022 ACS data on labor force participation rates and unemployment rates in the region and Orange County, for the overall population and by race/ethnicity, disability status, and sex. The table shows that:
• Orange County has lower unemployment rates than the region for every group measured in the table, except for Pacific Islanders.
• Labor force participation rates are generally higher in Orange County than the region, except for White individuals (lower in the County than the region) and Asian individuals (same rate in County and region).
• Similar to the region overall, Black individuals have the highest unemployment rate in Orange County. In the County, Pacific Islanders have the second highest unemployment rate.

Orange County 90 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment

Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 65.00% 6.60% 65.60% 5.40% 75.30% 3.80% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.40% 6.30% 62.80% 5.10% 75.50% 3.50% Black 60.70% 10.40% 70.60% 7.70% 84.90% 8.90%
Hispanic 67.60% 6.60% 70.70% 5.50% 78.00% 3.00%
Asian 62.70% 5.30% 62.70% 5.10% 71.00% 3.00%
Pacific Islander 66.40% 7.00% 68.70% 7.30% 100.00% 0.00% Native American 66.20% 7.90% 70.60% 5.20% 100.00% 0.00% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 84.10% 6.10% 85.90% 4.70% 91.10% 2.90%
Female 72.80% 6.50% 73.50% 5.40% 79.00% 4.10%
Disability Status
With any disability 46.80% 13.30% 51.00% 10.80% 68.50% 2.90% Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 67.40% 5.40% 69.00% 5.40% 73.20% 5.00% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 62.70% 5.00% 61.40% 6.40% 71.20% 5.00% Black 72.30% 9.30% 77.70% 3.30% 91.60% 5.90%
Hispanic 70.80% 5.40% 72.40% 5.00% 76.50% 5.80%
Asian 64.20% 4.70% 70.90% 5.00% 64.10% 2.60%
Pacific Islander 66.80% 2.50% 63.30% 33.50% 92.80% 2.80% Native American 73.70% 4.10% 67.80% 18.30% 72.90% 3.70% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 86.20% 4.70% 87.00% 5.60% 89.50% 4.00%
Female 73.90% 5.50% 77.00% 4.90% 78.50% 5.00%
Disability Status
With any disability 47.50% 13.40% 50.10% 13.70% 57.80% 11.50% Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 61.80% 6.00% 65.40% 6.90% 64.30% 5.80% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 57.40% 6.90% 60.40% 6.60% 59.70% 6.70% Black 70.50% 27.80% 63.10% 17.80% 57.80% 0.00%
Hispanic 72.90% 3.90% 71.10% 6.60% 72.90% 4.90%
Asian 62.10% 5.10% 63.60% 6.90% 59.60% 6.40%
Pacific Islander 65.20% 20.40% 83.50% 0.00% 65.60% 13.00% Native American 66.00% 0.00% 73.20% 8.30% 78.70% 5.90%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 83.30% 7.40% 85.00% 5.50% 83.30% 5.00%
Female 75.30% 4.80% 71.80% 7.50% 74.00% 5.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 37.40% 12.10% 52.00% 10.50% 46.40% 10.70% Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 66.30% 5.40% 65.60% 5.50% 66.20% 5.50% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.80% 5.10% 66.90% 6.30% 63.50% 4.70% Black 80.90% 13.10% 73.10% 5.20% 63.40% 9.80%
Hispanic 75.70% 5.70% 68.10% 5.50% 74.10% 3.00%
Asian 63.40% 5.40% 63.40% 4.50% 69.40% 9.60%
Pacific Islander 77.70% 6.40% 79.30% 0.60% 93.10% 0.00% Native American 56.00% 4.00% 65.20% 4.00% 89.70% 0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.70% 5.50% 83.10% 4.10% 86.70% 4.30%
Female 77.40% 4.60% 70.10% 6.40% 75.00% 6.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 53.80% 13.00% 54.10% 11.20% 37.80% 10.50% Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA Laguna Niguel, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Orange County, CA Aliso Viejo, CA Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA

Orange County 91 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment (continued)

Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 68.30% 7.20% 69.20% 5.00% 63.60% 4.40% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.60% 7.60% 67.20% 5.20% 60.30% 4.70% Black 76.00% 3.60% 54.70% 3.50% 71.10% 2.80%
Hispanic 71.20% 7.70% 75.20% 5.50% 71.50% 3.20%
Asian 65.30% 4.30% 67.50% 3.30% 66.20% 5.00%
Pacific Islander 100.00% 0.00% 60.70% 0.00% 89.50% 0.00% Native American 57.70% 0.00% 94.90% 0.00% 72.80% 0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.90% 6.20% 88.90% 4.30% 88.60% 3.50%
Female 76.60% 7.50% 73.80% 5.00% 75.10% 4.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 49.80% 15.90% 57.30% 7.50% 53.90% 3.70% Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 62.40% 4.10% 66.10% 4.70% 74.30% 3.30% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 60.50% 4.70% 64.00% 4.00% 73.60% 3.00% Black 54.80% 0.00% 60.90% 5.60% 82.10% 1.60%
Hispanic 76.80% 2.70% 69.20% 5.40% 80.20% 3.80%
Asian 57.50% 0.80% 64.90% 3.10% 72.70% 3.40%
Pacific Islander 100.00% 0.00% 59.60% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Native American 65.40% 0.00% 76.50% 0.00% 95.00% 21.60% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.70% 3.80% 82.30% 4.20% 92.90% 3.50%
Female 68.60% 3.90% 75.60% 4.20% 77.10% 2.20%
Disability Status
With any disability 60.30% 10.40% 52.40% 5.10% 62.10% 5.20% Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 63.10% 5.30% 66.70% 5.50% 69.00% 5.90% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 61.90% 5.80% 59.90% 3.90% 65.90% 7.30% Black 71.50% 0.00% 70.50% 6.60% 74.00% 8.00%
Hispanic 70.70% 4.70% 68.50% 5.30% 72.50% 6.50%
Asian 52.20% 3.90% 61.70% 7.40% 67.80% 4.00%
Pacific Islander 30.90% 0.00% 42.10% 24.90% 63.50% 14.80% Native American 100.00% 0.00% 70.00% 6.40% 68.20% 0.00% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.40% 4.80% 85.00% 4.90% 89.70% 4.40%
Female 71.60% 5.30% 71.60% 5.20% 75.80% 6.50%
Disability Status
With any disability 52.60% 4.40% 51.70% 9.60% 51.40% 11.20% Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 59.90% 7.50%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 58.00% 5.80%
Black 71.40% 3.80%
Hispanic 66.60% 9.00%
Asian 57.40% 7.20%
Pacific Islander 36.30% 25.60%
Native American 47.60% 15.40%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 82.10% 7.20%
Female 71.20% 7.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 42.10% 12.90%
Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Orange, CA Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Westminster, CA
La Habra, CA Lake Forest, CA Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA

Orange County 92 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Transportation
This analysis describes any disparities in access to transportation related to costs and access to public transit by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes a Transit Index, which measures the likelihood that residents will utilize public transportation. Higher index values indicate better access to public transit in a neighborhood. Table 6 also includes a Low Transportation Cost Index, which measures the cost of transportation in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate lower transportation costs. Transportation costs may be low in a neighborhood due to better access to public transportation, or to the density of housing, services, and emp loyment, or contributing factors.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to transit and to neighborhoods with low transportation costs in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are relatively high for all groups , though there are s ignificant disparities between racial/ethnic groups. Both indices are l owest for White residents and highest for Black residents and are higher across all groups for individuals living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to transit is slightly lower for all groups compared to the region but is still relatively high. There are also significant disparities, with AAPI residents having the best access, and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is lower for all groups compared to the region overall but is still relatively high. There are some disparities between groups, with Hispanic residents having the best access , and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people living below the FPL, except for Hispanic residents living below the FPL who have similar access to the overall Hispanic population. • In Aliso Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high for all groups, with small disparities between groups—access is lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the FPL.
• In Anaheim, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Buena Park, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Costa Mesa, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.

