Morgan Hill City Council
August 17, 2022

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-15 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Table H 4-3 Residential Estate (RE) District Development Standards Site Requirements RE-10 RE-2.5 RE-1
Lot Area, Minimum 10 acres 2.5 acres 1 acre
Lot Width, Minimum 200 ft. 150 ft. 100 ft.

Lot Depth, Minimum 200 ft. 150 ft. 100 ft.

Building Coverage, Maximum 15% 25% 30%
Structure Requirements RE-10 RE-2.5 RE-1
Setbacks, Minimum
Front 50 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft.

Rear 50 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft.

Interior Side 50 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft.

Street Side 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.

Height, Maximum 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.

Table H 4-4 Residential Detached Low and Medium Density District Development Standards
Site Requirements RDL-20,000 RDL-12,000 RDM-9,000 RDM-7,000 Lot Area, Minimum
Single-Family Lot 20,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 7,000 sq. ft.; 7,500 sq. ft. for corner
lots
Corner Duet Lot 4,200 sq. ft. 3,500 sq. ft.

Lot Width, Minimum
Single-Family Lot 100 ft. 75 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft.

Corner Duet Lot 40 ft. 40 ft.

Lot Depth, Minimum 100 ft. 100 ft. 85 ft. 85 ft.

Building Coverage,
Maximum
40% 40% 50% 50%
Structure Requirements RDL-20,000 RDL-12,000 RDM-9,000 RDM-7,000 Setbacks, Minimum
Front 25 ft. 25 ft. First Story: 20 ft.

Upper Stories: 25
ft.

First Story: 20 ft.

Upper Stories: 25
ft.

Rear 25 ft. 25 ft. First Story: 20 ft.

Upper Stories: 25
ft.

First Story: 20 ft.

Upper Stories: 25
ft.

Interior Side 15 ft. First Story: 10 ft.

Upper Stories: 15 ft.

First Story: 5 ft.

Upper Stories:

12.5 ft.

First Story: 5 ft.

Upper Stories:

12.5 ft.

Street Side 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.

Height, Maximum 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-16 Table H 4-5 Residential Detached High Density District Development Standards Site Requirements RDH-4,500
Lot Area, Minimum
Single-Family Detached Lots 4,500 sq. ft.

Corner Single-Family Detached Lots 5,000 sq. ft.

Duet Lots 3,500 sq. ft.

Lot Width, Minimum
Lots Less Than 5,000 sq. ft. 40 ft.

Lots 5,000 sq. ft. or greater 50 ft.

Lot Depth, Minimum 85 ft.

Floor Area Ratio, Maximum 52%
Structure Requirements RDH-4,500
Setbacks, Minimum
Front First Story: 15 ft.

Upper Stories: 20 ft.

Rear 15 ft.

Interior Side First Story: 10 % of lot width
Upper Stories: 15% of lot width
Street Side 9 ft.

Height, Maximum 35 ft.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-17 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Table H 4-6 Residential Attached Low Density District Development Standards Site Requirements RAL-3,500 RAL-3,000
Lot Area, Minimum
Duplex Lots 7,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.

Duplex Corner Lots 7,500 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft.

Duet Lots 3,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.

Duet Corner Lots 3,750 sq. ft. 3,250 sq. ft.

Multi-Family and Other
Uses
3,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.

Lot Width, Minimum
Duplex Lots 70 ft. 70 ft.

Duplex Corner Lots 80 ft. 80 ft.

Duet and Single-Family
Attached Lots
30 ft. 30 ft.

Duet and Single-Family
Attached Corner Lots
40 ft. 40 ft.

Lot Depth, Minimum 85 ft. 85 ft.

Building Coverage,
Maximum
50% 50%
Site Area per Dwelling
Unit, Minimum
3,500 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.

Structure Requirements RAL-3,500 RAL-3,000
Setbacks, Minimum
Front 20 ft. 20 ft.

Rear 15 ft.; or 20 ft. for two-story, located
adjacent to a single-family district
15 ft.; or 20 ft. for two-story, located
adjacent to a single-family district
Interior Side 5 ft. 5 ft.

Street Side 15 ft. 15 ft.

Height, Maximum 30 ft. 30 ft.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-18 Table H 4-7 Residential Attached Medium Density and High Density District Development Standards
Site Requirements RAM RAH
Lot Area, Minimum 6,000 sq. ft.;
4,500 sq. ft. for corner lots
6,000 sq. ft.;
6,500 sq. ft. for corner lots
Lot Width, Minimum 60 ft. 40 ft.

Lot Depth, Minimum 85 ft. 75 ft.

Building Coverage,
Maximum
60% 60%
Site Area per Dwelling
Unit, Minimum
2,000 sq. ft. 1,100 sq. ft.

Structure Requirements RAM RAH
Setbacks, Minimum
Front 15 ft. 15 ft.

Rear 20 ft. 15 ft.

Interior Side 5 ft. 5 ft.

Street Side 15 ft. 15 ft.

Height, Maximum 3 stories or 40 ft., whichever is
less; min. 10 ft. for roof element
on 3 story structure
3 stories or 40 ft., whichever is less;
min. 10 ft. for roof element on 3 story
structure
Table H 4-8 Mixed Use Zoning District Development Standards Site Requirements MU-D MU-N MU-F
Lot Area, Minimum 3,500 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.

Lot Width, Minimum 40 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.

Lot Depth, Minimum 80 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.

Floor Ara Ratio,
Maximum

2.0 1.0 0.5
Residential Density
Minimum None 8 du/acre 7 du/acre
Maximum None 20 du/acre 24 du/acre
Building Coverage,
Maximum
None 75% 50%
Structure Requirements MU-D MU-N MU-F
Setbacks Res. Non-Res. Res. Non-Res. Res. Non-Res.

Front Min: 6 ft.

Max: 15 ft.

Min: 0 ft.

Max: 10 ft.

Min: 6 ft.

Max: 15 ft.

Min: 0 ft.

Max: 10 ft.

Min: 15 ft.

Max: None
Min: 10 ft.

Max: None
Rear, Minimum 0 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft.

Interior Side, Minimum 5 ft. 0 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.

Street Side, Minimum 6 ft. 0 ft. 6 ft. 0 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Height, Maximum 3 stories and 45 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-19 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 2009, provides a long-term strategy for revitalizing central Morgan Hill by strengthening Downtown as the gathering place, a connecting force, the social and activity heart of Morgan Hill. A place where residents from all segments of the community can live, work, meet, shop, dine and participate in public celebrations, and share in the richness of Morgan Hill’s community life. The primary urban design goals and objectives addressed by the Downtown Specific Plan include:
 Creating an active Downtown village through intensifying residential, retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses, within an urban setting improved with unified landscaping and streetscape improvements;
 Making Monterey Road and Third Street more pedestrian and retail friendly, and improve other roads with better street lighting and streetscape improvements;  Strengthening Downtown’s identity and scale with new design related to a traditional character; and
 Creating visual and physical linkages to Downtown with landscaping, bike paths and entry area features; and with linking downtown commercial uses to common parking areas available to the general public.

Monterey Corridor Form-Based Code
The City of Morgan Hill is in the process of preparing a Draft Form-Based Code (FBC) for the Monterey Corridor. The City of Morgan Hill is guided by several key policy and regulatory documents to manage future growth. Adopted by the City Council in July 2016, the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan establishes a vision for a prosperous, vibrant city supported by a framework of goals, policies, and actions that guide the City’s decisions for the next two decades. The Morgan Hill Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in November 2009, complements the General Plan, ensuring that residential and commercial development standards support the community’s vision for a vibrant and accessible Downtown village. The General Plan vision for the Monterey Corridor is as follows:
“North and south of Downtown will transform from its current predominantly strip commercial character to a vibrant mixed-use corridor that encourages walking and biking. Buildings will front onto the street and a range of commercial and office uses will be located within close proximity to attached residential units. Density will decrease with distance from Downtown.”
State law also continues to influence the City’s growth and development. Legislation that facilitates and accelerates the development of housing, with an emphasis on affordable housing, will play a role in shaping municipal policies, permit processes, and development standards for years to come.

In light of the visions and policies of the 2035 General Plan and the Morgan Hill Downtown Specific Plan, the draft Monterey Corridor Form-Based Code (FBC) proposes to facilitate development that complies with local requirements and State law. The draft FBC is also intended to build on the success of public and private investments in Downtown, which has become a cherished community gathering place and a desirable tourist destination, all supported by a pedestrianoriented, mixed-use built environment. The draft FBC is meant to expand on Downtown’s success along the Corridor, encouraging walking, biking, a mix of uses, and a range of housing options consistent with the General Plan.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-20 Regulations and standards in a Form-Based Code are presented graphically in simple diagrams and photographs as well as supplemental text. While Form-Based Codes focus on an intended physical form, they also regulate use by allowing a mix of appropriate land uses chosen to ensure compatibility among different contexts and the intended physical form of the area. The standards ultimately shape the relationship between building facades and the public realm (i.e., the public and private space between buildings), the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and type of blocks.

The draft FBC establishes development standards that are objective and implement the community vision, emphasizing pedestrian-oriented building form and streamlined housing development with an appropriate mix of uses. The draft FBC is designed with a user-friendly organizational structure, where City staff and community members can easily navigate and recognize the standards and requirements that apply to the applicable development site. The draft FBC proposes the following three Form-Based Zoning Districts within the FBC:

Neighborhood Form-Based (FB-N). A variety of housing opportunities that are accessible to a range of income levels in a walkable environment with neighborhood-serving retail and services.

Corridor Form-Based (FB-C). Variable intensities of infill and redevelopment with a mix of walkable uses, such as retail, service, and commercial, that are sensitive to the scale and character of the area.

Urban General Form-Based (FB-UG). Mixed-use commercial and residential hubs with a variety of uses and clustered job opportunity centers. Accessible corridors and streets with internal block patterns and an improved pedestrian experience transitioning from an auto-centric environment to a walkable environment.

These three Form-Based Zoning Districts are keyed to a plan, referred to as a Regulating Plan, that functions like a zoning map, assigning an appropriate form-based zone to specific lots. The proposed Regulating Plan boundary, in which the FBC would apply to, generally includes parcels adjacent to Monterey Road within the City limit, excluding the Downtown Specific Plan Area and parcels south of Watsonville Road (see Figure H 4-7 below). The boundary extends north and south of Downtown from approximately Main Ave north to Burnett Ave and from approximately Dunne Ave south to Rome Ave.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-21 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Figure H 4-7: Draft Monterey Corridor Form-Based Code Regulating Plan

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-22 Local Ordinances
State law now requires jurisdictions to analyze in their Housing Elements any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. The City of Morgan Hill has an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 14.04 Inclusionary Housing) which is analyzed in the following section and a Residential Development Control System (Chapter 18.156 of the Municipal Code), which was suspended until 2030 pursuant to Senate Bill 330 and Senate Bill 8, is analyzed below.

The historical backdrop to Morgan Hill’s unique housing story began in 1977, when the voters adopted the Residential Development Control System (RDCS), a smart growth residential pacing policy. This was done in response to the community’s concern for the amount and pace of residential growth and its impacts on city services and infrastructure. While RDCS limited the number of residential homes to 215 building permits per year, it did more than manage growth. It was a well-designed, intentional program that effectively incentivized and prioritized affordability in most developments in Morgan Hill. For 40 years, RDCS worked as a “de facto'' Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, incentivizing the creation of high-quality, affordable housing throughout the entire city. The pacing of residential development with services (or smart growth) continued through a city-initiated ballot, Measure S, which was approved in November of 2016 and effective March 2017.

The RDCS program provided an opportunity for developers to compete for allocations to build housing based upon a competition system that paced growth with infrastructure development and revenue streams. Points were awarded for park lands and open space, safe routes to schools, proximity to the downtown businesses and services. Points were awarded for providing affordable housing. Additionally, the program encouraged developers to offer a wide range of housing types and sizes in their proposals. Through RDCS, Morgan Hill has been able to obtain a significant amount of affordable housing, developer fees, and other public benefits that it is no longer able to obtain.

Major housing legislation began in 2017 with a package of 15 new housing laws that address the state’s critical housing shortage. On top of that, more than 45 laws of significance have been adopted since the 2017 housing package. These include changes in Housing Element requirements, a focus on streamlining housing production, creating ministerial approval processes, and constraining local land use authority to increase supply. In 2018, as suspected, RDCS was suspended when Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 330 ("SB 330") into law, effective as of January 1, 2020. SB 330 enacted Government Code Section 66300, the "Housing Crisis Act of 2019”. The Housing Crisis Act preempts and precludes the enforcement of RDCS while the State of California’s Housing Crisis Act is in effect. The HAA establishes the state’s overarching policy that a local government may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards. The legislature amended the HAA to expand and strengthen its provisions to effectively curb the capacity of local governments to deny, reduce the density, or render housing development projects infeasible via the following laws: (2017) Senate Bill 167, Assembly Bill 678, Assembly Bill 1515; (2018) Assembly Bill 3194; (2019) Senate Bill 330) and (2021) Senate Bill 8.

In 2018, the City of Morgan Hill adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) requiring residential developments to provide 15% of the units outside of Downtown, and 10% of the units in Downtown, as part of the City's efforts to create and maintain an income-based housing inventory of Below Market Rate (BMR) units to archive the City's housing goals. Due to the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 330, the IHO is a result of the loss of the City's Residential

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-23 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Development Control System (RDCS) growth management program which has been the mechanism for the City to obtain BMR housing units for many years.

The IHO was amended in December 2021 to clarify the intent to broaden the first-time homebuyer pool to include households whose gross annual income ranges from 110% of the AMI to 120% of the AMI; thus, maintaining a moderate ownership program with a sales price that is capped at 110%. This work originally began when the City retained Keyser Marston & Associates (KMA) to evaluate:

1. The additional financial cost to new for-sale residential projects to provide the deeper levels of on-site affordable units with the original consideration of adding lower income units to the BMR IHO ownership program requirement; and

2. The evaluation of proposed changes to current in-lieu fee levels that would approximate the cost of providing the proposed deeper levels of on-site affordable units.

KMA identified opportunities to deepen the overall level of affordability of for-sale inclusionary units. KMA prepared a report summarizing the findings of the evaluation. Staff held a workshop with KMA and the development community on May 24, 2021, to discuss the possibility of deepening the overall level of affordability of for-sale inclusionary units. The consensus from the development community was that adding lower-income units to the ownership program is not economically feasible due to high construction costs, the uncertainty of the pandemic, and the overall economic implications to a project. KMA also did not recommend adding low-income ownership to the Inclusionary Program. Although the analysis by KMA was supportive in helping the team arrive at the final recommendations, the work and the recommendations have continued to evolve throughout the process.

As housing workshops were held with the City Council and community from May through June 2021, it resulted in a shift in priorities in the Housing Program. The City Council prioritized meeting the City’s RHNA at all affordability levels to ensure income-based inclusivity.

The City, like all cities and counties, has historically struggled to achieve the RHNA goals for very low-income units and extremely low-income units. With the priority set to meet the very lowincome goal earlier in this next 6th Housing Element planning cycle (2023-2035), the City’s Housing team used this opportunity to further amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to address the City Council’s goal of finding opportunities to meet the very low and extremely lowincome goal. To that end, the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been modified to create needed flexibility to best use the program to meet the RHNA requirements, while at the same time deepening the affordability of the built BMR units.

As part of the 2021 IHO update, the two main changes to the IHO would permit, by right, up to 50% of the affordable housing requirement to be satisfied with an in-lieu fee. This fee would provide the City with a funding mechanism to support projects that produce units that contribute to meeting the RHNA goals and achieve its very low income and extremely low-income goals.

The second significant change clarifies that the sales price for moderate-income units is based on an affordability level of 110% of AMI.

At the Planning Commission's hearing, two programmatic suggestions were discussed. The first notion was to consider allowing the BMR homeowners with a 45-year agreement to exit the BMR Program early if they have paid off their 30-year mortgage. This would allow the BMR home to be sold at the market value. While the BMR Program allows individuals/families to enjoy home ownership security at a much-reduced cost with lower consistent stable mortgages and property tax benefits, BMRs in Morgan Hill have not been intended to serve as the way a family achieves investment or significant asset building. Staff acknowledges that each homeowner’s journey is different, and some families may certainly choose to stay in their BMR for 45 years or more;

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-24 however, the City also expects and counts on the fact that some families will choose to move on, providing a resale opportunity for the next income-qualified family. Allowing the exit of the BMR program early, would impact the City's BMR inventory and limit the City's ability to continue to have a robust income-based housing inventory. Allowing for an early sale of the BMR at marketrate would not be consistent with the intent of the City's BMR goals, which is to create a path to a first-time homebuyer opportunity, not a “forever home.” A change to the contract terms based on an attempt to increase value or equity for one household would likely reduce a good number of BMR homes in the Program, as well as future resale families for additional families. Therefore, it was not recommended that the City consider altering contracts but rather to continue to focus on the preservation of affordable units.

The second item that was brought up by the Planning Commission was the consideration of Commercial Linkage Fees (CLF). CLF is a type of fee that some cities add to new commercial or industrial development to offset a portion of the need for affordable housing created by new jobs.

While CLFs are commonly used in job-rich cities, they would disincentivize commercial development. Morgan Hill currently struggles with the high cost of green field development.

Commercial and Industrial development in Morgan Hill requires a certain amount of investment that provides for the high cost of infrastructure. Therefore, given the high impact fees in Morgan Hill, a Commercial Linkage Fee was not adopted in the 2021 IHO update. However, the City acknowledges the need to reevaluate CLF in the future.

The following is a summary of the notable changes from the 2018 IHO to the updated 2021 IHO:

1. In-Lieu Fee Election for One-Half of Required Inclusionary Units. Developers may elect to satisfy the applicable requirements (For-sale in Downtown, For-sale Outside Downtown, Rental Projects in Downtown and Rental Projects outside Downtown) by paying an in-lieu fee for up to one-half of the number of required inclusionary units and constructing the remaining required inclusionary units for their remaining affordability requirement. If the required number of inclusionary units results in a fractional number, the provisions of the preceding paragraph regarding payment of a fee shall apply to the fractional unit. These funds would provide the City with the ability to leverage outside funding sources to build very low-income and extremely low-income units.

2. In-lieu fee schedule. Fees will be automatically increased for inflation.

3. “Affordable Sales Price” defined. Moderate-Income units that are built would be priced for households whose gross annual income does not exceed 110% of AMI.

4. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ADU’s constructed within for-sale projects will not be counted toward satisfaction of the requirement to construct inclusionary units. ADU’s are not deed restricted for affordability and the City cannot require them to be rented out.

5. Alternatives. For developers who choose an alternative method for complying with the IHO, the City is requiring a deeper level of affordability or a higher number of units built to benefit the City.

6. Incentives. Section 14.04.120 related to incentives to building on-site inclusionary housing units was removed as these are available automatically through State Density Bonus Law.

Although the City recently updated its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City recognizes that there is a need to revisit the IHO during the 6th Housing Element cycle to ensure that the IHO is meeting its objectives, is functional, and to further evaluate the needs to provide affordable housing for all segments of the community. In addition, currently, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires the provision of units affordable to moderate-income households in for-sale developments. Requiring that developers achieve deeper owner-occupied affordability through

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-25 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 cross-subsidization and existing incentives may not be effective. However, the City could seek to bridge the gap between inclusionary for-sale units and low-income households by providing financial support. Therefore, the City has implemented the following measures to further evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:

Policy HE-2.19 Commercial Linkage Fee. Consider new commercial and industrial development to meet the housing demand they generate, particularly the need for affordable housing for lower-income workers, through a Commercial Linkage Fee Ordinance or similar mechanism.

Action HE-3.G Review the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide deeper for-sale affordability beyond the updated 2021 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

4.3.3 Building Codes and Code Compliance
Building codes regulate the construction of dwellings and apply to plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems as well as other aspects of construction. The purpose of building codes and their enforcements is to protect the public from unsafe conditions associated with faulty construction. As of January 1, 2020, the City of Morgan Hill required all new development to comply with the California 2019 Building Standards Code and applicable code amendments.

Building code modifications and City code compliance practices are described below.

Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings The City of Morgan Hill enforces State building code standards (Title 24) for all structures subject to the code, including the construction and rehabilitation of housing. In 2019, the City of Morgan Hill adopted Chapter 15.63 (Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings) pursuant to Ordinance No. 2306 N.S. requiring all new buildings to rely solely on electricity as their energy source if they apply for a building permit after March 1, 2020.

Emissions from natural gas combustion, and propane in areas unserved by natural gas, have become the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings. These emissions make up about one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions in our region. Of these emissions in a typical dwelling, about 49% come from water heating, 37% from space heating, and 7% from cooking, with the remainder being pool heating, clothes drying, etc. While the exact numbers for nonresidential buildings vary widely with the type of occupancy, the aggregate nonresidential numbers are 32% for water heating, 36% for space heating, 23% for cooking, and 9% miscellaneous.

Although natural gas was considered superior to electricity because it was more efficient in the past, this is no longer the case. Three modern electric appliances (heat pump water heaters, heat pump space heaters, and induction cooktops) now offer enhanced efficiency and performance.

In terms of construction costs, avoiding the installation of gas pipelines into a development can save approximately $7,000 per unit. While the increased cost of installing larger electrical transformers will reduce the net savings, depending on the location, all-electric construction is expected to be less expensive on average.

On the operational cost side, it is difficult to definitively determine whether an all-electric building will cost more or less to operate because the relative costs of electricity and natural gas fluctuate over time. What is certain is that property owners have the opportunity to own their own solar energy systems, which can offset some or all of their electricity use, and the same cannot be said for their natural gas use. The only practical way to “zero-out” a gas utility bill is to rely solely on electricity.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-26 Lastly, all-electric homes are considered substantially safer than their dual-fuel counterparts because there are no emissions within the home from gas combustion and there are no gas pipes that can leak due to wear, age, or earthquake.

Code Compliance
Building safety standards are upheld through the Code Compliance section of the Building Division utilizing the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code. In the last three years, data reflecting prevalence of residential habitability issues, such as mold, vermin, broken windows, non-functioning utilities, etc. have indicated that there were 19 code enforcement violations that involved health and safety issues. City enforcement removed these hazardous and dangerous situations. The expanded use of this program has helped to address building condition issues before they progress to conditions requiring demolition or substantial rehabilitation, and to promote the exploration of rehabilitation opportunities before demolition.

Based on efforts to use code enforcement as a tool to catch problems before they require more extensive repairs or demolition, building code and code compliance practices and regulations by the City of Morgan Hill are not considered to represent a constraint to the provision of housing or affordable housing in the City.

4.3.4 Infrastructure Requirements
Various City departments implement on- and off-site improvement requirements, including standards for street construction, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, on-street parking and bicycle lanes.

Residential development may also necessitate constructing water, sewer, and drainage improvements. All improvements are generally required as conditions of approval and are developer financed. Complying with certain infrastructure improvements may be perceived as a constraint on the provision of housing for all income levels.

For infill projects, the City Code requires the construction of standard improvements that may include repair of defective sidewalks, construction of standard driveways, and maneuvering areas.

The Code also requires dedication and improvement of full-street or alley frontages. Section

12.02.190 (Exceptions) of Chapter 12.02 (Street and Sidewalk Development) of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places) of the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council authorize conditional exceptions to any of the requirements and regulations of Chapter 12.02 (Street and Sidewalk Development).

Although infrastructure requirements represent a cost to developing housing, these improvement standards are not unreasonable nor do they represent a significant constraint.

4.3.5 Jurisdiction Fees
Like cities throughout California, the City of Morgan Hill collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing the required citywide infrastructure that supports increased development and the administrative cost associated with processing applications.

New housing typically requires payment of the following fees: building permits, school impact, fire sprinkler permit, solar permit, meter deposit, water impact, sewer impact, storm drain impact, traffic impact, park impact, public facilities impact, library impact, community/recreation center impact, public safety impact, and burrowing owl mitigation fees. These fees are necessary to pay for services rendered during the processing of the project, but can, however, add to housing costs.

In addition, subdivisions and multi-family projects may incur the cost of preparing environmental documentation, traffic studies, soils reports, and filing fees for tentative and final maps. These are requirements of California law. In addition, multi-family projects may require a Conditional Use

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-27 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Permit, Design Permit, a SB 330 Preliminary application, and a Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Review Fee. Such fees are typically based on the rates of city employees (including overhead) and the number of hours spent processing the application or performing the associated work.

A recent Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative analysis in April 2022, performing a regional fee comparison, showed that the City of Morgan Hill’s impact fees typically fall just under the average when compared with other jurisdictions in the region. The City’s fees are not considered a constraint on housing production. Table H 4-9 summarizes the total fees (entitlement fees, building permits, and impact fees) per unit by jurisdiction for all local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, including the City of Morgan Hill, that contribute to the overall cost of development which apply to new residential construction as found in the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative analysis. The residential prototypes used in this analysis include a 2,600 square foot single-family dwelling, a 10-unit multi-family building, and a 100-unit multi-family building.

4.3.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements
The City has developed Design Standards and Standard Details for Construction in alignment with Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code to ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained, and adequate levels of street improvements are provided. Per the Design Standards and Standard Details for Construction, typical residential streets must be 60 feet wide to accommodate the right of way, including a minimum of five feet for sidewalks. Street sections may be modified for infill. Lane widths are to be no less than 10 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The Design Standards and Standard Details for Construction have a potential to affect housing costs but are necessary to provide a minimum level of design and construction quality in the City’s neighborhoods.

4.3.7 Permit Processing
The City of Morgan Hill meets or exceeds State-required timelines for the approval of development permits; and when compared to other local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, Morgan Hill is on par for the amount of time to process development permits, as shown in Table H 4-10. The time required for development approval is not generally a constraint or substantial Table H 4-9 Total Fees per Unit (by Jurisdiction)
Jurisdiction Single Family Small Multi-Family Large Multi-Family Campbell $72,556 $20,599 $18,541
Cupertino $136,596 $77,770 $73,959
Gilroy $69,219 $40,195 $39,135
Los Altos Hills $146,631 N/A N/A
Los Gatos $32,458 $5,764 $3,269
Milpitas $77,198 $74,326 $59,740
Monte Sereno $33,445 $4,815 $4,156
Morgan Hill $55,903 $41,374 $36,396
Mountain View $90,423 $69,497 $82,591
San Jose $9,919 $23,410 $23,410
Santa Clara $14,653 $6,733 $2,156
Saratoga $64,272 $17,063 $15,391
Sunnyvale $133,389 $126,673 $98,292
Unincorporated County $25,166 N/A N/A

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-28 cost to housing developers. Further descriptions of permits and their processing procedures are provided in the following subsections.

Senate Bill 35
Senate Bill (SB) 35, passed in 2017, requires jurisdictions that have not approved enough housing projects to meet their RHNA to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. Per SB 35, review and approval of proposed project’s with at least 50 percent affordability must be based on objective standards and cannot be based on subjective design guidelines. However, to be eligible, projects must also meet a long list of other criteria, including prevailing wage requirements. In order for applicants to take advantage of SB 35, per Government Code Section 65913.4 (10)(b)(1)(a)(et seq.) they need to submit a Notice of Intent and jurisdictions need to give Native American tribes an opportunity for consultation. The City of Morgan Hill has developed a Notice of Intent form consistent with the law. Additionally, the City Council adopted “Residential Development Design and Development Standards” to meet the requirements of objective standards that are consistent with the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan.

Senate Bill 330
Senate Bill (SB) 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would impose or enforce design standards that are not objective design standards on or after January 1, 2020 [Government Code Section 663300 (b)(C)]. The bill also established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures.

Per SB 330, housing developers may submit a “preliminary application” for a residential development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application.

Table H 4-10 Permit Processing Times, in Months (by Jurisdiction) Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing Officer)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Campbell 1 1 3 NA 5 1
Cupertino 1 – 3 1 – 6 2 – 4 2 – 4 3 – 6 1 – 3
Gilroy 1 – 2 1 – 2 2 – 4 NA 4 – 5 1 – 2
Los Altos Hills 1 – 2 0.5 – 2 2 – 3 3 – 4 4 – 6 1 – 2
Los Gatos No data 3 – 6 1 – 2 2 – 4 4 – 6 No data
Milpitas 3 – 5 4 – 6 2 – 3 6 – 18 NA 3 – 5
Monte Sereno 0.75 0.75 1 1 – 2 1 – 2 0.75
Morgan Hill 1 – 2 1 – 3 2 – 3 2 – 3 4 – 6 1 – 2
Mountain View 3 – 5 4 – 6 2 – 3 6 – 18 NA 3 – 5
San Jose 2 1 – 3 7 7 7 – 11 2
Santa Clara 0 – 1 0 – 1 0 – 3 4 – 9 6 – 9 0 – 1
Saratoga 1 1 – 2 2 – 3 NA 4 – 6 1
Sunnyvale 1 – 3 1 – 3 3 – 6 6 – 9 9 – 18 1 – 3
Unincorporated
County
4 – 6 6 – 8 9 – 12 12 – 15 15 – 18 4 – 6

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-29 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Submittal of the preliminary application secures the applicable development standards and fees adopted at that time. The project is considered vested and all fees and standards are frozen, unless the project changes substantially.

The City of Morgan Hill has developed a preliminary application form consistent with SB 330. In addition, the bill limits the application review process to 30 days, for projects less than 150 units, and 60 days, for projects greater than 150 units, and no more than five total public hearings, including planning commission, design review, and city council.

SB 330 also prohibits cities and counties from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition that would have the effect of: (A) changing the land use designation or zoning to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed on January 1, 2018; (B) imposing or enforcing a moratorium on housing development; (C) imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective design standards; or (D) establishing or implementing certain limits on the number of permits issued or the population of the city or county.

Design Permit
Design Permits are required for projects that are not eligible for ministerial review. A design permit is a discretionary action that enables the City to ensure that proposed development exhibits high quality design consistent with the General Plan and any other applicable Specific Plan or Area Plan adopted by the City Council. The design permit process is also intended to ensure that new development and uses are compatible with their surroundings and minimize negative impacts on neighboring properties. The Development Services Director reviews and acts on all Design Permit applications, except the Director may elevate any Design Permit application to the Planning Commission for review and final decision. In addition, the City Council shall review and act on all design permit applications for new City projects determined to be significant; and the Planning Commission shall act on any Design Permit applications determined to be significant. The Design Permit process is described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance under Section 18.108.040 (Design Permit) of Chapter 18.108 (Specific Permit Requirements).

Design Permits are required for the following types of projects:
 Three or more new residential units.
 One or more new residential unit on a sensitive site
 New non-residential buildings, structures physical site improvements determined to be significant.
 Additions to existing buildings, structures, or other physical site improvements visible from a public right-of-way and determined to be significant. Single-family homes are exempt unless the home is on a sensitive site.
 Additions to existing residences located on a sensitive site.  Site alterations that change the topography of the currently developed site area on a sensitive site.
 Relocation of existing buildings, structures or other physical site improvements.  Exterior changes to existing buildings, structures or other site improvements determined to be significant. Single-family homes are exempt unless the home is on a sensitive site.  Grading of more than fifty cubic yards on slopes greater than ten percent.  New accessory structures including secondary dwelling units or guest homes on a sensitive site.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-30 Conditional Use Permit Process
Housing is allowed by-right in most zones as a permitted use. Conditional use permits (CUPs) are only required for Group Homes, Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care, and Residential Care Facilities as well as most housing uses in the MU-F zoning district. An Administrative Use Permit is required for Live/Work units in the MU-N and MU-F zoning districts. The CUP process is described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance under Section 18.108.030 (Conditional Use Permits) of Chapter 18.108 (Specific Permit Requirements). A CUP is required for land uses that are generally appropriate within a district, but potentially undesirable on a particular parcel or in large numbers. A CUP is a discretionary action that enables the Planning Commission to ensure that a proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public. An Administrative Use Permit has the same meaning as a CUP but grants discretion to the Development Resources Director. The Administrative Use Permit process is described in the City’s Zoning Ordinance Under Section 18.108.020 (Administrative Use Permit).

4.3.7 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population, including multi-family rental housing, manufactured housing, accessory dwelling units, single room occupancies, emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing. Table H 4-11 summarizes the variety of housing types permitted within Morgan Hill’s zoning districts.

Manufactured Housing
State law requires that cities and counties allow the placement of manufactured homes (also referred to as factory-built homes and modular homes) meeting Federal construction standards Table H 4-11 Permitted Residential Land Uses by Zoning District Key
P Permitted Use
A Administrative Use Permit
C Conditional Use Permit
– Use not allowed

RE RDL RDM RDH RAL RAM RAH MU-N MU-F
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P P P
Duets - - P P P P P P C
Duplexes - - - - P P P P C
Emergency Shelters - C
Group Housing - - - - C C C C C
Live/Work Unit - - - - - - - A A
Mixed Use Residential - - - - - - - P P
Multi-Family Dwellings - - - - P P P P C
Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care - - - - C C C C C
Residential Care Facilities - - - - C C C C C
Residential Care Facilities, Small P P P P P P P P P
Senior Housing, Independent Living - - - - - - - P C
Single-Family Attached Dwellings - - - - P P P P C
Single-Family Detached Dwellings P P P P P P P P C

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-31 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 and manufactured home subdivisions in single-unit neighborhoods.5 Government Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.5 require that manufactured homes be permitted in single-unit districts subject to the same land use regulations as conventional homes. In keeping with State law, Section 18.124.020 of Morgan Hill’s Zoning Code specifies that manufactured housing is considered a single-family dwelling and is subject to the same property development and design standards in the same residential zones as dwellings.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Over the last several years the State legislature has passed a series of bills aimed at encouraging single-family homeowners to add Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs” also known as “second units” or “granny flats”) to their property by requiring local jurisdictions to adopt regulations to facilitate their production and streamline their approval. ADUs are complete independent housing units that can be either detached or attached from an existing single-family or multi-family residence. In December 2019, the Morgan Hill City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2313 amending Chapter

18.84 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with State laws.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities
SB 520, signed into law in 2001, requires that Housing Elements analyze the potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities. The City must demonstrate its efforts to remove constraints such as accommodation procedures for the approval of group homes, ADA retrofit efforts, and evaluation of the zoning code for ADA compliance. The Housing Element should provide measures that provide flexibility in the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

As noted in the Special Needs section of the Housing Needs Assessment, persons with disabilities have a number of housing needs related to accessibility of dwelling units; access to transportation; employment and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive services. The City of Morgan Hill ensures that new housing developments comply with California building standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and federal requirements for accessibility. The following is a description of City regulations, policies, and procedures that support housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

Residential Care Facilities
State law requires that State-licensed group homes of six or fewer residents be regulated in the same manner as single-unit residences for zoning purposes. The City of Morgan Hill Zoning Code allows group homes with six or fewer residents (called “Residential Care Facilities, Small” in the City code) by right in zones that permit single-unit dwellings (RE, RDL, RDM, RDH, RAL, RAM, RAH, and MU-N) consistent with State law as well in the MU-F zoning district. Group homes with more than six residents (defined by the City code as “Residential Care Facilities”) are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the following zoning districts: RAL, RAM, RAH, MU-N, and MUF.

Definition of Family
Historically zoning codes have included narrow definitions of the term family that have been used to deny housing opportunities for unrelated individuals. Although the City’s Zoning Code defines ‘Family’ as, “An individual or group of individuals living together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. ‘Family’ does not include a group of individuals occupying a hotel or lodging house of any kind,” the City does not use the term family to discriminate against unrelated persons with disabilities living together.

Universal Design

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-32 Universal design focuses on making homes safe and accessible for everyone, regardless of age, physical ability, or stature. Universal design features can include grab bars, no step entries, and wider doorways. Other features could include accessible bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens; and general amenities like lever door handles and rocker light switches. Although the City does not have a universal design ordinance, the City has identified two Policies within the Housing Element to encourage and promote universal design for people with disabilities and allow older adults to age in place, maximizing on visitablity and building upon Title 24.

Policy HE-6.1 Work with Affordable Housing Developers to Encourage Universal Design. Encourage universal design and maximize visitability, building on Title 24.

Policy HE-6.12 Universal Design in New Housing. Strive to achieve universal design in new residential housing units to provide housing for people with disabilities and allow older adults to age in place.

Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make Reasonable Accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a Reasonable Accommodation to allow covered ramps in the setbacks of properties that have already been developed to accommodate residents with mobility impairments.

The City of Morgan Hill has a process to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for persons with disabilities. The process, codified in Chapter 18.118 of the Zoning Code, was established to provide people with disabilities a way to ensure that their needs are met by the City’s zoning, building, and permitting process.

Emergency Homeless Shelters
State law (Government Code section 65583) requires each jurisdiction to identify one or more zoning districts where emergency homeless shelters are allowed without a discretionary permit.

The jurisdiction must demonstrate in the Housing Element that the zoning provides sufficient capacity on available sites to meet the shelter needs of the local homeless population, as identified in the most recent point-in-time count.

Within the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.124 (Land Use Definitions) defines Emergency Shelters as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Emergency Shelters are permitted by right in the PF (Public Facilities) zoning district and allowed with a Conditional Use Permit within the MU-F (Mixed Use Flex) zoning district.

State law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)) limits the development standards and locational restrictions that can be applied to emergency shelters. Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all of the following:
 the maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility;  sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone;

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-33 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022  the size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas;  the provision of onsite management;
 the proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart;
 the length of stay;
 lighting; and
 security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

Section 18.92.050 (Emergency Shelters) of Chapter 18.92 (Supplemental Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance requires the following minimum performance standards:
 The number of beds shall be limited to thirty.
 Parking requirements shall be either one space per three hundred square feet of habitable floor area, or sufficient to serve the parking demand determined in a study prepared by the applicant and approved by the development services department.  The size of outdoor waiting areas shall be sufficient to accommodate the expected number of clients without infringing upon the public right-of-way.  On-site management shall be provided during the hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
 An emergency shelter shall be located at least three hundred feet from other emergency shelters.
 The length of stay at any emergency shelter shall not exceed ninety days, unless the management plan provides for longer residency by those enrolled and regularly participating in a training or rehabilitation program.
 Exterior lighting of the property shall be designed to provide a minimum maintained horizontal illumination of at least one foot candle of light on parking surfaces and walkways that serve the facility.
 Security shall be provided during the hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

Capacity for Emergency Homeless Shelters
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the Housing Element to address new planning and approval requirements for emergency shelters and to determine if sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in the most recent point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period. Jurisdictions with an unmet need for emergency shelters for the homeless are required to identify a zone(s) where emergency shelters will be allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. The identified zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shelter need, and at a minimum provide capacity for at least one year-round shelter. Permit processing, development and management standards for emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.

The 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey Report point-in-time count identified 114 unsheltered homeless individuals within the Morgan Hill city limits. As described above, Emergency Shelters are permitted by right in the PF (Public Facilities) zoning district and allowed with a Conditional Use Permit within the MU-F (Mixed Use Flex) zoning district. Within the City, there are 5.7 acres of vacant land zoned PF where emergency shelters would be allowed byright. These sites have a maximum capacity for 120 beds. Therefore, these sites theoretically

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-4-34 have sufficient capacity for shelters to accommodate the 114 unsheltered individuals on the night of the 2019 point-in-time count.

In addition, an inclement cold weather shelter has been established at Community Christian Church, located at 305 W. Main Ave in Morgan Hill. Also, Morgan Hill Bible Church operates a homeless safe parking program for 8 families, 30 people maximum, at 15055 Monterey Road within the City.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019, requires that a low barrier navigation center be a use permitted by right in mixed-use zones and non-residential zones permitting multi-unit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “low barrier navigation center” as a housing first, lowbarrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. The Housing Element includes an implementation program to amend the Zoning Code to comply with this new requirement.

Action HE-5.A Amend the Zoning Code by 2024 to facilitate by-right processing procedures for Low Barrier Navigation Centers consistent with Assembly Bill 101.

Transitional/Supportive Housing
Transitional housing is defined as temporary housing (generally six months to two years) for a homeless individual or family who is transitioning to permanent housing. This housing can take several forms, including group housing or multi-family units, and typically includes a supportive services component to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.

Supportive housing is generally defined as permanent, affordable housing with onsite services that help resident’s transition into stable, more productive lives. Services may include childcare, after-school tutoring, career counseling, etc.

The Morgan Hill Zoning Code accommodates transitional housing and supportive housing as “Residential Care Facilities” as a conditional use within several zoning districts (RAL, RAM, RAH, MU-N, and MU-F).

Per recent changes in State law (AB 2162), the City must also allow 100 percent affordable projects that include 25 percent, or 12 units of supportive housing, by right where multi-unit and mixed-use development is permitted. Therefore, the Housing Element includes an implementation program to comply with this new provision of State law.

Action HE-5.B Amend the Zoning Code by 2024 to facilitate by-right transitional and supportive housing where multi-unit and mixed-use development is permitted consistent with Assembly Bill 2162.

Housing for Agricultural Workers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal agricultural work. Farmworkers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers. The housing needs of this group are addressed under Morgan Hill’s overall programs for affordability. Although little agricultural activity remains within the Morgan Hill City limits, the greater region includes agricultural activity that attracts farmworkers and their families. The City recognizes the need to provide housing affordable to farmworkers and agricultural employees and is committed to assisting in providing this need by implementing several policies regarding prioritizing farmworker/agricultural employee housing.

Appendix H-4: Constraints Analysis H4
Page H-4-35 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Policy HE-2.21 Prioritize Farmworker Housing. Establish farmworker housing as an affordable housing priority within the City.

Policy HE-2.23 Farm Worker Housing Advocacy. On an ongoing basis, advocate for federal, state, and County funding for farmworker/agricultural employee housing, including housing that meets the needs of the County’s agricultural industry and its workers.

Policy HE-2.24 Partner with Developers. Continue to work with non-profit developers and employers to develop innovative housing solutions for farmworkers and agricultural employees and identify and pursue all potential funding sources and assist owners and developers in applying for funding.

The provisions of Section 17021.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code state that employee housing for six or fewer employees must be treated like any other single-unit dwelling.

The City does not regulate the occupancy of single unit dwellings and there are no provisions in the City’s code to restrict employee housing for six or fewer employees, therefore, the City complies with this requirement.

California Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, requires that farmworker housing of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units shall be deemed an agricultural use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of this housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The City currently allows Agricultural Labor Accommodations (i.e. farmworker housing) as a conditional use in the OS (Open Space) zone; therefore, the Housing Element includes an implementation program to comply with this provision of State law.

Action HE-2.A Amend the Zoning Code by 2024 to facilitate by-right Agricultural Labor Accommodations within the OS (Open Space) zoning district consistent with Section 17021.6 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-i City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Appendix H5
Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-ii Table of Contents
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element
APPENDIX H-7 | Assessment of Fair Housing.....................................................................................................H-5-i

5.1 Executive Summary...................................................................................................................H-5-1

5.2 Community Participation Process.…………………..............................................................H-5-3

5.3 Fair Housing Analysis…………………….………...................................................................H-5-8

5.4 Fair Housing Goals and Priorities.............................................................................................H-5-125

5.4 Contributing Factors Appendix................................................................................................. H-5-129

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-1 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 APPENDIX H-5 | Assessment of Fair Housing

5.1 Executive Summary
This Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) is a component of the Housing Element of the City of Morgan Hill. The AFH is intended to provide a holistic look – informed by data, maps, community input, and policy analysis – into the trends and factors affecting access to housing and opportunity on the basis of protected characteristics under federal and state fair housing laws. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability status. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act adds several additional protected characteristics including, but not limited to, sexual orientation, gender identity, military of veteran status, and source of income. The AFH includes goals and priorities that are intended to foster more integrated communities, reduce disparities in housing (such as higher rates of housing cost burden), and increase access to opportunity by addressing the roots causes of inequality. The City’s Housing Element must include an AFH component as a result of A.B. 686, a law passed by the California Legislature in 2018 to incorporate a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into state law. Recipients of federal housing and community development funds have had an AFFH obligation since 1968. Having long received HUD funds as a subgrantee of Santa Clara County, the City’s contribution to fair housing planning efforts has historically been channeled through collaboration at the County level.

The City of Morgan Hill is located in the southern portion of Santa Clara County. It is bordered by the unincorporated communities of Coyote to the north and San Martin to the south. The areas to the east and west of the city are primarily comprised of open space. More significantly, downtown Morgan Hill is located just over ten miles north of downtown Gilroy and just over 20 miles south of downtown San Jose. With a population of 44,686 as of the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Morgan Hill has experienced significant growth in recent decades as Santa Clara County has emerged as the center of the global technology industry.

High and rising housing costs have come with the incredible growth of both Morgan Hill and the Region, and the impact of those high housing costs have not been felt equally by all. Hispanic households, persons with disabilities, and large families all face housing insecurity at higher rates and tend to have less access to the highest resource parts of the Region. Although the Region and Morgan Hill have small Black populations, which makes it difficult to draw some conclusions about disparities, rates of homelessness among the Region’s small Black population are shockingly high. For purposes of this AFH, the Region is defined as the San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which consists of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties combined.

In the Region, the most pronounced disparities tend to arise between cities rather than within them. In general, access to opportunity among White and Asian population is highest in the communities that comprise the West Valley. Housing costs in these communities are often prohibitive for disproportionately low-income Hispanic households, in particular, as well as for younger people with disabilities and large families. By contrast, access to opportunity is relatively lower, and Hispanic population is often higher, in downtown and East San Jose as well as in the eastern portions of Gilroy. Many relatively low resource parts of East San Jose also have significant population of Vietnamese ancestry, a community with disproportionately lower income levels in the Region than other Asian ancestry groups.

In most ways, Morgan Hill is not situated on either extreme of these trends. Income levels are similar to those countywide, housing is slightly more affordable, and access to opportunity is moderate in most neighborhoods. With regard to race and ethnicity, Morgan Hill is slightly more

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-2 heavily Hispanic and White than the Region and less heavily Asian. Additionally, within Morgan Hill, housing patterns are not highly segregated. Although the eastern portion of the city is slightly more heavily White and less heavily Hispanic than the downtown area, which is home to a large majority of the city’s subsidized housing), those differences are modest in comparison to most communities within the Region. Due to its location in the southern portion of Santa Clara County (often called South County), Morgan Hill residents have somewhat limited access to public transportation, less proximity to job centers, and, as a result, longer and more burdensome commutes than many other residents of the Region. All of these issues are addressed across the sections of this AFH, which discuss patterns of segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, fair housing issues affecting residents of publicly supported housing, fair housing issues affecting persons with disabilities, and trends in fair housing enforcement and outreach. The AFH also assesses potential “contributing factors” that may be the driver of patterns of segregation, disparities and access to opportunity, and other fair housing issues.

It is incumbent on the City of Morgan Hill to take proactive steps, consistent with its AFFH obligation, to address existing disparities in housing and access to opportunity in regional context and to take steps to prevent the emergence of segregated patterns. The goals and priorities below, which are discussed in much greater detail in that section of the AFH, are a roadmap for doing so.

I. Increase Affordable Housing Opportunities for Protected Class Members in Eastern Morgan Hill.

A. Identify opportunities and sites for affordable housing development in eastern Morgan Hill.

B. Study the creation of affordable housing overlay districts in advance of the next Housing Element cycle.

II. Protect Tenants from Displacement.

A. Consider adoption of a mediation requirement for rent increases of 5% or more.

B. Study the possibility of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance.

C. Seek funding or develop paths of support for access to counsel in possessory eviction cases.

D. Support shared-equity homeownership models.

E. Review the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide deeper for-sale affordability beyond the updated 2021 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

F. Adopt preferences for tenants who have been displaced from rental housing in Morgan Hill.

III. Connect Morgan Hill Residents to Employment Opportunities.

A. Prioritize the creation of jobs that are accessible to low- and very low-income workers who reside within the Downtown Morgan Hill Priority Development Area (PDA).

B. Create incentives for local businesses to hire Morgan Hill residents.

C. Advocate for VTA to expand bus service in Morgan Hill.

D. Study local first mile/last mile transit service solutions in Morgan Hill building on lessons learned from the first on-call shuttle service established within the City.

IV. Increase Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach, and Education in Morgan Hill.

Robust community engagement is essential to the development of an effective AFH, and, in addition to the outreach already conducted, the City welcomes input on this draft and, in particular, on the goals and priorities outlined above. Implementing the City’s goals and priorities in the years to come will be a collaborative endeavor on the part of the City, key stakeholders, intergovernmental partners, and, most importantly, residents.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-3 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022

5.2 Community Participation Process

1. The 2022 update of the Housing Element involved an extensive community engagement process. The initial efforts began in May and June of 2021, with a series of workshops that were held to provide a roadmap of past, present, and future housing in Morgan Hill, to communicate how we got here, and to discuss the housing needs of current and future residents. The opportunity was taken to share the mandates for housing production adopted by the State of California in response to the housing crisis, which are geared towards increasing the supply. The initial workshops served as a springboard to leap into a deeper community engagement process.

City staff used a variety of methods to solicit public input on the Housing Element update, including distributing three surveys (two pertaining to Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH)), hosting public workshops, providing information at community events, conducting focus groups, giving presentations to the community, and holding several workshops with the community and the Planning Commission. Staff prioritized involvement and engagement of residents and community members that are most directly impacted by the plan and development, especially Latinx, homeless, and other underrepresented or underserved groups.

Community outreach and engagement opportunities were designed to provide a safe engagement process that followed safe public health protocols around COVID-19, and to implement a meaningful engagement process that promoted a sense of ownership and real participation among community members. Staff involved a diverse range of participants, seeking input from the business community, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders.

2. The City of Morgan Hill started the engagement process for the Housing Element in May 2021. Below is a list of meetings and community-based organizations (CBO’s) that City staff met with and consulted during the community participation process:
• 5/18/21 What is Affordable Housing 101, Spanish with English (Zoom presentation)
• 5/19/21 All Things Housing Community Workshop (Zoom presentation) • 5/22/21 All things Housing - In-person
• 5/23/21 Hablando Vivienda con Nuestras Familias En Espanol (Zoom presentation)
• 5/28/21 Agricultural Workforce Housing in South County (Zoom presentation) • 6/2/21 Community Workshop - State Mandates for Housing Production, City Council Meeting, (Zoom presentation)
• 6/10/21 Town Hall - Creating Inclusive Communities through Design Form, (Zoom presentation)
• 6/16/21 Community Workshop - Housing Affordability, (Zoom presentation) • 6/23/21 Community Workshop - Housing and Long-term Sustainability, (Zoom presentation)
• 11/11/21 South County Collaborative (Zoom presentation and interactive focus group with 30 CBOs)
• 1/11/22 @ Social Services Agency, South County Staff (Zoom presentation & interactive focus group)
• 1/13/22 Morgan Hill Unified School District (MHUSD) Fawn Meyers HR Director (Zoom interview)
• 1/18/22 Compassion Center Staff (CBO Zoom interactive focus group) • 1/18/22 COVID Testing day, obtained feedback from attendees • 1/18/22 Gavilan College South County Basic Needs Staff (CBO Zoom interactive focus group)

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-4 • 1/20/22 Parents Helping Parents (CBO Zoom interactive focus group) • 1/20/22 Digital Nest serving youth in South County (CBO Zoom interactive focus group)
• 1/20/22 Morgan Hill Library (Zoom interactive focus group) • 1/25/22 Medical Social Worker Valley Health Center and Saint Louise Hospital (Zoom interactive focus group)
• 1/25/22 Richard Prato Director of Human Resources, Christopher Ranch Agriculture Employer (phone interview)
• 1/19/22 Eden Housing (Jasmine Square) Jonathan Crowther James (Affordable Housing Developer Focus Group)
• 1/28/22 St. Vincent De Paul and St. Catherine’s (faith based and CBO interactive Zoom interview)
• 1/31/22 Building Back Better, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, Executive Director Quency Phillips (interactive Zoom interview)
• 2/2/22 Catholic Charities, Greg Kepferle (interactive Zoom interview) • 2/3/22 Employment Development Department (Zoom interview) • 2/3/22 Saint Joseph’s Food Pantry, David Cox (CBO Zoom interview) • 2/3/22 South County Collaborative Board Members (CBO interactive Zoom focus group)
• 2/3/22 Morgan Hill Bible Church Homeless Safe Park (focus group in person with unhoused families)
• 2/10/22 Townhall Housing Element (Zoom presentation)
• 2/14/22 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, Patricia Cokes (CBO Zoom interview)
• 2/17/22 Townhall Housing Element (Zoom presentation and community feedback) • 3/7/22 Silicon Valley @Home (CBO interactive Zoom focus group) • 3/14/22 Edward Boss Prado Foundation, Cecilia Ponzini (telephone interview) • 3/21/22 Voices School, (surveying of parents, in-person) • 3/26/22 Spanish mass at Saint Catherine’s (in person surveying) • 3/27/22 Spanish mass at Saint Catherine’s (in person surveying) • 4/9/22 City Booth at the Farmers’ Market/Sidewalk Saturdays

3. The outreach activities elicited broad community participation during the development of the AFH. The City conducted numerous outreach activities to reach all segments of the community and purposely focused on reaching Latinx residents, individuals and families currently housed in affordable housing, homeless, and other underrepresented or underserved groups. The City prioritized outreach by conducting small interactive focus groups with service providers/CBO’s via Zoom as outlined above. The City also reached out purposefully to the Latinx community by translating all surveys to Spanish and conducting in person meetings as well as Zoom workshops in Spanish. City staff also conducted outreach during the Spanish mass at St.

Catherine’s as identified above.

In addition, two AFH surveys were provided (both in English and Spanish), one for Community Based Organizations (in which the City received 25 responses) and another survey geared towards underrepresented or underserved individuals and families (in which the City received 651 responses). The surveys were provided electronically and in hard-copy format to the following organizations and locations:
• Affordable Rental Housing locations

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-5 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022  Cochrane Village
 Crest Avenue Apartments
 The Crossings at Morgan Hill
 The Crossings Monterey
 Depot-Commons
 Jasmine Square
 Murphy Ranch Family Townhomes
 Royal Court Apartments
 San Pedro Gardens
 The Skeel Apartments
 Terracina at Morgan Hill
 The Willows Apartments
 Villa Ciolino
 Orchards Ranch Scattered Sites
 Park Place
• CBOs
i. Building Back Better, Joint Venture Silicon Valley
ii. Catholic Charities
iii. Christopher Ranch
iv. Destination Home Silicon Valley
v. Digital Nest
vi. Employment Development Department
vii. Eden Housing
viii. Gavilan College
ix. Morgan Hill Unified School District
x. Parents Helping Parents
xi. The Compassion Center
xii. Morgan Hill Library
xiii. Saint Louise Hospital
xiv. St. Vincent De Paul
xv. St. Catherine’s
xvi. Saint Joseph’s Food Pantry
xvii. Silicon Valley @Home
xviii. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
xix. Social Services Agency
xx. Valley Health Center
xxi. Voices School
• Panaderia bakery
• Morgan Hill Senior Center
• Rotary
• Senior Affordable Rental Housing locations
i. Sycamore Glen
ii. Horizons
iii. Bella Terra Apartments
iv. The Lodge at Morgan Hill
v. The Huntington
• Unhoused individuals through outreach to encampments
Feedback that the City received regarding the outreach conducted was that material and surveys to non-English speakers was lengthy and therefore non-English speakers may not have been as engaged as English speakers or more educated individuals. Therefore, additional steps that might

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-6 improve or increase community participation from non-English speakers could be to decrease the length of surveys or other materials to be more compact. In addition, as part of the Housing Element Update, the City will be conducting additional outreach to non-English speakers inperson during a series of open-house style one-on-one or small group meetings called “Cafecito con Edith”.