Orange County 93 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Fountain Valley, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups. Black residents living below the FPL have the highest access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs. • In Fullerton, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Garden Grove, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Huntington Beach, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups. Native American residents living below the FPL have relatively low access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs, compared to other groups in city and the region.
• In Irvine, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Lake Forest , access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Mission Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to transit is high for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is comparable to the region for most groups, except for AAPI residents in the city, who have less access than other groups and compared to the region.
• In Orange, access to transit is high for all groups and slightly better than access in the region. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high for all groups and is comparable to the region as a whole. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. AAPI residents living below the FPL have significantly lower access than other groups. • In San Clemente, access to transit is low for all groups, and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region. There are some racial/ethnic disparities in access to neighborhoods with low

Orange County 94 25-29 Regional AFH

transportation costs—Native American residents living below the FPL line, and AAPI residents of all income levels, have less access compared to other groups. • In Santa Ana, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Tustin, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Westminster, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.

The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their access to transportation.

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas, is a series of maps showing the areas of north, central, and south Orange County, and the region, that have access to “high quality” public transit, defined as having scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)12F

13. On the maps, the outlined areas are those within
half a mile of a transit stop that is served by public transit with scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less.

These maps show the following relationship between a person’s place of residence and access to transportation:
• Countywide, high quality transit areas (HQTAs) are concentrated in central County cities, and there are no HQTAs in the southern or northeast parts of the County. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are HQTAs in the following places
o In Brea, there is a HQTA in the center of city , overlapping with the racially integrated Census Tract that has a predominantly Hispanic population. o In Cypress, there is a HQTA on the southern edge of the city. o In Stanton, HQTAs cover the entire city.
o In Seal Beach, there are HQTAs along Seal Beach Boulevard north of US-1. o In Rossmoor, the southeastern corner of the city is a HQTA, along Seal Beach Boulevard.
o In Los Alamitos, the northern edge of the city is part of an HQTA. o In Laguna Woods, the eastern half of the city is a HQTA, along El Toro Rd. o In Laguna Hills, the part of the city a djacent to the HQTAs in Laguna Woods and Lake Forest is a HQTA.

13 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing

Orange County 95 25-29 Regional AFH

o The following areas have no HQTAs: Placentia, Yorba Linda, unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda, La Palma, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, El Modena, North Tustin, L aguna Beach, Dana Point, Capistrano Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Ladera Ranch, and North Laguna Hills
• In Aliso Viejo, there are no HQTAs
• In Anaheim, there are HQTAs in the western part of city along Beach Boulevard; in the central and southern part of city along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Ave nue, including the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center near Angel Stadium; and in the eastern part of the city near the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station. These areas overlap with both high POC segregation areas and racially integrated areas.
• In Buena Park, there are HQTAs in the eastern half of city, along Beach Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
• In Costa Mesa, HQTAs cover most of the city’s area except for the high White segregation areas in the northwest (the neighborhoods north and west of the Country Club) and in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive), which do not have HQTAs.
• In Fountain Valley, there are no HQTAs
• In Fullerton, there are HQTAs in downtown Fullerton and up to Fullerton College, including the area around the Metrolink station.
• In Garden Grove, there are HQTAs south of SR-22, in West Garden Grove, and in the eastern part of the city. There are no HQTAs in the city’s north-central area. • In Huntington Beach, most of the city is not a HQTA. There is one HQTA around the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (US-1). • In Irvine, there are HQTAs located near UC Irvine and John Wayne Airport, and the Irvine Medical and Science Complex. The majority of the city does not have HQTAs. • In La Habra, the western half of the city is a HQTA. In the eastern half of the city, which is a high POC segregation area and has a concentration of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, there are no HQTAs
• In Laguna Niguel, there are no HQTAs except in a small area in the northeast corner along Crown Valley Parkway, adjacent to Mission Viejo.
• In Lake Forest, most of the city is not a HQTA. There are two HQTAs in the city: one in Foothill Ranch, north of SR-241(around Towne Center); and the other in the city’s southeastern corner along El Toro Rd (which is a predominantly Hispanic area). • In Mission Viejo, most of the city does not have HQTAs. There are two HQTAs in the city: one in the southern part, along Crown Valley Parkway (which is a low-medium concentration area with a predominantly Hispanic population); and the other in the northern part of the city, around the intersections of Santa Margarita Parkway with Los Alisos Boulevard and Marguerite Parkway ( which are low-medium concentration areas with predominantly White populations)