4. There were several themes that where common among all comments obtained in the community participation process, from both, CBO’s as well as individuals.

Comments obtained from CBO’s that were developed into Goals for the Housing Element are summarized below:
• Provide a range of housing opportunities affordable to Morgan Hill workforce. • Promote Extremely Low-Income housing.
• Prevent homelessness and address the housing needs of people experiencing homelessness.
• Establish special needs housing for seniors, persons with disabilities, and veterans.
• Conduct community education/outreach to inform residents about affordable housing and how to seek assistance.

Some specific comments that were brought up by CBO’s that were developed into key Policies include:
• An affordable housing overlay district could be used to increase affordable housing.
• Pass a commercial linkage fee ordinance.
• Zone more land and/or change zoning regulations for multi-family to increase affordable housing.
• Pass a rent stabilization ordinance.
• Integrate affordable housing throughout the community. • Protect residents from displacement.

Common themes obtained in the community participation process among individuals that provided feedback that were developed into Goals or Policies are summarized below:
• Provide a range of housing opportunities affordable to Morgan Hill workforce. • Prevent homelessness and address the housing needs of people experiencing homelessness.
• Integrate affordable housing throughout the community. • Ensure that children who grew up in Morgan Hill have housing options so they can live in Morgan Hill as adults.
• Preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate existing housing to ensure neighborhood livability and promote continued housing affordability. • Pass a rent stabilization ordinance.
• Create an affordable housing overlay district.
• Zone more land to allow multi-family rental housing.
• Increase for housing education, outreach, and enforcement.

One comment or view that was not accepted, or not included, in the Housing Element Update that was common among several CBO’s, as well as individuals, was the request to ‘pass an affordable

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-7 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 housing bond issue to provide funding to construct multi-family housing’. The City did not include an affordable housing bond as a policy in the Housing Element Update as passing an affordable housing bond is costly, would require voter approval, and other policies and actions were identified that can achieve the same goal of developing multi-family housing, such as studying the creation of an affordable housing overlay, considering a commercial linkage fee, and expand multi-family zoning areas throughout the City.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-8

5.3 Fair Housing Analysis
a. Demographic Summary
This Demographic Summary provides an overview of data concerning race and ethnicity, sex, familial status, disability status, limited English proficiency, national origin, and age. The data included reflects the composition of both the city of Morgan Hill and the San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.

1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time (since 1990).

Table 1: Demographics, Morgan Hill and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Region Jurisdiction Region
Race/Ethnicity # % # %
White, Non-Hisp. 21,880 49.0% 628,606 31.6%
Black, Non-Hisp. 777 1.7% 45,713 2.3%
Hispanic 13,977 31.3% 527,059 26.5%
Asian/Pacific Island,
Non-Hisp. 6,130 13.7% 707,309 35.6%
Native American, NonHisp. 13 0.0% 3,552 0.2%
National Origin
#1 country of origin Mexico 2,188 4.9% Mexico
139,30
6 7.0%
#2 country of origin Vietnam 989 2.2% India
128,06
9 6.4%
#3 country of origin Philippines 648 1.5% Vietnam
101,24
6 5.1%
#4 country of origin India 481 1.1%
China,
Excluding
Hong Kong
and Taiwan 85,593 4.3%
#5 country of origin
China,
excluding
Hong Kong
& Taiwan 357 0.8% Philippines 59,640 3.0%
#6 country of origin Korea 341 0.8% Taiwan 30,893 1.6%
#7 country of origin Canada 239 0.5% Korea 21,365 1.1%
#8 country of origin Iran 220 0.5% Iran 15,949 0.8%
#9 country of origin Hong Kong 160 0.4% Japan 11,786 0.6% #10 country of origin Iraq 135 0.3% Hong Kong 11,411 0.6% Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Language
#1 LEP Language Spanish 2,648 6.9% Spanish
142,19
1 7.9%
#2 LEP Language Chinese 353 0.9% Vietnamese 72,373 4.0% #3 LEP Language
Vietnames
e 241 0.6% Chinese 67,865 3.8%
#4 LEP Language Tagalog 103 0.3% Tagalog 20,924 1.2%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-9 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 #5 LEP Language Portuguese 69 0.2% Korean 11,561
#6 LEP Language Korean 68 0.2%
Other Asian
Languages 8,186 0.6%
#7 LEP Language Japanese 64 0.2% Japanese 6,870 0.4%
#8 LEP Language German 49 0.1%
Other Indic
Languages 6,739 0.4%
#9 LEP Language Arabic 45 0.1% Persian 5,514 0.3%
#10 LEP Language
Other
Asian
Languages 40 0.1% Russian 5,285 0.3%
Disability Type
Hearing difficulty 992 2.2% 46,279 2.3%
Vision difficulty 621 1.4% 27,671 1.4%
Cognitive difficulty 1,597 3.9% 61,783 3.3%
Ambulatory difficulty 1,894 4.6% 82,592 4.4%
Self-care difficulty 913 2.2% 38,520 2.1%
Independent living
difficulty 1,570 4.8% 69,507 4.5%
Sex
Male 21,684 48.5% 1,004,573 50.5%
Female 23,002 51.5% 983,273 49.5%
Age
Under 18 11,606 26.0% 440,060 22.3%
18-64 26,840 60.0% 1,282,083 64.5%
65+ 6,240 14.0% 261,703 13.2%
Family Type
Families with children 5,357 46.7% 214,550 45.8%
Race and Ethnicity
A plurality of the population of Morgan Hill is White, and Hispanic residents are the second largest segment of the city’s population, accounting for nearly one-third of residents. Asian and Pacific Islander residents are the third largest group. In comparison to the region, the population of Morgan Hill is much more heavily white, somewhat more heavily Hispanic, and much less heavily Asian and Pacific Islander. Like Morgan Hill itself, the region has low populations of Black and Native American residents.

National Origin
Consistent with the discussion above, individuals of Mexican national origin comprise the largest group of foreign-born residents in Morgan Hill. Among Asian national origin groups, individuals of Vietnamese national origin are the largest followed by Filipino-Americans, Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and Korean-Americans. Lastly, there are small populations of people of Iranian, Canadian, and Iraqi national origin. For purposes of interpreting Census and ACS data, it is important to note that persons of Iranian and Iraqi national origin are generally categorized as White. In Morgan Hill, there are smaller concentrations than in the region of every national origin group that appears in the top ten most populous national origin groups for both the city and the region. The gap is narrower for people of Mexican and Filipino national origin than it is for other groups. It is notable that the percentage of residents of Mexican national origin in Morgan

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-10 Hill is lower than in the region despite the percentage of Hispanic residents being higher. The higher concentration of children, who are more likely to have been born in the United States than their parents, in Morgan Hill may explain this apparent disconnect.

Limited English Proficiency
Spanish speakers with limited English proficiency (LEP) are by far the largest group of LEP individuals in Morgan Hill. Speakers of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog are the next largest groups of LEP residents. There is no other language that more than 100 LEP residents speak in Morgan Hill. This is largely consistent with the national origin data discussed above though it is also clear that some immigrant communities in Morgan Hill are comparatively less likely to be have LEP status than others. In particular, individuals of Indian national origin comprise the fourth largest national origin group in the city, but no South Asian language is among the ten most spoken languages by LEP individuals. There are higher concentrations in the region than in the city of all LEP groups that appear in the top ten LEP groups for both the city and the region. The gap is smallest for LEP Spanish speakers, of whom there is only a slightly higher concentration in the region than in the city.

Disability
In Morgan Hill, the most common types of disabilities are, in order, independent living disabilities, ambulatory disabilities, cognitive disabilities, hearing disabilities, self-case disabilities, and vision disabilities. It is important to note that each of these types of disabilities can be co-occurring with one or more other types of disabilities. Additionally, persons under the age of 18, by definition, cannot have independent living disabilities. With the exception of individuals with hearing disabilities, concentrations of persons with all other types of disabilities are higher in Morgan Hill than in the broader region. The difference is larger for persons with cognitive disabilities than it is for any other category.

Sex
Women comprise a slight majority of the population of Morgan Hill. This is in contrast to the region where men comprise a barer majority of the population. This juxtaposition may be due to the disproportionate employment of men in the technology industry in the northern part of Santa Clara County, on the one hand, and the relatively smaller role of the technology industry in South County.

Age
Non-elderly adults are a majority of the population of Morgan Hill, but that share is smaller than the proportion of the regional population comprised of non-elderly adults. Residents of Morgan Hill are much more likely to be children and are slightly more likely to be elderly adults than are residents of the region.

Familial Status
Just under one half of households in Morgan Hill are families with children. Families with children comprise a slightly larger share of households in Morgan Hill than they do in the region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-11 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Table 2: Demographic Trends
City of Morgan Hill
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 16,616 69.4% 20,720 61.6% 19,073 50.3% Black, Non-Hispanic 364 1.5% 421 1.3% 667 1.8%
Hispanic 5,594 23.4% 9,237 27.5% 12,863 34.0%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 1,188 5.0% 2,091 6.2% 3,819 10.1% Native American,
Non-Hispanic 120 0. 5% 92 0.3% 125 0.3%
National Origin
Foreign-born 2,639 11.0% 5,104 15.2% 7,585 18.6%
LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 1,680 7.5% 3,104 10.1% 3,855 10.1%
Sex
Male 26,844 50.1% 16,727 49.7% 18,738 49.5%
Female 11,984 49.9% 16,908 50.3% 19,144 50.5%
Age
Under 18 7,226 30.2% 10,339 30.7% 10,838 28.6%
18-64 14,874 62.2% 20,898 62.2% 23,446 61.9%
65+ 1,828 7.6% 2,398 7.1% 3,598 9.5%
Family Type
Families with children 3,409 54.9% 4,821 55.9% 5,495 56.7% (San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA) Region
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Race/Ethnicity # % # % # %
White, Non-Hispanic 888,530 57.90% 768,747 44.29% 648,063 35.28% Black, Non-Hispanic 52,557 3.42% 52,151 3.00% 52,208 2.84%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-12 Hispanic 331,183 21.58% 428,868 24.71% 510,396 27.79%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 251,953 16.42% 459,718 26.48% 611,013 33.26% Native American,
Non-Hispanic 6,717 0.44% 11,780 0.68% 10,290 0.56%
National Origin
Foreign-born 353,465 23.04% 583,157 33.60% 655,016 35.66% LEP
Limited English
Proficiency 212,940 13.88% 351,953 20.28% 366,129 19.93% Sex
Male 777,230 50.66% 878,445 50.61% 921,480 50.16%
Female 757,116 49.34% 857,377 49.39% 915,431 49.84%
Age
Under 18 369,600 24.09% 444,818 25.63% 445,611 24.26%
18-64 1,032,260 67.28% 1,127,524 64.96% 1,188,996 64.73% 65+ 132,486 8.63% 163,480 9.42% 202,304 11.01%
Family Type
Families with children 180,450 48.31% 180,388 49.79% 217,181 49.33% Since 1990, the population of Morgan Hill has become less heavily White and more heavily Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander while the Black and Native American population concentrations have been relatively stable. These changes have occurred over a period of significant population growth in Morgan Hill, and, accordingly, the total White population has not actually declined since 1990 (though it did slightly between 2000 and 2010 before increasing again between 2010 and the 2015-2019 American Community Survey). Both the foreign-born population and the population of people with limited English proficiency have increased though the latter increased more significantly between 1990 and 2000 than it has in recent years. The population of older adults has increased over time while the proportions of the population comprised of working-age adults and children have declined slightly. There has been little change in population by sex, and there has been a slight increase in the proportion of families that include minor children. Regional trends largely mirror changes seen in Morgan Hill with the exception that there has been a small but notable decrease in Black population regionally (though not in Morgan Hill).

2. Describe the location of homeowners and renters in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-13 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-14 Map 1: Housing Tenure, Morgan Hill
In Morgan Hill, renters are relatively concentrated in the downtown area, which is in the southcentral and southwestern portions of the city. The eastern half of the city is heavily owneroccupied.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-15 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 2: Housing Tenure, Region
In the region, renters are heavily concentrated in the downtown, northern, and eastern portions of San Jose and in the northern portions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View.

Homeowners are concentrated in the West Valley.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-16 b. General Issues
i. Segregation/Integration

1.a. Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region. Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Dissimilarity Index
Value Level of Segregation
Dissimilarity Index
Value (0-100)
0-40 Low Segregation
41-54 Moderate Segregation
55-100 High Segregation
Table 1: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for Morgan Hill.

Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 2020 Trend Black/White 10.2 16.6 17.2 16.1
Hispanic/White 16.6 29.3 27.3 24.4
Asian/White 9.7 6.0 16.6 13.9
Source: HUD AFFH Tool Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends Table 2: Dissimilarity Index Values by Race and Ethnicity for San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 2020 Trend Black/White 43.4 40 38.6 35.3
Hispanic/White 48 50.8 47.6 45.4
Asian/White 39 42.1 43 39.8
Source: HUD AFFH Tool Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends The tables above reflect the Dissimilarity Indices for Morgan Hill and the San José-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, MSA. The Dissimilarity Index measures the percentage of a certain group’s population that would have to move to a different census tract in order to be evenly distributed within a city or metropolitan area in relation to another group. The higher the Dissimilarity Index, the higher the extent of the segregation.

Morgan Hill has low levels of segregation across all racial and ethnic groups. In the broader region, there are higher levels of segregation for all groups than in Morgan Hill. In particular, Hispanic residents are subject to moderate levels of segregation in relation to White residents, and, while segregation for Black and Asian residents are lower, index levels for Asians are at the highest extreme of the low range and index levels for Blacks indicate moderate segregation.

In addition to the Dissimilarity Index, social scientists also use the Isolation and Exposure Indices to measure segregation. These indices, when taken together, capture the neighborhood demographics experienced, on average, by members of a particular racial or ethnic group within a city or metropolitan area. The Isolation Index measures what percentage of the census tract in which a person of a certain racial identity is exposed only to other persons of that same racial/ethnic group. Values for the Isolation Index range from 0 to 100. The Exposure Index is a

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-17 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 group's exposure to all racial groups. Values for the Exposure Index also range from 0 to 100. A larger value means that the average group member lives in a census tract with a higher percentage of people from another group.

Table 3: Isolation Index Values by Race and Ethnicity in Morgan Hill Isolation Index 1990 2000 2010 2020
White/White 69.8 63.5 53.0 45.9
Black/Black 1.6 2.1 2.5 3.1
Hispanic/Hispanic 25.4 32.7 38.9 36.9
Asian/Asian 5.4 8.1 13.7 19.0
Source: Diversity and Disparities, Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University Table 4: Exposure Index Values for Morgan Hill
Exposure Index 1990 2000 2010 2020
Black/White 70.9 59.0 48.6 42.9
Hispanic/White 67.9 56.5 46.2 41.1
Asian/White 70.9 62.8 51.2 44.5
White/Black 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8
Hispanic/Black 1.4 2.1 2.5 3.0
Asian/Black 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.9
White/Hispanic 22.9 25.3 31.2 30.9
Black/Hispanic 21.4 29.8 35.7 34.2
Asian/Hispanic 21.4 25.5 31.6 31.2
White/Asian 5.1 7.7 12.5 17.8
Black/Asian 5.3 7.4 12.1 17.4
Hispanic/Asian 4.6 6.9 11.4 16.6
Source: Diversity and Disparities, Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University As the tables above show, all groups reside in neighborhoods that are plurality White. In general, an individual Morgan Hill resident’s race or ethnicity does not suggest a likelihood of living in materially more segregated conditions. Additionally, while the Isolation Index for White residents is higher than all other groups, it is only slightly higher than the Exposure Indices for Asian, Black, and Hispanic residents. Isolation and exposure indexes for White and Hispanic residents have been reduced over the past decade.

Table 4: Isolation Index Values by Race and Ethnicity in San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Isolation Index 1990 2000 2010 2020
White/White 67 56.5 47.6 39.1
Black/Black 5.3 4.2 4 3.8
Hispanic/Hispanic 37 41.7 43.4 41.1
Asian/Asian 24.3 37.6 45.4 51.1
Source: Diversity and Disparities, Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-18 Table 4: Exposure Index Values for San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Exposure Index 1990 2000 2010 2020
Black/White 48.1 38.8 32.8 28.1
Hispanic/White 42 31.2 26.7 23.3
Asian/White 49.6 37.1 29.4 24.9
White/Black 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.7
Hispanic/Black 4.1 3.3 3 3
Asian/Black 4.3 3.2 2.8 2.6
White/Hispanic 15.6 17.3 21.1 21.3
Black/Hispanic 25.5 27.1 29.7 28.8
Asian/Hispanic 21.3 20.8 21.7 20.1
White/Asian 14 22.1 27.8 35.1
Black/Asian 20.4 28.5 32.7 37.5
Hispanic/Asian 16.2 22.4 26.1 31
Source: Diversity and Disparities, Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University As with the Dissimilarity Index, regional Isolation and Exposure Index data reflects more segregated patterns than are evident within Morgan Hill. It is clear that White (74.2%) and Asian (76%) residents are more likely to live in neighborhoods that have higher combined concentrations of White and Asian residents than are Hispanic (54.3%) residents, in particular, and Black (65.6%) residents, to a lesser extent.

1.b. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990).

With respect to Dissimilarity Index data and the Isolation and Exposure Indices, there has been a decrease in the levels of segregation among White and Hispanic residents over the past decade.

There has been a slight increase in isolation among Black and Asian residents.

In the region, Dissimilarity Index levels for Black residents in relation to White residents have decreased over time while Dissimilarity Index levels for Hispanic and Asian residents, respectively, in relation to White residents have been little changed. Exposure to White residents (and isolation for White residents) has decreased over time for all groups while exposure to Asian residents (and isolation for Asian residents) has increased over time for all groups. Exposure to Hispanic residents (and isolation for Hispanic residents) has been relatively unchanged. For Black residents, the trend has been toward decreased exposure (and isolation for Black residents), but exposure to Black residents for White residents is an exception, being largely unchanged.