Orange County 96 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Newport Beach, there are HQTAs just south of Costa Mesa and around the Civic Center. Much of the city does not have HQTAs.
• In Orange, there are HQTAs downtown, in the neighborhoods west and northwest of downtown, and along the westside of Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) north of Katella Avenue. There are no HQTAs east of the Costa Mesa Freeway. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no HQTAs
• In San Clemente, there are no HQTAs
• In Santa Ana, most of the city is covered by HQTAs, except for northeast and southeast corners.
• In Tustin, most of the city does not have HQTAs. There are two HQTAs in the following areas: one HQTA is in the racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I -5, in and around downtown ; the other HQTA is in South Tustin, around the Metrolink train station.
• In Westminster, most of the city is considered a HQTA, with the exception of the western and southeastern areas.

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 97 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 98 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 99 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes a Low Poverty Index , which measures the level of poverty in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to low -poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic and Black residents have the least access, and White residents have the most access . Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL. However, there are significant disparities in access.

Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access .

Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low -poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population.

Orange County 100 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Aliso Viejo, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods.

Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.

Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low -poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. Compared to the region, White, AAPI, and Native American residents of the city have less access to low -poverty neighborhoods; and Black residents of the city have better access. • In Buena Park, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale because Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic and Black residents, and highest for White residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Native American residents.
• In Costa Mesa, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that all groups, except for White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a whole. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic residents and highest for AAPI residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Black residents
• In Fountain Valley, all residents have relatively good access to low -poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents, and Native American residents living below the FPL, having the least access.
• In Fullerton, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents, including those living below the FPL, and Black residents living below the FPL, having the least access.
• In Garden Grove, there are significant disparities in access to low -poverty neighborhoods. AAPI and Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the best access. The population living below the FPL has less access across all groups. Compared to the region, disparities in the city are less pronounced due to lower index values for White and AAPI residents in the city, and higher index values for all other groups in the city, as compared to values in the region. • In Huntington Beach, all residents have relatively good access to low -poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents having the least access and White residents having the most access. Individuals living bel ow the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Native American residents.

Orange County 101 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Irvine, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, except for White residents. There are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods by race/ethnicity. Hispanic residents have the least access. AAPI residents overall have the most access, however, the AAPI population living below the FPL has significantly less access compared to the overall AAPI population in the city.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic residents having the least access. For the population living below the FPL, access is much lower for Native American residents compared to any other group, access is lower for AAPI residents compared to the overall AAPI population, and access is higher for Black residents compared to the overall Black population. • In Mission Viejo, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some disparities exist for individuals living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having less access than other groups in the city (though still with better access compared to the region). • In Newport Beach, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Orange, there are similar disparities in access to low -poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale because all groups, except for White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a whole. Hispanic residents in the city have the least access to low -poverty neighborhoods. Additionally, Black residents living below the FPL have significantly lower access.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, and there is little racial/ethnic disparity. For the population living below the FPL, racial/ethnic disparities are larger, mainly because the AAPI population below the FPL has the most access to low -poverty neighborhoods of any group in the city.
• In San Clemente, access to low -poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic residents experiencing the least access. Disparities are larger for the population