1.c. Identify areas in the jurisdiction and region with relatively high segregation and integration by race/ethnicity, national origin, or LEP group, and indicate the predominant groups living in each area.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-19 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 1: Race/Ethnicity, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-20 Map 2: Racial Demographics, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-21 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 3: Neighborhood Segregation, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-22 Map 4: Diversity Index, Morgan Hill
The maps above reflect that Morgan Hill has a low level of segregation. White, Asian, and Hispanic residents are interspersed in the city, while the eastern portion of the city as well as adjoining unincorporated areas are less integrated. North and east of the city have minimal residential development, and tend to be populated by White and Hispanic residents.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-23 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 5: Predominant Population by Race, Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-24 Map 6: Neighborhood Segregation, Region
The map above reflects more substantial patterns of segregation in the region. There are at least two different ways of conceptualizing the region. First, consistent with most regional data presented in this Assessment, the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area, which consists of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, can be thought of as the region.

Second, Morgan Hill can be situated in the broader Bay Area.

Under the narrower conception, areas of White population concentration consist primarily of portions of South and West San José, smaller cities in the West Valley, and portions of Mountain View and Palo Alto, along with some rural portions of San Benito County. There are no areas of Black population concentration within the more narrowly defined region. Areas of Hispanic population concentration consist of parts of Downtown, East, and South San José, part of Morgan Hill, most of Gilroy and Hollister, and small portions of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Outside of Morgan Hill itself, areas of Asian population concentration include parts of East, North, and West San José, virtually all of Cupertino, most of Sunnyvale, and parts of Santa Clara.

Broadening the scope of analysis, it is clear that there are areas of Black population concentration in East and West Oakland, the Bayview-Hunter’s Point neighborhood of San Francisco, Richmond, and small parts of Dublin, Pittsburg, and Vallejo. Additional areas of White population concentration include much of central Contra Costa County, the Oakland Hills, Berkeley, much of northern and western San Francisco, most of Marin County, and parts of San Mateo County such as Belmont, Menlo Park, San Carlos, and Woodside. Additional areas of Hispanic population concentration include much of Hayward, parts of East Oakland, the Mission District in San Francisco, much of Richmond and adjoining San Pablo in western Contra Costa County, much of

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-25 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Bay Point and Pittsburg in eastern Contra Costa County, and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County.

Additional areas of Asian population concentration include Fremont, Union City, and southern San Leandro; Downtown Oakland; Hercules; Daly City and Foster City; and much of southeastern and western San Francisco, along with the more centrally located Chinatown area.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-26 National Origin & Limited English Proficiency
Map 7: National Origin, Morgan Hill
Within Morgan Hill, people of Mexican national origin live throughout the city with slightly higher concentrations in the center of the city. People of Indian national origin live throughout the city, People of Vietnamese national origin live primarily in the eastern portion of the city. People of Chinese national origin live in the eastern portions of the city, and people with Filipino national origin are located throughout the city.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-27 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 8: National Origin, Region
Regionally, people of Mexican national origin are concentrated in Downtown, South, and East San José and in parts of Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and Hollister. People of Indian national origin are concentrated in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, as well as North San José. People of Vietnamese national origin are concentrated in East San José and Milpitas. People of Chinese national origin are concentrated in Cupertino, Mountain View, and both West and North San José. People of Filipino national origin are not highly concentrated in particular areas.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-28 Map 9: Limited English Proficiency, Morgan Hill
Within Morgan Hill, persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) who speak Spanish as their primary language are dispersed throughout the city and in the southern outskirts. while those who speak Vietnamese and Chinese are located throughout the city.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-29 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 10: Limited English Proficiency, Region
In the region, LEP Spanish speakers are concentrated in Downtown, South, and East San José as well as in Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and Hollister. LEP Vietnamese speakers are concentrated in East San José and Milpitas. LEP Chinese speakers are concentrated in Cupertino and West San José. There do not appear to be significant concentrations of LEP speakers of other languages.

1.d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in the jurisdiction and region in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas, and describe trends over time.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-30 Map 11: Percent of Households in Renter Occupied Housing Units, Morgan Hill Within Morgan Hill, areas with higher concentrations of renters include the central city and the western center. Higher concentrations of homeowners are located in the eastern, northwestern, and southwestern portions of the city and the western outskirts. The areas with the lower rates of homeownership tend to have a higher percentage of Hispanic residents.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-31 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 12: Renter Households, Region
In the region, areas with the highest concentration of renters include Downtown and North San José; the northern portions of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara; and the eastern portion of Gilroy. Areas with high concentrations of homeowners include the West Valley and large portions of South San José. In general, areas with concentrations of renters are more heavily Hispanic than the region as a whole, and areas with concentrations of homeowners are more heavily White than the region as a whole. Most of the region’s R/ECAPs feature concentrations of renters.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-32

1.e. Discuss how patterns of segregation have changed over time (since 1990).

Map 13: Race/Ethnicity in 1990, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-33 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 14: Race/Ethnicity in 2000, Morgan Hill
There have been subtle demographic changes between 1990-2000. The White population has decreased in tandem with increases in Mexican and Asian populations across the city. There has been greater integration throughout the city over the last decade.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-34 Map 16: Racial Demographics in 1990, Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-35 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 17: Racial Demographics in 2000, Region
Regionally, the most evident trends since 1990 include significant reductions in White population in Milpitas, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and areas through San José, paired with significant increases in Asian population throughout those areas. When a broader view of the region is adopted, there have also been significant reductions in Black population in historical centers like East Palo Alto, East and West Oakland, the Western Addition in San Francisco, and Richmond, along with increases in Black population in eastern Contra Costa County and Vallejo.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-36 Contributing Factors of Segregation
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and Region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of segregation.

Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Segregation:
• Community opposition
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• Lack of community revitalization strategies
• Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
• Lack of public investment in specific, neighborhoods, including services and amenities • Lack of local or regional cooperation
• Land use and zoning laws
• Lending discrimination
• Location and type of affordable housing
• Loss of affordable housing
• Occupancy codes and restrictions
• Private discrimination
• Source of income discrimination
• Lack of public investment in specific, neighborhoods, including services and amenities

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-37 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty R/ECAPs are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD has developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAPs. In terms of racial or ethnic concentration, R/ECAPs are areas with a non-White population of 50 percent or more.

With regards to poverty, R/ECAPs are census tracts in which 40 percent or more of individuals are living at or below the poverty limit or that have a poverty rate three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Where one lives has a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education, crime levels, and economic opportunity. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. Concentrated poverty is also associated with higher crime rates and worse health outcomes. However, these areas may also offer some opportunities as well. Individuals may actively choose to settle in neighborhoods containing R/ECAPs due to proximity to job centers. Ethnic enclaves in particular may help immigrants build a sense of community and adapt to life in the U.S. The businesses, social networks, and institutions in ethnic enclaves may help immigrants preserve their cultural identities while providing a variety of services that allow them to establish themselves in their new homes.

Overall, identifying R/ECAPs facilitates understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-38

1.a. Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of R/ECAP tracts within the jurisdiction and region.

Map 1: Regional R/ECAPs with Predominant Race/Ethnicity Population (2009-2013 data)

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-39 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 2: R/ECAP in Morgan Hill with Race/Ethnicity
R/ECAPs in the region are concentrated in downtown and east San José, and there are more isolated R/ECAPs in Stanford, Milpitas, and Gilroy, as well. In general, areas with R/ECAPs tend to have higher Hispanic population concentrations than the region as a whole though Stanford is an outlier.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-40

1.b Describe and identify the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region. How do these demographics of the R/ECAPs compare with the demographics of the jurisdiction and region?
Table 1: R/ECAP Race/Ethnicity Demographics for Morgan Hill and San José-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Morgan Hill San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Region
R/ECAP
Race/Ethnicity #
% # %
Total
Population in
R/ECAPs N/A N/A 62,428 -
White, NonHispanic N/A N/A 10,865 17.40%
Black, NonHispanic N/A N/A 1,338 2.14%
Hispanic N/A N/A 29,552 47.34%
Asian or
Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic N/A N/A 18,924 30.31%
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic N/A N/A 85 0.14%
Other, NonHispanic N/A N/A 1,664 2.67%
There are no R/ECAPs in Morgan Hill. In the region, Hispanic residents make up the plurality of R/ECAP populations, at 47.34%. Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic residents in the broader region make up 30.31% of the R/ECAP populations.

Table 2: R/ECAP Familial Status Demographics for Morgan Hill and San José-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Morgan Hill San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Region
R/ECAP Family Type
Total Families
in R/ECAPs N/A N/A 16,308 -

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-41 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Families with
children N/A N/A 5,701 34.96%
In the R/ECAP in the region, households are less likely to be families with children than they are in either the city as a whole or in R/ECAPs in the broader region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-42 Table 3: R/ECAP National Origin Demographics for Morgan Hill and San José-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Morgan Hill San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
Region
R/ECAP National Origin
Total
Population in
R/ECAPs N/A N/A 25,056 -
#1 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Mexico 9,736 38.86%
#2 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Vietnam 6,491 25.91%
#3 country of
origin
N/A N/A N/A China, excl.

Hong Kong
and Taiwan 1,579 6.30%
#4 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Philippines 1,344 5.36%
#5 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
India 1,033 4.12%
#6 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
El Salvador 396 l.58%
#7 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Taiwan 373 1.49%
#8 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Korea 289 1.15%
#9 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Cambodia 212 0.85%
#10 country of
origin

N/A N/A N/A
Brazil 196 0.78%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-43 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 There are no R/ECAPs in Morgan Hill. In the R/ECAPs in the region, a significant majority of residents live in San Jose, are predominantly Mexican or Vietnamese national origin, and are more likely to be of Filipino, Taiwanese, or Indian national origin.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-44

1.c. Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time in the jurisdiction and region (since 1990).

Map 3: R/ECAPs in 1990, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-45 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 4: R/ECAPs in 2000, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-46 Map 5: R/ECAPs in 2010, Morgan Hill
There were no R/ECAPs in Morgan Hill in 1990, 2000, and 2010,

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-47 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 6: R/ECAPs in 1990, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-48 Map 7: R/ECAPs in 2000, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-49 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 8: R/ECAPs in 2010, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-50 The San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Region has seen significant change since 1990. In the cluster of R/ECAPs in San José, Hispanic residents have become a greater concentration of the population as White residents have moved outwards. In contrast, the two census tracts designated as R/ECAPs in Gilroy in 2000 were no longer designated as census tracts in 2010, despite having a greater concentration of Hispanic residents than earlier. However, those two census tracts have been re-designated as R/ECAPs as of the latest data. In the northwest corner of the region, Stanford University has been designated as a R/ECAP since 2000, but this change likely comes from the fact that the university’s student population has included a smaller proportion of White residents over time.

Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs
Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to R/ECAPs:
● Community opposition
● Deteriorated and abandoned properties
● Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
● Lack of community revitalization strategies
● Lack of local or regional cooperation
● Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ● Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ● Land use and zoning laws
● Location and type of affordable housing
● Loss of affordable housing
● Occupancy codes and restrictions
● Private discrimination
● Source of income discrimination

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-51 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
a. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – Education
i. Describe any disparities in access to proficient schools in the jurisdiction and region.

Table 1: School Proficiency Index for Morgan Hill and San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Jurisdiction Morgan Hill Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 53.85 76.43
Black, Non-Hispanic 53.24 64.99
Hispanic 47.91 59.06
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 46.87 71.48
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A 65.33
In Morgan Hill, the School Proficiency Index reflects extremely slight disparities in access to proficient schools with White and Black students having somewhat greater access to proficient schools than Hispanic and Asian students, respectively. Regionally, the slight disparities found in Morgan Hill are magnified, with White and Asian or Pacific Islander students having significantly greater access to proficient schools than Native American, Hispanic and Black students. ii. Describe how the disparities in access to proficient schools relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-52 Map 1: School Proficiency, Morgan Hill
Within Morgan Hill, there is some disparity between access to proficient schools relative to the concentration of Hispanic, Asian American, Black, and Native American residents. The portion of the city with the greatest access to proficient schools are in the eastern part of the city, which has a higher rate of White residents. Hispanic and Asian residents are more likely to live in other portions of the city with access to less proficient schools. There does not appear to be a relationship between access to proficient schools and familial status in Morgan Hill.

Regionally, disparities in access to proficient schools and race, ethnicity, and national origin are closely linked though, again, familial status does not appear to be correlated with access to proficient schools. The areas with the least access to proficient schools are concentrated in Downtown and East San José, including areas with concentrations of Hispanic residents as well as residents of Mexican and Vietnamese ancestry.
iii. Informed by community participation, any consultation with other relevant government agencies, and the participant’s own local data and local knowledge, discuss programs, policies, or funding mechanisms that affect disparities in access to proficient schools.

In addition to the data discussed above, one key observation about disparities in access to proficient schools is that school districts in the broader region are highly fragmented. Not only does each city within Santa Clara County generally have its own school district, but many cities

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-53 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 are part of multiple school districts. This fragmentation hampers efforts to promote student mobility from areas with schools facing severe challenges to highly-resourced schools.

Morgan Hill also has a number of private schools for affluent families such as the Oakwood School, which has a tuition of almost $28,000 per year. b. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – Employment
i. Describe any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups in the jurisdiction and region.

The Labor Market Engagement Index and the Jobs Proximity Index are used to measure the strength of the labor market and location of available jobs within a location. The Labor Market Engagement Index provides a summary of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. The Jobs Proximity Index quantifies a location’s accessibility to employment. The indexes scores range from 0-100. A higher score correlates to greater access to employment.

Table 2: Labor Market and Jobs Proximity Indices, Morgan Hill and the Region Morgan Hill Labor Market
Index
Jobs Proximity
Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 65.54 39.61
Black, Non-Hispanic 67.44 44.52
Hispanic 63.05 41.69
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.27 44.76
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A
Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 77.72 51.47
Black, Non-Hispanic 66.37 49.26
Hispanic 54.64 40.37

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-54 Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 72.36 50.40
Native American, Non-Hispanic 64.12 46.65
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanics 72.46 54.66
Black, Non-Hispanic 61.15 47.46
Hispanic 49.31 41.30
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.63 48.66
Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.76 49.93
In the city of Morgan Hill, Black residents have the highest Labor Market Engagement Index value when compared to other residents across racial/ethnic categories. Black residents experience a Labor Market Engagement Index value of 67.44, followed by White residents at 65.54, Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 64.27. Conversely, Hispanic residents have the lowest Labor Market Engagement Index values at 63.05. However, the range of indices across racial and ethnic categories is quite narrow.

Regionally, White residents have the highest Labor Market Engagement Index value when compared to other residents across racial/ethnic categories, and these disparities are greater regionally than in the City of Morgan Hill. White residents in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA region experience a Labor Market Engagement Index value of 77.72, followed Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 72.36. Hispanic residents have the lowest Labor Market Engagement Index values across racial/ethnic categories in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA region.

Further, with the exception of Hispanic residents, non-White racial/ethnic groups have lower Labor Market Engagement Index values across the board when compared to Morgan Hill. Regionally, Hispanic residents experience a Labor Market Engagement Index value of 54.64, followed by Native American residents at 64.12, Black residents at 66.37.

In the city of Morgan Hill, Asian or Pacific Islander have the highest Jobs Proximity Index value at

44.76, followed by Black residents at 44.52 and Hispanic residents at 41.69. White residents have the lowest Jobs Proximity Index value at 39.61.

Regionally, all racial/ethnic groups experience higher Job Proximity Index values than the city of Morgan Hill except for Hispanic residents. In the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA region, White residents have a Jobs Proximity Index value of 51.47, followed by Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 50.40, Black residents at 49.26, Native American residents at 46.65 and Hispanic residents 40.37. In the City of Morgan, the racial/ethnic groups with the closest proximity to employment experience the highest engagement with the labor market except for White residents.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-55 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 ii. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe how disparities in access to employment relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-56 Map 2: Jobs Proximity, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-57 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 3: Labor Market, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-58 Map 4: Jobs Proximity Index, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-59 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 5: Job Proximity Index, Region
In Morgan Hill, disparities in both job proximity and labor-market engagement are small, and patterns of segregation do not appear to play a significant role in explaining them. Throughout the city there are similar jobs proximity and labor engagement. There is also similar jobs proximity throughout the city, with the northern section having a slightly higher jobs proximity. Regionally, however, the concentration of Hispanic, both in parts of East San José and in South County, which have low jobs proximity, does appear to explain disparities in jobs proximity. Additionally, the concentration of Hispanic residents in similar areas, including in R/ECAPs, partially explains the lack of social capital associated with lower labor market engagement. iii. Informed by community participation, any consultation with other relevant government agencies, and the participant’s own local data and local knowledge, discuss whether there are programs, policies, or funding mechanisms that affect disparities in access to employment.

Although Morgan Hill is home to some employers, it lacks the major employment centers of San Jose and northern Santa Clara County, which are home to major technology companies as well as higher education institutions and more government offices. The location of employers thus results in many Morgan Hill residents having long and costly commutes. According to the 2015- 2019 American Community Survey, 22.7% of Morgan Hill workers have commutes of 60 minutes or longer as opposed to just 10.6% of Santa Clara County workers. The costs of these long commutes are more difficult for lower wage workers, who are disproportionately Hispanic, to bear than they are for others.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-60 c. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – Transportation

i. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to transportation related to costs and access to public transit in the jurisdiction and region.

The Low Transportation Cost Index and Transit Trips Index are used to measure access to transportation within a location. The Low Transportation Cost Index measures access to low-cost transportation services, and the Transit Trips Index measures how often residents take transit trips. The index scores range from 0-100. A higher score correlates to greater transportation access.

Table 3: Transit and Low Transportation Cost Indices, Morgan Hill and the Region Morgan Hill Transit Index Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 56.81 89.24
Black, Non-Hispanic 56.44 89.86
Hispanic 57.13 90.14
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 56.82 89.39
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A N/A
Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 75.69 93.05
Black, Non-Hispanic 79.03 94.25
Hispanic 76.70 93.43
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 78.43 93.54

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-61 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Native American, Non-Hispanic 76.14 93.31
In Morgan Hill, there is not much variance between Transit Trip Index values among racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic residents have the highest Transit Index value at 57.13, followed closely by Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 56.82, White residents at 56.81, and Black residents at

56.44. There is less than one point on the Transit Trip Index separating the highest and lowest racial/ethnic groups which speaks to the consistency of transit trips among those groups.

Similarly, in Morgan Hill there is not much variance between Low Transportation Cost Index values among racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic residents have the highest Low Transportation Cost Index value at 90.14, closely followed by Black residents at 89.86, Asian or Pacific Islander residents at 89.39, and White residents at 89.24. There is less than one point on the Low Transportation Cost Index separating the highest and lowest racial/ethnic groups which speaks to the consistency of transportation costs among those groups.

Regionally, in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA region there is not much variance between Transit Trip Index values among racial/ethnic groups. Black residents have the highest Transit Trip Index value at 79.03, followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders at 78.43, Hispanic residents at 76.70, Native American residents at 76.14, and White residents at 75.69.

Similarly, Low Transportation Cost Index values are also consistent among racial/ethnic groups.

Black residents have the highest Low Transportation Cost Index value at 94.25, followed by Asian or Pacific Islanders 93.54, Hispanic residents at 93.51, and Native American residents at 93.31, Asian or Pacific Islanders 93.22 and White residents at 93.05. There is approximately one point on the Low Transportation Cost Index separating the highest and lowest racial/ethnic groups which speaks to the consistency of transportation costs among those groups. These regional values are also all within 5 points of their respective Morgan Hill values, which at least superficially highlights the consistency in transportation cost among the city of Morgan Hill and the surrounding region.
ii. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe how disparities in access to transportation related to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-62 Map 6: Transit Trips, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-63 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 7: Low Transportation Cost, Morgan Hill
As discussed above, there do not appear to be significant disparities in transit access based on race and ethnicity in either Morgan Hill or the broader region. Therefore, patterns of segregation do not appear to be fueling disparities, which are not present. With that said, some of the highest resource communities in the region – like those in the West Valley – have extremely limited transit access. Although this does not fuel disparities in access to transit among groups that are less likely to be able to live in these cities, their lack of transit may fuel exclusion by, for instance, decreasing the viability of mixed-income transit-oriented development that would help diversify communities.
iii. Informed by community participation, any consultation with other relevant government agencies, and the participant’s own local data and local knowledge, discuss whether there are programs, policies, or funding mechanisms that affect disparities in access to transportation.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-64 Public transportation is extremely limited in Morgan Hill. Caltrain1 and VTA2 offer regional service between Morgan Hill and San Jose, but that service is relatively infrequent. Additionally, Caltrain fares are unaffordable for some low-income commuters. VTA also operates local bus service in Morgan Hill, but that service also suffers from geographic coverage gaps in the eastern part of the city and long headways.3
d. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods i. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to low poverty neighborhoods in the jurisdiction and region.

Table 4: Low Poverty Index, Morgan Hill and the Region
Morgan Hill Low Poverty Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 67.46
Black, Non-Hispanic 61.99
Hispanic 62.56
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 67.12
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A
Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 75.89
Black, Non-Hispanic 64.86
Hispanic 56.33
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 71.81
1 https://www.caltrain.com/stations/systemmap.html
2 https://www.vta.org/go/routes/68
3 https://www.vta.org/go/routes/87

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-65 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Native American, Non-Hispanic 65.04
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanics 69.23
Black, Non-Hispanic 63.00
Hispanic 49.41
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 62.03
Native American, Non-Hispanic 60.52
In Morgan Hill, there are minimal disparities among protected class groups with respect to access to low poverty neighborhoods, although Hispanic and Black households have slightly less access to low poverty neighborhoods than do other groups. Regionally, disparities are much more pronounced, and Hispanic households, in particular, and Black and Native American households, to a lesser extent, have much lower access to low poverty neighborhoods than do White and Asian or Pacific Islander households.
ii. For the protected class groups HUD has provided data, describe how disparities in access to low poverty neighborhoods relate to residential living patterns of those groups in the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-66 Map 8, Low Poverty Neighborhoods, Morgan Hill
In Morgan Hill, Census Tract 5123.13 has a Low Poverty Indices of 28, the lowest in the city. In that census tract, Hispanics residents comprise over sixty percent of residents, which is considerably higher than the rest of the city. The predominant national origin in that census tract is Mexican-American. There are two census tracts with a high Low Poverty Indices. One tract, 5123.10, is located on the east side of the City adjacent to the lowest poverty tract and has a White population of almost seventy percent. The other census tract with a high Low Poverty Indices is located in a majority-White unincorporated area to the south of the city. Regionally, the association between areas with limited access to low poverty neighborhoods and disproportionately Hispanic areas is even stronger, and areas with more concentrated population of Vietnamese national origin also have somewhat lower levels of access to low poverty neighborhoods. Families with children do not appear to be cut off from access to low poverty neighborhoods, whether in Morgan Hill or the broader region. iii. Informed by community participation, any consultation with other relevant government agencies, and the participant’s own local data and local knowledge, discuss whether there are programs, policies, or funding mechanisms that affect disparities in access to low poverty neighborhoods.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-67 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Efforts by Morgan Hill to foster the development of affordable housing for families are likely to reduce disparities in access to low poverty neighborhoods. The city is fairly well integrated and has developed numerous affordable housing units. The limited public transportation options and lack of local job centers present limitations in truly increasing opportunities for all. e. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods
i. For the protected class groups for which HUD has provided data, describe any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods in the jurisdiction and region.

Table 5: Environmental Health Index, Morgan Hill and the Region Morgan Hill Environmental Health
Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 62.46
Black, Non-Hispanic 63.08
Hispanic 61.90
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 62.16
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/A
Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 46.93
Black, Non-Hispanic 41.34
Hispanic 42.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 47.20
Native American, Non-Hispanic 44.16

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-68 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanics 44.03
Black, Non-Hispanic 41.98
Hispanic 41.17
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 43.23
Native American, Non-Hispanic 45.72
In Morgan Hill, any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods are practically imperceptible. Regionally, disparities still are not vast, but they are wide enough to signify that Hispanic and Asian American residents have slightly lower access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than do White and Asian or Pacific Islander residents. It is also worth noting that the Environmental Health Index is significantly higher in Morgan Hill than it is region-wide. Morgan Hill’s 2035 General Plan’s Natural Resources and Environment Element lays out numerous strategies for preserving open space, agricultural uses, hillsides, riparian areas, wildlife habitat, and other natural features.
ii. For the protected class groups for which HUD has provided data, describe how disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods relate to residential living patterns in the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-69 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 9: Environmental Health, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-70 Map 10: Environmental Score, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-71 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 In Morgan Hill, patterns of segregation do not appear to fuel disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods as, again, such disparities do not exist. There is minimal racial and ethnic segregation in Morgan Hill. In the region, by contrast, patterns of segregation of Hispanic residents in San José, in particular, do appear to contribute to disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods.
iii. Informed by community participation, any consultation with other relevant government agencies, and the participant’s own local data and local knowledge, discuss whether there are programs, policies, or funding mechanisms that affect disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods.

In Morgan Hill, highways and vehicle emissions are by far the most significant driver of poor environmental health. There are ongoing efforts to reduce vehicle trips through transit expansion – including the Morgan Hill Transit Center, which currently consists of VTA rail service and VTA bus service. Consistent with State Law, the city adopted a Morgan Hill Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) to improve transit access and reduce car emissions and is implementing SB 743 on a project-by-project basis.
f. Disparities in Access to Opportunity – Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity i. For the protected class groups for which HUD has provided data, identify and discuss any overarching patterns of access to exposure to adverse community factors. Include how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation, integration, and R/ECAPs.

Describe these patterns for the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-72 Map 11, TCAC Opportunity Areas, Morgan Hill
Overall, in Morgan Hill, most areas of the city generally have high access to opportunity and limited exposure to adverse community factors, but there are some nuances within the city. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s 2022 map of Opportunity Areas rates all residentially developed portions of Morgan Hill as Moderate or Low Resource. The north portion of the city is considered low resource while the rest of the city is considered moderate resource. This is likely due to the lack of good transportation and limited access to local jobs.

Many of these trends are replicated regionally. With some notable exceptions, such as jobs-rich Cupertino, areas with greater transit and job access tend to be those with worse environmental health. Additionally, areas with less transit and job access tend to be those with greater access to proficient schools and low poverty neighborhoods. This mirrors patterns of segregation and R/ECAPs in the region. R/ECAPs, which tend to be disproportionately Hispanic, generally have higher access to transportation and higher job proximity (which does not necessarily mean that neighborhood residents are able to secure those jobs) and less access to proficient schools, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and low poverty neighborhoods. ii. Based on the opportunity indicators assessed above, identify areas that experience (A) high access; and (b) low access across multiple indicators.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-73 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 In Morgan Hill, disparities between neighborhoods are generally slight with respect to most indicators except for the Low Poverty Index and the School Proficiency Index. With respect to those two indices, downtown Morgan Hill has less access to opportunity than other parts of the city, and eastern Morgan Hill has more access. Regionally, job proximity and transit access are greatest in the northern part of Santa Clara County though access is lower in the West Valley than it is in the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. Access to proficient school and low poverty neighborhoods is highest in the West Valley as well as in the parts of larger North County cities that are further south and west of U.S. Route 101. South County generally has higher access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods.

Contributing Factors of Disparities in Access to Opportunity Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Disparities in Access to Opportunity:
● Access to financial services
● Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation ● Impediments to mobility
● Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs ● Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ● Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ● Lack of local or regional cooperation
● Land use and zoning laws
● Lending discrimination
● Location and type of affordable housing
● Location of employers
● Location of environmental health hazards
● Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies ● Loss of affordable housing
● Occupancy codes and restrictions
● Private discrimination
● Source of income discrimination

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-74 iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs

1.a Which groups (by race/ethnicity and family status) experience higher rates of housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared to other groups? Which groups also experience higher rates of severe housing burdens when compared to other groups?
As shown in the tables below, a slightly greater percent of households in Morgan Hill experience housing problems than in the region generally. White and Asian American Households in Morgan Hill, but not Hispanic or Black households, are less likely to experience housing problems than in the region as a whole. However, almost one-half of Hispanic households in Morgan Hill experience housing problems.

Non-family households and larger families, comprised of five or more people in a household, also experience high rates of housing problems (54.7% and 45.7% respectively) in comparison to smaller family households.

Table 1: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs. Morgan Hill and the Region
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
Morgan Hill Region
Households
experiencing any of
4 housing
problems
# with
problem
s
total #
household
s
% with
problem
s
# with
problem
s
total #
household
s
% with
problem
s
Total 5,565 14,670 37.9% 234,515 653,265 35.9%
White, NonHispanic 2,935 8,785 33.4% 79,900 270,985 29.5% Black, NonHispanic 145 355 40.8% 7,345 15,835 46.4%
Hispanic 1,695 3,515 48.2% 69,000 128,450 53.7%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 600 1,645 36.5% 71,917 220,540 32.6% Family households,
<5 people 2,945 9,585 30.7% 90,400 350,225 25.8%
Family households,
5+ people 860 1,880 45.7% 28,475 64,170 44.4%
Non-family
households 1,750 3,200 54.7% 31,315 127,410 24.6%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-75 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Households
experiencing any of
4 Severe Housing
Problems
# with
severe
problem
s
total #
household
s
% with
severe
problem
s
# with
severe
problem
s
total #
household
s
% with
severe
problem
s
Total 2,775 14,670 18.9% 148,550 653,265 22.7%
White, NonHispanic 1,325 8,785 15.1% 44,145 270,985 16.3% Black, NonHispanic 45 355 12.7% 4,690 15,835 29.6%
Hispanic 984 3,515 28.0% 48,175 128,450 37.5%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 345 1,645 21.0% 47,952 220,540 21.7% Note 1: The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%. The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.

Note 2: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except household type and size, which is out of total households.

Note 3: Data Sources: CHAS
Note 4: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affhdata-documentation).

The disparities in severe housing problems across races show that 28% of Hispanic households and 21% of Asian American households in Morgan Hill experience severe housing problems.

Over 15% of White households and over twelve percent of Black households experience severe housing problems.

Table 2: Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden Households with
Severe Housing
Cost Burden
Morgan Hill Region
Race/Ethnicity # with
severe
cost
burden
#
household
s
% with
severe
cost
burden
# with
severe
cost
burden
#
household
s
% with
severe
cost
burden
Total 2,145 14,670 14.6% 43,535 653,265 6.7%
White, NonHispanic 1,165 8,785 13.3% 20,070 270,985 7.4%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-76 Black, NonHispanic 45 355 12.7% 770 15,835 4.9%
Hispanic 620 3,515 17.6% 8,460 128,450 6.6%
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 250 1,645 15.2% 13,365 220,540 6.1% Household Type and Size
Family
households, <5
people 1,030 9,680 10.6% 53,045 350,225 15.1%
Family
households, 5+
people 284 1,785 15.9% 9,025 64,170 14.1%
Non-family
households 828 3,199 25.9% 42,113 127,410 33.1%
Note 1: Severe housing cost burden is defined as greater than 50% of income.

Note 2: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except household type and size, which is out of total households.

Note 3: The # households is the denominator for the % with problems, and may differ from the # households for the table on severe housing problems.

Note 4: Data Sources: CHAS
Note 5: Refer to the Data Documentation for details
(www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

In Morgan Hill, Hispanic households are most likely to experience severe housing cost burden, followed by Asian American families. In fact, all groups in Morgan Hill have higher levels of severe cost burden than the region. Between 12.7% and 17% of households have a high cost burden in Morgan Hill versus a range of 4.9% to 7.4% in the region.

Non-family households in both Morgan Hill and the region are most likely to have a high cost burden. In Morgan Hill, large family households have the second highest percentage of cost burdened households, followed by small family households. In the region, small family households have a slightly higher percentage of severe cost-burdened households, followed by large families.

Table 3: Percentage of Overcrowded Households by Race or Ethnicity, Morgan Hill Non-Hispanic
White
Households
Black
Households
Asian
American or
Pacific Islander
Households
Hispanic
Households
Morgan Hill 1.7% 0% 5.3% 13.9%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-77 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Region 2.6% 7.3% 8.4% 17.1%
In addition to the data provided by HUD above, the American Community Survey also provides data detailing the numbers of households subject to overcrowding or incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities. 13.9% Hispanic households experience overcrowding, followed by 5.3% of Asian American households. In the region, Hispanic and Asian Americans are also most likely to experience overcrowding. Overcrowding is not a common issue for White or Black households in Morgan Hill.

1.b. Which areas in the jurisdiction and Region experience the greatest housing burdens? Which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs and what are the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas?

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-78 Map 1: Percent of Households with Any of the Four Housing Problems, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-79 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 2: Percent of Households with Any of the Four Housing Problems, Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-80 Map 3: Overpayment by Renters, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-81 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 4: Overpayment by Home Owners, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-82 Map 5: Overcrowded Households, Morgan Hill
In Morgan Hill, there are higher concentrations of households with housing problems in the downtown area of the city, including in areas that are more heavily Hispanic and Asian American than the city as a whole. Regionally, the highest concentrations of households with housing problems are found in Downtown and East San José, both areas with more heavily Hispanic populations than the region as a whole.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-83 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022

1.c. Compare the needs of families with children for housing units with two, and three or more bedrooms with the available existing housing stock in each category of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction and region.

Table 4: Publicly Supported Housing by Program Category: Units by Number of Bedrooms and Number of Children, Morgan Hill
Households in
0-1 Bedroom
Units
Households in
2 Bedroom
Units
Households in
3+ Bedroom
Units
Households
with Children
Housing Type % % % %
Public Housing N/A N/A N/A N/a
Project-Based
Section 8 64% 0% 36% 18%
Other Multifamily N/A N/A N/A N/A
HCV Program 29% 37% 34% 42%
In Morgan Hill, there are more housing opportunities for families with children in the Housing Choice Voucher program than in the Project-Based Section 8 program. There are no public housing or Other Multifamily units in Morgan Hill. Public housing refers to subsidized housing that is operated by the local housing authority under Section 9 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Other Multifamily units refer primarily to HUD-subsidized housing designated for the elderly (Section 202) and people with disabilities (Section 811) but also include some less common programs like the Section 221(d)(4) loan guarantee program.

1.d. Describe the differences in rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in the jurisdiction and Region.

Table 5: Housing Tenure by Race, Morgan Hill and the Region Morgan Hill Region
Housing
Tenure
Owner
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
# % # % # % # %
Total 10,979 73.9% 3,875 26.1% 372,659 56.6% 285,691 43.4% White, NonHispanic 6,993 80.6% 1,681 19.4% 161,091 61.8% 99,462 38.2% Black 142 46.3% 165 53.7% 5,329 31.2% 11,736 68.8%
Hispanic 1,895 53.3% 1,658 46.7% 48,341 37.6% 80,092 62.4%

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-84 Asian or Pacific
Islander 1,644 83.9% 315 16.1% 142,664 60.2% 94,250 39.8% Homeownership rates are generally higher in Morgan Hill than in the region as a whole. Black and Hispanic households are least likely to be homeowners than Asian American and White households. This also holds true in the region. In Morgan Hill, almost 84% of Asian American households and over 80% of White households are homeowners. By contrast over 53% of Black households and over 46% of Hispanic households rent rather than own their homes in Morgan Hill, and these percentages are even higher in the region.

Additional Information

2.a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disproportionate housing needs in the jurisdiction and Region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-85 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 6: Location Affordability, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-86 Map 7: Location Affordability, Region

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-87 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 8: Percent Renter Occupied Households, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-88 Map 9: Percent Renter Occupied Households, Region
The eastern portion of Morgan Hill has the least affordable housing according to the Location Affordability Index. This area also has a low rate of renter-occupied housing. By contrast, the city center has a relatively higher concentration of renters and more affordable housing. The southwest portion has a higher concentration of renters and less affordable housing.

Local data from the City of Morgan Hill reflecting code enforcement violations involving health and safety issues from 2019 through March 2022 showed that, out of 19 code enforcement violations, 18 were at properties in the central and western portions of Morgan Hill and only one was in eastern Morgan Hill. Although the overall number of violations was not high, violations were concentrated in the most heavily Hispanic parts of the city. Among the 18 violations in the central and western portions of Morgan Hill, a majority were in properties located in and near downtown Morgan Hill.

2.b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disproportionate housing needs. For PHAs, such information may include a PHA’s overriding housing needs analysis.