Orange County 102 25-29 Regional AFH

living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having the least access in the city.
• In Santa Ana, there are significant disparities in access to low -poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic residents have the least access overall, and White residents have the most access overall. For the population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups. Compared to the region, all groups in the city have less access to low -poverty neighborhoods, except for Black residents, who have access comparable to the region overall.
• In Tustin, there are similar disparities in access to low -poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents in the city have higher access relative to the region, and White and AAPI residents have lower access relative to region. In the city, Hispanic residents have the lowest access. For the population living below the FPL, there are also significant disparities. Access to low -poverty neighborhoods is lowest for Native American and Hispanic residents living below the FPL, and access for White residents living below the FPL is significantly lower than access for the overall White population.
• In Westminster, access to low poverty neighborhoods is lower than in the region for all groups, except for Black residents, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access, overall . For the population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups and is lowest for AAPI residents.

Map 10 – Poverty Status, is a series of maps showing the percent of households, by Census Tract, living below the FPL in north, central, and south Orange County, and in the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates 13 F

14. These maps show the following relationship between a n individual’s place of residence and their exposure to poverty:
• Countywide, higher poverty areas are in the central County cities, whereas the areas along the coast, in the south, and in the northeast are low poverty areas. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are high poverty areas (i.e., with poverty rates above 20%) in the following places:
o In Placentia, in the southwest corner of the city, which is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
o In Stanton, in the neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the eastside of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue.

14 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing

Orange County 103 25-29 Regional AFH

o In San Juan Capistrano, there is one tract between Camino Del Avion, Del Obispo Street, and Alipaz St reet, which has a poverty rate over 20% and is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Anaheim, the highest poverty area is located downtown north of Lincoln Avenue (in a predominantly Hispanic area). There are other areas of concentrated poverty south and west of downtown, which are also predominantly Hispanic. The areas of lowest poverty are downtown south of Lincoln Avenue, east of downtown (including the racially integrated areas), in Northeast Anaheim, and in Anaheim Hills. • In Buena Park, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Costa Mesa, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Fountain Valley, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Fullerton, there are high poverty areas in the southeast (predominantly Hispanic, low-medium segregation areas) and surrounding CSU Fullerton (likely due to the presence of college students).
• In Garden Grove, there are high poverty areas in the industrial area in West Garden Grove, in the Census Tract between Brookhurst St reet and Gilbert St reet north of Chapman Avenue (a low-medium segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic), and in the Census Tract in between SR -22 and Garden Grove Boulevard west of Gilbert Street (a high POC segregation area that is predominantly AAPI). • In Huntington Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Irvine, the high est poverty area is surrounding UC Irvine (likely due to the presence of college students). There is also a high poverty area west of San Diego Creek north of I -405. This is primarily an industrial/commercial area encompassing the Irvine Business Complex.
• In La Habra, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Laguna Niguel, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Lake Forest, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Mission Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Newport Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Orange, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%, and all neighborhoods east of Villa Park have poverty rates below 10%.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In San Clemente, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Santa Ana, high poverty areas are concentrated in downtown and southeast of downtown where land use is primarily industrial and commercial , and in western Santa Ana, specifically the Census Tract northwest of the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, where Kona Kai Mobile Home Park is located . All of these areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly Hispanic populations.

Orange County 104 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Tustin, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Westminster, there are high poverty areas between Edwards Street and Beach Boulevard along Westminster Boulevard , and s outh of Bolsa Ave nue west of Bushard St reet. These areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly AAPI populations.

Map 10 – Poverty Status – Region

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 105 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 10 – Poverty Status – North Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 106 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 10 – Poverty Status – Central Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

Orange County 107 25-29 Regional AFH

Map 10 – Poverty Status – South Orange County

Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Table 8 - Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin, shows data from the 201 8-2022 ACS on poverty rates by race/ethnicity and national origin , for the region, Orange County, the Urban County jurisdictions, and the HUD Entitlement Cities . The table shows t he following:
• Countywide, the poverty rate is lower than region for all groups except AAPI residents (who have a poverty rate comparable to the region). There are significant racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the White poverty rate , and the f oreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the poverty rate is lower than the County overall. Similar to the County overall, the Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the White poverty rate, and the foreign -born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. • In Aliso Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Anaheim, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. Black and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates.

Orange County 108 25-29 Regional AFH

Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Buena Park, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. Similar to the County overall, Black residents have the highest poverty rate. • In Costa Mesa, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate in the city is over 20%, which is nearly three times as high as the White poverty rate and double the AAPI poverty rate. Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Fountain Valley, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County, the foreign -born population is more likely to liv e below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Fullerton, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate , and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities than in the County overall. The Black poverty rate is over 22%, which is almost three times higher than the White and AAPI poverty rates . The Hispanic poverty rate is above 17%, which is more than double the White and AAPI rates. Similar to the County overall, the foreign -born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Garden Grove, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. There are relatively small disparities by race/ethnicity, with Black residents experiencing the highest poverty rates, and foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In Huntington Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and the foreign-born population is much more likely to live below poverty than the native - born population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Irvine, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents experience similar poverty rates, which are all higher than the poverty rate for White residents. Foreign -born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In La Habra, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. Foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents, and Hispanic residents have a higher poverty rate than other groups. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.) • In Laguna Niguel, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. However, there are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in

Orange County 109 25-29 Regional AFH

the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native- born residents.
• In Lake Forest, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. However, there are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native- born residents.
• In Mission Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. The data show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate. • In Newport Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Unlike the County overall, foreign-born residents in the city are less likely to live below the FPL than native -born residents. Poverty rates for Black, AAPI, and Native American residents are the highest. However, note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate. • In Orange, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. In the city, Native American and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates, and foreign -born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. The data show the Native American poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate.
• In San Clemente, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. The data show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate. • In Santa Ana, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region poverty rate. Black residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly 20%). • In Tustin, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region poverty rate. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly double the White poverty rate), and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents.
• In Westminster, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and the region. The Black poverty rate is over 20% and more than double the White poverty rate. The AAPI poverty rate is over 18% and is also more than double the White poverty rate.

Foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native -born residents. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)

Orange County 110 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin

Orange County 111 25-29 Regional AFH

Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin (continued)

Orange County 112 25-29 Regional AFH

5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes an Environmental Health Index, which captures the potential exposure to harmful toxins in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to harmful toxins, and therefore better environmental quality, in a neighborhood.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and lowest for Black residents followed by Hispanic and AAPI residents. Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, with the least access experienced by Hispanic residents living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and lowest for AAPI residents followed by Black and Hispanic residents.

Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, except for White residents who have comparable access to the overall population.
• In Aliso Viejo, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Anaheim, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Buena Park, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Costa Mesa, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region, but access is still low. There are some racial/ethnic disparities in access. Overall, AAPI residents have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and Hispanic residents have the best access. For the population living below the FPL, Black and Native American residents have the least access.
• In Fountain Valley, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents compared to the region. There are small disparities in access for the population living below the FPL. Specifically, Black residents living below the FPL have the least access.

Orange County 113 25-29 Regional AFH

• In Fullerton, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Garden Grove, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity. • In Huntington Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still fairly low and there are some racial/ethnic disparities. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is lowest for Hispanic residents, and even more so for Hispanic residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than those of the region, but access is still low for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Laguna Niguel, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited and there are some disparities among the population living below the FPL—specifically, Native American residents living below the FPL have the least access. • In Mission Viejo, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Newport Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Orange, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In San Clemente, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Santa Ana, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Tustin, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.

City Council/Public Financing AuthorityMay 6, 2025

City Council/Public Financing Authority
May 6, 2025