The Santa Clara County Housing Authority has shifted its hard unit portfolio from public housing to Project-Based Vouchers. A “hard unit” is defined as affordable rental housing resulting from new construction, substantial rehabilitation, acquisition, or existing housing stock. Hard units do not include unsubsidized units in which households use tenant-based rental assistance such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Layering more Project-Based Vouchers into multifamily housing developments in Morgan Hill, particularly those including family-sized units, could be an effective means of reducing disproportionate housing needs in the city.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-89 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing Needs
Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Disproportionate Housing Needs:
● Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
● Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
● Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking
● Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs ● Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ● Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ● Land use and zoning laws
● Lending discrimination
● Loss of affordable housing
● Source of income discrimination

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-90 c. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis

1. Analysis
a. Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
Table 1: Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category, Morgan Hill Morgan Hill
Housing Units # %
Total housing units 15,233 N/A
Public Housing 0 0%
Project-based Section 8 30 0.2%
Other Multifamily 0 0%
HCV Program 336 2.2%
i. Are certain racial/ethnic groups more likely to be residing in one program category of publicly supported housing than other program categories (public housing, projectbased Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) in the jurisdiction?
Table 2: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
Jurisdiction White Black Hispanic
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
Housing Type % % % %
Public Housing - - - -
Project-Based Section 8 18% 7% 64% 11%
Other Multifamily - - - -
HCV Program 24% 8% 62% 5%
Total Households 8,785 355 3,515 1,645
0-30% of AMI 51.2% 2.9% 31.6% 11.5%
0-50% of AMI 49.6% 1.6% 35.1% 10.9%
0-80% of AMI 52.5% 1.3% 33.9% 9.4%
Region White Black Hispanic
Asian or
Pacific
Islander
Housing Type % % % %
Public Housing - - - -
Project-Based Section 8 26.08% 3.41% 15.07% 47.40%
Other Multifamily 26.59% 3.02% 22.05% 47.13%
HCV Program 17.44% 12.66% 32.01% 37.20%
Total Households 276,844 16,174 128,660 206,367
0-30% of AMI 33.36% 4.02% 30.80% 29.24%
0-50% of AMI 35.03% 3.62% 32.38% 26.55%
0-80% of AMI 35.60% 3.45% 32.09% 26.42%
In Morgan Hill, Hispanic households account for a majority of households occupying ProjectBased Section 8 housing and utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers. White households represent the second highest percentage of households occupying Project-Based Section 8 housing and

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-91 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 utilizing Housing Choice Vouchers. There is no public housing or Other Multifamily housing in Morgan Hill. The vast majority of publicly supported housing units are Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units.
ii. Compare the racial/ethnic demographics of each program category of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction to the demographics of the same program category in the region.

Compared to the region, for the categories of publicly supported housing present in Morgan Hill, a higher proportion of residents in Morgan Hill are Hispanic and a lower proportion are Asian or Pacific Islander. This is true for both the Project-Based Section 8 and Housing Choice Voucher programs and is consistent with the demographics of the city in relation to the region. iii. Compare the demographics, in terms of protected class, of residents of each program category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, and HCV) to the population in general, and persons who meet the income eligibility requirements for the relevant program category of publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region. Include in the comparison, a description of whether there is a higher or lower proportion of groups based on protected class.

In Morgan Hill, White households appear to be underrepresented in Project-Based Section 8 housing and as HCV holders in comparison to the income-eligible population. Black and Hispanic households are overrepresented in Project-Based Section 8 housing and as HCV holders in comparison to the income-eligible population. Asian or Pacific Islander households comprise similar proportions of households in Project-Based Section 8 housing and as HCV holders compared to their share of the income eligible population. b. Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
i. Describe patterns in the geographic location of publicly supported housing by program category (public housing, project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, HCV, and LIHTC) in relation to previously discussed segregated areas and R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-92 Map 1: Publicly Supported Housing. Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-93 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 2: Subsidized Housing, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-94 Map 3: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration, Morgan Hill In Morgan Hill, hard units of publicly supported are concentrated in the center of the city. There are zero hard units east of the South Valley Freeway (Highway 101). The same holds true of HCV holders. HCV holders are also concentrated in the center of the city and zero HCV holders east of the south valley freeway (Highway 101).
i. Describe patterns in the geographic location for publicly supported housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities in relation to previously discussed segregated areas or R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region.

There are no R/ECAPs in Morgan Hill.
ii. How does the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing in R/ECAPS compare to the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing outside of R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region? Table 3: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics by R/ECAP and Non R/ECAP Tracts Jurisdiction
Total #
units
(occupied
)
%
White
%
Black
%
Hispanic
% Asian
or
Pacific
Islander
%
Families
with
children
%
Elderly
% with a
disability

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-95 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Public
Housing
R/ECAP
tracts N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Non R/ECAP
tracts N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Projectbased
Section 8
R/ECAP
tracts

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Non-R/ECAP
tracts 29 18% 7% 64% 11% 18% 79% 7%
Other
Multifamily
R/ECAP
tracts

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Non R/ECAP
tracts

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
HCV
Program
R/ECAP
tracts

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Non R/ECAP
tracts 336 24% 8% 62% 5% 42% 36% 19%
i. Do any developments of public housing, properties converted under the RAD, and LIHTC developments have a significantly different demographic composition, in terms of protected class, than other developments of the same category for the jurisdiction? Describe how these developments differ.

Table 4: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
Project-Based Section 8
Jurisdiction
# Units Whit
e
Black Hispani
c
Asia
n
Household
s with
Children
Park Place 10 *4 * * * *
Sycamore Glen 20 32% 0% 52% 16% 0%
In Morgan Hill, the Park Place housing development, which is a Project-Based Section 8 housing, is much more White than other Project-Based Section 8 housing in the city. Hispanic households make up the majority of Project-Based Section 8 households throughout the city. The Sycamore Glen housing development, which is also Project-Based Section 8 housing, has a higher percentage of White and Asian or Pacific Islander households when compared to other ProjectBased Section 8 housing in the city. Conversely, Black and Hispanic households are underrepresented in Sycamore Glen when compared to Project-Based Section 8 housing 4 Data suppressed because of small number of units.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-96 throughout the city. Data regarding the occupancy of Park Place is suppressed due to the small number of units, but it can be inferred that a higher percentage of residents are Black or Hispanic than at Sycamore Glen. This is the case because there are just two Project-Based Section 8 developments in the city, so Park Place, by necessity, must comprise the units that make of the remainder of the citywide aggregate figures for the program after Sycamore Glen is considered. i. Provide additional relevant information, if any, about occupancy, by protected class, in other types of publicly supported housing for the jurisdiction and region.

Demographic information about LIHTC housing in Morgan Hill is not available though it is likely that a greater proportion of such housing is available to families with children than is true for Project-Based Section 8 and Other Multifamily housing.

Additionally, in 2021, Morgan Hill updated its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which requires that any new housing development of two or more units reserve at least 10% or 15% (depending on location) of units for occupancy by very low, low, and moderate-income households. The updated ordinance also clarifies whether ownership or rental units are required based on income levels.

The City currently has a balance of $5,712,128.73 in in-lieu fees and of $4,315,833.75 redevelopment successor agency funds. Such financial resources are essential for efforts to create extremely low-income units, which typically cannot be produced through crosssubsidization in inclusionary developments alone. i. Compare the demographics of occupants of developments in the jurisdiction, for each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted developments, properties converted under RAD, and LIHTC) to the demographic composition of the areas in which they are located. For the jurisdiction, describe whether developments that are primarily occupied by one race/ethnicity are located in areas occupied largely by the same race/ethnicity.

Describe any differences for housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities.

Table 5: Publicly Supported Housing Demographics and Surrounding Census Tract Demographics
Prog
ram
Type
Proje
ct
Name
Uni
ts
in
Pro
ject
Pr
op
ert
y
W
hit
e
(%
)
Pro
pert
y
Blac
k
(%)
Pr
op
ert
y
Hi
sp
ani
c
(%
)
Pro
per
ty
Asi
an
(%)
Hous
ehold
s
with
child
ren
in the
devel
opme
nt
Cen
sus
Trac
t
Num
ber
Trac
t
Whit
e %
Tra
ct
Bla
ck
(%)
Trac
t
His
pani
c
(%)
Tra
ct
Asi
an
(%)
Cen
sus
Trac
t
Pov
erty
Rate
PBR
A
Park
Place
10 - - - - - 5123
.13

29.7 %

3.6 %

52.7 %

10. 7%

9.0 %
PBR
A
Syca
more
Glen
20 32
%
0% 52
%
16 %
0% 5123
.13

29.7 %

3.6 %

52.7 %

10. 7%

9.0 %

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-97 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 It is likely that the Park Place housing development is located in a census tract that is less White than the housing development. The census tract has more Black, Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander households than the Park Place housing development likely has.

The Sycamore Glen housing development is located in a census tract that is less White and Asian or Pacific Islander than the housing development. Sycamore Glen also has a lower percentage of Black households than the census tract in which it is located. The percentages of Hispanic households are similar between the Sycamore Glen development and its census tract. c. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
i. Describe any disparities in access to opportunity for residents of publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region, including within different program categories (public housing, project-based Section 8, Other Multifamily Assisted Developments, HCV, and LIHTC) and between types (housing primarily serving families with children, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities) of publicly supported housing.

Overall, publicly supported housing in Morgan Hill is concentrated in the center of the city. There is little to no publicly supported housing in the eastern portion of the city. The eastern portion of Morgan Hill has the greatest access to proficient schools. The center portion of the city has low access to proficient schools. Therefore, in Morgan Hill, households living in publicly supported housing are more likely to live in areas with lower access to proficient schools.

Contributing Factors of Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues related to publicly supported housing, including Segregation, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.

Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy:
• Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing
• Community opposition
• Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• Displacement of and/or lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking
• Impediments to mobility
• Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs • Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency • Lack of local or regional cooperation
• Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
• Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services and amenities
• Land use and zoning laws
• Loss of affordable housing

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5-98 • Occupancy codes and restrictions
• Quality of affordable housing information programs
• Siting selection policies, practices, and decisions for publicly supported housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs • Source of income discrimination

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-99 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 d. Disability and Access Analysis
In 1988, Congress extended the Fair Housing Act’s protections against housing discrimination to people with disabilities. In addition to protection against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies that have disproportionate effects, the Fair Housing Act includes three provisions that are unique to persons with disabilities. First, the Fair Housing Act prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities if said accommodations are necessary to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Reasonable accommodations are departures from facially neutral policies and are generally available, so long as granting the accommodation request would not place an undue burden on the party providing the accommodation or result in a direct threat to the health or safety of others. Permitting an individual with an anxiety disorder to have a dog in their rental unit as an emotional support animal despite a broad “no pets” policy is an example of a reasonable accommodation. Second, the Act also prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. Modifications involve physical alterations to a unit, such as the construction of a ramp or the widening of a door frame, and must be paid for by the person requesting the accommodation unless the unit receives federal financial assistance and is subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Lastly, the design and construction provision of the Fair Housing Act requires most multi-family housing constructed since 1991 to have certain accessibility features. This section of the Assessment looks at the housing barriers faced by persons with disabilities, including those that result in the segregation of persons with disabilities in institutions and other congregate settings.

1. Population Profile

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 100
Map 1: Disability by Type (Hearing, Vision, Cognitive), Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-101 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 2: Disability by Type (Ambulatory, Self-Care, Independent), Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 102
Map 3: Disability by Age, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-103 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Map 4: Population with a Disability, Morgan Hill

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 104
Table 1: Disability by Type, Morgan Hill
Disability Type # %
Hearing Difficulty 1,282 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 725 1.6%
Cognitive Difficulty 1,509 3.6%
Ambulatory Difficulty 1,881 4.5%
Self-Care Difficulty 885 2.1%
Independent Living
Difficulty
1,381 4.2%

1.a. How are people with disabilities geographically dispersed or concentrated in the jurisdiction and region, including R/ECAPs and other segregated areas identified in previous sections?
ACS Disability Information
Morgan Hill has a moderate proportion of residents with disabilities. According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate, roughly 4,033 residents of Morgan Hill have disabilities—9.1% of the total population.5 Of the non-institutionalized residents, 1,881 have ambulatory difficulties6
; 1,282 have hearing difficulties; 1,381 have independent living difficulties, 1,509 have cognitive difficulties; 885 have self-care difficulties, and 725 have vision difficulties.7

Of the total population of people with disabilities, 106 individuals or approximately 2.6 percent of people with disabilities in Morgan Hill between the age of 20 to 64 have incomes below the poverty line, by contrast, 852 individuals below the poverty line do not have a disability.8 Median earnings for people without disabilities in Morgan Hill is $58,721, while it is only $34,700 for people with disabilities.9 This disparity in income between individuals with or without a disability means that individuals without a disability have median earnings that are $20,000 dollars more than those with a disability. The economic gap for people with disabilities is likely even greater in reality, as the data does not include institutionalized individuals. There is not census data categorized by disability type for individuals living below the poverty line in Morgan Hill, so it is difficult to ascertain how many residents are in need of accessible and affordable units. Furthermore, the data does 5https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=morgan%20hill&t=Disability&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S1810 6 The definition of ambulatory disabilities is “having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.” People with ambulatory disabilities may not need a fully accessible unit, particularly if they do not use wheelchairs. They may require a unit on the ground floor or in an elevator building, perhaps with some architectural modifications. Therefore, ambulatory disabilities is not a perfect indicator of the number of accessible mobility units needed since some people with ambulatory disabilities do not necessarily move to a wheelchair. 7 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=morgan%20hill&t=Disability&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S1810 8https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Morgan%20Hill,%20California%20Income%20and%20Poverty&t=Di sability&tid=ACSDT5Y2020.B23024
9https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Morgan%20Hill,%20California%20Income%20and%20Poverty&t=Di sability

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-105 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 not indicate how much overlap there is between these categories, nor does the data say how many of those individuals need accessible units.10
Geographic Concentration and Patterns
People with disabilities in Morgan Hill are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city but more individuals with hearing or cognitive difficulties tend to be concentrated in two census tracts:
5123.14 and 5123.09, while individuals with ambulatory and independent living difficulties are more concentrated in the central and western portions of the city with some residents dispersed throughout the eastside, however, very few residents with these types of disabilities live near the central corridor. No R/ECAPs are displayed on the map of Morgan Hill.

1.b. Describe whether these geographic patterns vary for people with each type of disability or for people with disabilities in different age ranges for the jurisdiction and region.

Individuals with ambulatory disabilities are most numerous but are dispersed relatively evenly throughout the city. All categories of disabilities become more prevalent as individuals age, with the number of people in the region 65 and over (4,001) with a disability outnumbering the amount of people under 65 (2,265) with a disability. People above 65 with disabilities are also relatively evenly distributed throughout the city. In terms of age, individuals between the age of 18 to 64 are mostly concentrated in the norther side of the City, individuals over 64 tend to be clustered in the central and western portions of the city and the few individuals below the age of 18 appear to be scattered throughout in no discernible pattern.

2. Housing Accessibility

2.a. Describe whether the jurisdiction and region have sufficient affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.

Accessibility Requirement for Federally-Funded Housing
HUD’s implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (24 CFR Part 8) requires that publicly supported federal housing developments make 1) five percent (5%) of total units accessible to individuals with mobility impairments and 2) an additional two percent (2%) of total units accessible to individuals with sensory disabilities.11 It requires that each property, including site and common areas, meet the Federal Uniform Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or HUD’s Alternative Accessibility Standard. Public Housing and Project-Based Section 8 units are both considered to be Publicly Supported Housing subject to its mandate.

In Morgan Hill, there are 0 public housing units and 30 Project-Based Section 8 units, all of which are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. As of 2020, 7% of residents living in ProjectBased Section 8 units in Morgan Hill are persons with disabilities, but it is unknown how many of the Project-Based Section 8 units are accessible or what portion of the 7% require accessible units. It is also possible that more than 7% of Project-Based Section 8 residents have disabilities but that there is an undercount because publicly supported housing developments often classify residents as elderly or as having a disability but not as both. This occurs even though elderly individuals are more likely to have disabilities than the broader population. Assuming that each of 11 24 CFR § 8.22 (b).

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 106
Morgan Hill’s two Project-Based Section 8 developments has the number of accessible units required by Section 504, there would be two units accessible to individuals with mobility disabilities and two units accessible to individuals with sensory disabilities in the city – one of each type of accessible unit in each development.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Units
According to data from HUD’s LIHTC database, there are 1,009 low-income units in LIHTCfinanced developments in Morgan Hill.

The question of whether Section 504 or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to LIHTC developments has not been resolved by the courts.12 However, in 2015, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) issued guidance stating that the California Building Code (CBC) for public housing (Chapter 11B) accessibility requirements also apply to LIHTC developments. Chapter 11B is the California equivalent of the 2010 ADA Standards. Section

1.9.1.2.1. of the CBC states that the accessibility requirements apply to “any building, structure, facility, complex . . . used by the general public.” Facilities made available to the public, include privately owned buildings. CTCAC has even increased the ADA’s required number of units: 10% of total units in a LIHTC development must be accessible to people with mobility disabilities and 4% must be accessible to people with sensory (hearing/vision) disabilities. All but one of Morgan Hill’s LIHTC developments predate these requirements, so it is difficult to say if any units are fully accessible for building constructed prior to 2015 (though all of the city’s LIHTC developments were subject to the Fair Housing Act’s less extensive design and construction standards at the time of construction). The only site post-dating this law is the Morgan Hill Family-Scattered Site newly constructed in 2018 which offer four bedrooms accessible to individuals with mobility impairments and one unit for individuals with sensory impairments.

Also, effective 2015, CTCAC requires that 50% of total units in a new construction project and 25% of all units in a rehabilitation project located on an accessible path be mobility accessible units in accordance with CBC Chapter 11B. CTAC also provides incentives for developers to include additional accessible units through its Qualified Allocation Plan. Morgan Hill does not have readily available information on new construction or rehabilitation projects on accessible paths, so there is some uncertainty in calculating a definitive number of units.

Housing Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers make otherwise unaffordable housing in the private market, which may or may not be accessible, available to low-income people, including those with disabilities. There are 336 Housing Choice Vouchers in use in Morgan Hill. Of this total, 19% of individuals in households with vouchers are people with disabilities. However, this does not represent a proxy for actual accessible units, as it is not certain that the 19% of tenants with disabilities actually live in accessible units within the publicly supported housing. Unless another source of federal financial assistance is present, units assisted with Housing Choice Vouchers are not subject to Section 504. Of course, participating landlords remain subject to the Fair Housing Act’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations and to allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense. Even assuming that all 19% of people with disabilities using vouchers have 12 Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all service, programs, and activities provided to the public by non-federal governmental entities except transportation services. The 2010 ADA Standards (ADAS) differ from Section 504 in some respects but essentially, they contain the same types of requirements including the requirement for 5% mobility units and 2% hearing/vision units.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-107 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 accessible units, which is almost certainly an overestimation, the absolute number of accessible units is 64.

Fair Housing Amendments Act Units
The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) covers all multifamily buildings of four or more units that were first occupied on or after March 13, 1991 – not just affordable housing developments. The FHAA added protections for people with disabilities and prescribed certain basic accessibility standards, such as having at least one building entrance that is accessible; an accessible route throughout the development; and public rooms and common rooms that are accessible. 42 U.S.C.§ 3604(f)(3)(c). Although these accessibility requirements are not as extensive as those of Section 504, they were an important first step in making many apartment developments accessible to people with disabilities. Given its broad application to housing, regardless of federal funding, the FHAA has benefited many middle-income and upper-income people with disabilities who also need accessible housing. Notwithstanding the fact that units subject to the FHAA are not fully accessible, these units are an important source of housing for people with disabilities.

In Morgan Hill, there are 580 units in structures with five or more units that have been built from 2000 to the present and a further 596 built from 1980 through 1999. Because the FHAA does not mandate a certain number of accessible units like Section 504 or ADA Title II, it cannot be utilized as a proxy for the number of accessible housing units available. Additionally, it is not possible to determine the number of units in structures with exactly four units built from 1991 to the present as the American Community Survey reports individual units in four-unit structures in a combined category with duplexes and triplexes.

Accessible Units for Families with Children.

Unfortunately, data breaking down the number of private affordable, accessible units by number of bedrooms is not available. For Publicly Supported Housing, most (64%) of Project-Based Section 8 units are studios or one-bedroom units while 36% have three or more units. This suggests that one of the two developments in the city is oriented towards seniors while the other is family-occupancy. For Housing Choice Vouchers, there is a more even distribution of unit sizes for families, as 29% of HCVs holders live in studio or one-bedroom units, while 37% live in twobedroom units, and 34% live in units with three or more bedrooms.

Table 2, Publicly Supported Housing by Units and Households with Children Households in
0-1 Bedroom
Units
Households in
2 Bedroom
Units
Households in
3+ Bedroom
Units
Households
with Children
Housing Type % % % %
Public Housing N/A N/A N/A N/a
Project-Based
Section 8 64% 0% 36% 18%
Other Multifamily N/A N/A N/A N/A

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 108
HCV Program 29% 37% 34% 42%
Summary
The supply of affordable, accessible units in Morgan Hill is insufficient to meet the need. In the city, some 1,282 residents have a hearing difficulty, 725 residents have a vision difficulty, and 1,881 residents have an ambulatory difficulty, potentially requiring the use of accessible units.

Assuming full compliance with federal law and regulations, the only accessible units that can be confirmed with certainty are the four Section 8 units subject to Section 504’s requirements and the 5 LIHTC units mandated by its California regulatory equivalent.

2.b. Describe the areas where affordable, accessible housing units are located in the jurisdiction and region. Do they align with R/ECAPs or other areas that are segregated? Affordable, accessible housing is mostly concentrated in neighborhoods adjacent to Monterey Road. This area has the highest percentage of voucher holders and LIHTC developments.

Morgan Hill does not have any R/ECAPS, however, there is a large concentration of Hispanic residents living in the same area where voucher holders are present in higher numbers.

2.c. To what extent are people with different disabilities able to access and live in the different categories of publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region? Table 3: Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category Morgan Hill
People with a Disability
%
Public Housing N/A
Project-Based Section 8 7%
Other Multifamily N/A
HCV Program 19%
The American Community Survey does not facilitate the disaggregation of the population of people with disabilities by income, so it is impossible to determine what percentage of households that are income-eligible for Publicly Supported Housing include one or more people with disabilities. As the table above reflects, the portion of people with disabilities appears to be overrepresented in HCVs and underrepresented at project-based-voucher properties.

3. Integration of People with Disabilities Living in Institutions and Other Segregated Settings

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-109 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022

3.a. To what extent do people with disabilities in or from the jurisdiction or region reside in segregated or integrated settings?
Up until a wave of policy reforms and court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, states, including California, primarily housed people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and individuals with psychiatric disabilities in large state-run institutions. In California, institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are called developmental centers, and institutions for people with psychiatric disabilities are called state hospitals. Within these institutions, people with disabilities have had few opportunities for meaningful interaction with individuals without disabilities, limited access to education and employment, and a lack of individual autonomy.

The transition away from housing people with disabilities in institutional settings and toward providing housing and services in home and community-based settings accelerated with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1991 and the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that, under the regulations of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) implementing Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if a state or local government provides supportive services to people with disabilities, it must do so in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of a person with a disability and consistent with their informed choice. This obligation is not absolute and is subject to the ADA defense that providing services in a more integrated setting would constitute a fundamental alteration of the state or local government’s programs.

The transition from widespread institutionalization to community integration has not always been linear, and concepts of what comprises a home and community-based setting have evolved over time. Although it is clear that developmental centers and state hospitals are segregated settings and that an individual’s own house or apartment in a development where the vast majority of residents are individuals without disabilities is an integrated setting, significant ambiguities remain. Nursing homes and intermediate care facilities are clearly segregated though not to the same degree as state institutions. Group homes fall somewhere between truly integrated supported housing and such segregated settings, and the degree of integration present in group homes often corresponds to their size.

Below, this assessment includes detailed information about the degree to which people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and individuals with psychiatric disabilities reside in integrated or segregated settings. The selection of these two areas of focus does not mean that people with other types of disabilities are never subject to segregation. Although the State of California did not operate analogous institutions on the same scale for people with ambulatory or sensory disabilities, for example, many people with disabilities of varying types face segregation in nursing homes. Data concerning people with various disabilities residing in nursing homes is not as available as data relating specifically to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and people with psychiatric disabilities.

Table 4: Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Performance of Tri-Counties Regional Center, December 2018
Dec. 2018 Performance
Reports
Fewer
consumers
live in
developme
ntal
centers
More
children
live with
families
More
adults
live in
home
settings
Fewer
children
live in
large
facilities
(more
Fewer
adults
live in
large
facilities
(more

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 110
than 6
people)
than 6
people)
State Average 0.21% 99.32% 79.61% 0.04% 2.47%
San Andreas Regional
Center

0.04% 98.95% 78.32% 0.04% 1.58%
In California, a system of regional centers is responsible for coordinating the delivery of supportive services primarily to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The regional centers serve individuals with intellectual disabilities, individuals with autism spectrum disorder, individuals with epilepsy, and cerebral palsy. These disabilities may be co-occurring. Although there is some variation from regional center to regional center, individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with autism spectrum disorder predominate among consumers. All data regarding the regional centers is drawn from their annual performance reports.

In the region, there is one regional center – the San Andreas Regional Center – that serves all of Santa Clara County and San Benito County, as well as Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties just to the south and southwest of the region. Unfortunately, the San Andreas Regional Center does not disaggregate its publicly reported data by county or city to allow a Santa Clara County-specific or city-specific analysis. Nonetheless, since Santa Clara County is significantly larger than the other three counties combined, most of what is reflected in data from the San Andreas Regional Center reflects conditions in Santa Clara County, though Morgan Hill is not representative of Santa Clara county as a whole.

On an annual basis, these regional centers report to the California Department of Developmental Services on their performance in relation to benchmarks for achieving community integration of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. As reflected in the table above, the San Andreas Regional Center simultaneously has lower rates of persons with developmental disabilities living in institutional settings but also lower rates of persons with developmental disabilities living in home or family-based settings than statewide. In some cases, disparities between the San Andreas Regional Center and the state are very small and may not support an inference that structural factors are playing a particularly acute role in perpetuating the segregation of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the region.

California is in the process of closing all development centers to transition these residents into the community. At the end of 2018, the California Department of Developmental Services closed the Sonoma Developmental Center, which was the last remaining large, state-run institution for persons with developmental disabilities in the Bay Area. Porterville Developmental Center, located in the Central Valley, is the closest remaining institution to Morgan Hill. The facility was scheduled to close by the end of 2021 but remains open with no new closure date announced.

As of November 2019, there were between 1 and 10 individuals from the area served by the San Andreas Regional Center residing in developmental centers like the Porterville Developmental Center.

The San Andreas Regional Center reports the number of individuals served by type of setting by race or ethnicity. The categories included are Home, Residential, ILS/SLS, Institutions, Med/Rehab/Psych, and Other. The category of Home includes the home of a parent or guardian,

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-111 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 a foster home for children, and a family home for adults. The category of Residential includes community care facilities and intermediate care facilities (ICFs) and continuous nursing. The category of ILS/SLS solely includes independent living and supported living. Institutions include developmental centers, state hospitals, and correctional institutions. The category of Med/Rehab/Psych includes skilled nursing facilities, psychiatric treatment facilities, rehabilitation centers, sub-acute care, and community treatment facilities. The Other category includes individuals who are homeless as well as individuals who do not fall into any category (and one individual living outside of California). In general, Home and ILS/SLS settings are the most integrated, and Institutions and Med/Rehab/Psych are the most segregated. Residential settings fall somewhere in between with community care facilities being more integrated than ICFs within the category. Clearly, homelessness is not consistent with meaningful community integration. The table below reflects the percentage of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities served in each type of setting.

Table 5 – Type of Setting by Race or Ethnicity, San Andreas Regional Center, 2018-2019 Type of Setting Total
Served
% NonHispanic
White
% Black % Asian
or Pacific
Islander
%
Hispanic
% Other
or MultiRacial
Home 17,265 20.7% 1.6% 21.1% 42.7% 13.1%
Residential 1,859 59.0% 3.8% 11.3% 19.3% 6.2%
ILS/SLS 1,229 62.2% 4.8% 6.5% 20.6% 5.6%
Institutions 20 25.0% 5.0% 20.0% 35.0% 15.0%
Med/Rehab/Psyc
h
81 40.7% 3.7% 18.5% 28.4% 7.4%
Other 65 40.0% 9.2% 4.6% 33.8% 12.3%
In the service area of the San Andreas Regional Center, Asian or Pacific Islander residents appear to be underrepresented in the population receiving services for intellectual and developmental disabilities. With respect to individual types of settings, Hispanic residents are most likely to reside in home-based settings while White residents have the greatest access to independent living and supported living environments. Black residents are overrepresented in Institutions and Other, which includes homelessness. This data suggests that, for Black individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the effects of mass incarceration on their prospects for integration may be compounded by both race and disability status. The high representation of Hispanic residents in home-based settings and their low concentration in independent living and supported living settings may suggest a need for planning around helping adults with developmental disabilities who are living with their parents gain access to and transition to independent living when their parents are no longer able to serve as care providers.

Overall, this data shows that, within the County and the region, persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities are typically at least slightly less likely to be segregated in institutional settings than statewide. The data shows that a minority of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, in particular, reside in comparatively segregated, congregate settings.

It is highly likely that not all persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities who would like to live in integrated settings in the County, the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Mountain View, Palo

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 112
Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale, and the region have the opportunity to do so. The trend in Morgan Hill closely follows the pattern for the region as a whole with more individuals with developmental disabilities living in home settings versus institutionalized ones. Based on its latest Housing Element, Morgan Hill has 235 158 adult residents who live at home with a guardian, 30 43 adult residents living in group homeslicensed facilities, 16 and 21 adult residents living in independentan apartment with supportive services or supportive housing, and 4 residents in “other” housing. 13
Psychiatric Disabilities
Napa State Hospital is the primary large institution for individuals with psychiatric disabilities serving the part of California including Morgan Hill. As of November 2016, the facility had 1,267 patients, slightly over its official capacity of 1,255 beds. The hospital’s website breaks down the patient population among four categories of admittees. 47% were committed by virtue of being found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity. 30% were committed because they had been found incompetent to stand trial. 17% were civilly committed. Lastly, 6% were classified as mentally disordered offenders. Thus, a significant majority of individuals with psychiatric disabilities institutionalized within Northern California reside in institutions because of contact with the criminal justice.

The Department of State Hospitals does not disaggregate publicly available data about patients by county of origin nor does it disaggregate detailed demographic data about patients by hospital.

Nonetheless, some system-wide information is useful. Across California, those institutionalized in state hospitals are disproportionally male (87%), Black (25%), and have low levels of educational attainment (79% lack a high school diploma). This data is consistent with the fact that the criminal justice system is the primary gateway into the state hospital system. 4.3% of all residents of state hospitals and participants in jail-based mental health treatment statewide are from Santa Clara County. The most common diagnosis for patients (40%) is schizophrenia followed by schizoaffective disorder (24%). Interventions, like those offered through the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services’ Criminal Justice Services program, that target non-punitive services to children and transition-age youth in overpoliced, disproportionately Hispanic and Black communities in the County could advance efforts to reduce the institutionalization of persons with psychiatric disabilities in state hospitals, jails, and prisons.

Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services is responsible for coordinating the provision of supportive services for persons with psychiatric disabilities in Santa Clara County, including Morgan Hill. The only facility in Morgan Hill that provides residential psychiatric services is Community Solutions La Casa Del Puente Treatment Center, there are also facilities nearby in San Jose and Santa Cruz. Gradually phasing out the use of these inpatient settings and reducing their scale while increasing the availability of supportive housing, with intensive services and supports if needed and chosen by the patient, would increase the integration of persons with psychiatric disabilities in Santa Clara County.

3.b. Describe the range of options for people with disabilities to access affordable housing and supportive services in the jurisdiction and region.

Morgan Hill does not have specific programs to assist people with disabilities in accessing housing. Through its partnership with Housekeys, the City administers the below market rate 13 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40365/DRAFT-H1_MHHE_Housing_Needs_Assessment?bidId=

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-113 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 rental program to assist low-income individuals in becoming homeowners, which would theoretically help people with disabilities, given their on-average lower earnings. The City also partners with a number of organizations that help seniors obtain housing, who are more likely to have disabilities. The City also provides a database on its website that links to various low-income housing resources including a list of existing and planned affordable housing and supportive services throughout the City and region. 14
In Santa Clara County, the primary source of affordable housing available to persons with disabilities consists of permanent supportive housing built with the assistance of Measure A bond funds. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing has prioritized the use of Measure A funds for permanent supportive housing, specifically seeking developments in which at least 50% of units are permanent supportive housing through its notice of funding availability. Although early funded developments focused most heavily on meeting the housing needs of chronically homeless individuals with disabilities who frequently have psychiatric disabilities, the County’s most recent notice of funding availability includes a set-aside of funds for development of permanent supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities. One concern is that 50% is a higher concentration of persons with disabilities than is typically considered truly integrated when developing permanent supportive housing. Reducing that target to 25% would foster community integration while still yielding a large number of units. Still, the Measure A Bond have been somewhat successful in expanding affordable accessible housing with at least 1,690 units approved for construction to meet the needs of the chronically homeless and persons with disabilities and their families. 15
Additionally, the Santa Clara County Housing Authority has multiple waiting list preferences that have the effect of increasing access to affordable housing for persons with disabilities. These include its Chronically Homeless Direct Referral Program, Special Needs Population Direct Referral Program, Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, and Mainstream Voucher Program. These programs likely contribute to the higher levels of access that persons with disabilities have to the Housing Choice Voucher program in Santa Clara County and its cities than they do to other publicly supported housing programs.

Morgan Hill has been able to construct one building with supportive housing units and is planning to develop a second project through funding provided by Measure A bonds.16 Opened since January 2020, the Crossings on Monterrey is an affordable housing development offering 39 affordable units, 20 of which are reserved for supportive housing needs. The other development, Royal Oak Village, will provide 71 units with 18 reserved for supportive housing at completion.

The City also has several affordable housing developments targeting seniors including: Sycamore Glen, Horizons, Bella Terra Apartments, the Lodge at Morgan Hill, and the Huntington. Because seniors will often have disabilities as well, these developments also provide affordable housing for elderly residents with disabilities.17

4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
14 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19598/Housing-Resource-Guide-Updated-08- 20-2021?bidId=
15 https://osh.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb671/files/documents/Measure%20A%201- pager%202022%20-%20Final.pdf
16 https://housingtoolkit.sccgov.org/tools/supportive-housing-map 17 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19598/Housing-Resource-Guide-Updated-08- 20-2021?bidId=

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 114

4.a. To what extent are people with disabilities able to access the following in the jurisdiction and region? Identify major barriers faced concerning:
i. Government services and facilities
Morgan Hill’s website does not provide information on its accessibility policies, except for stating its guarantee that its website itself is accessible and compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. There does not appear to be information about filing a complaint or grievance related to disabilities. If the City has an ADA/504 coordinator, they have not made that information easily accessible. The City’s zoning code does provide a procedure to request a reasonable accommodation in land use, zoning, and building regulations for individuals with a disability.18 Notice of an individual’s right to request a reasonable accommodation will be posted in City Hall and forms to apply for one will also be available there. ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals) Although the City does not have ordinances related to accessible public infrastructure requirements, it has passed several community development policies that touch upon this issue.

First, recreational activities must be accessible to individuals with a disability.19 Second, “all facilities shall comply with State and Federal accessibility codes and standards” including the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and California Access Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulation).20
iii. Transportation
Morgan Hill is part of the regional Community Based Transportation Plan and recently conducted a study to identify the transportation needs of its residents with a particular focus on vulnerable communities. 21 One project designed to further transit access is the Morgan Hill Transit Center, a regional transportation hub in the southern part of Santa Clara County. Presently the site provides a designated area for individuals with disabilities to board the train and shaded waiting areas. Two accommodations that provide easier and safer access to transit. In its downtown area, the City plans to build several pedestrian improvements including more accessible sidewalks for residents. Additional transportation supports for individuals with disabilities are available through the VTA which provides paratransit services though those services can be expensive and timeconsuming. iv. Proficient schools and educational programs
The Morgan Hill Unified School District provides a range of disability services for residents up to the age of 22. Such programming includes “Individualized Education Planning,” which is a plan designed to meet the individual needs of the student based on adequate assessment.22 The District also offers an employment training program called the “Transition Partnership Program to students ranging from 14 to 22, that gives mentorship, general training, and job opportunities to program participants. Despite these available services, students with disabilities in Morgan Hill 18 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, § 18.118.010.
19 C.D. 18.a
20 C.D. 18.e
21 https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/Morgan%20Hill_CBTP_Report%20Final.pdf 22 https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/as/caselpas.asp

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-115 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 rank 15th out of 28 districts in math and reading comprehension with only 18% of these students deemed proficient in English and only 12% deemed proficient in math.23 v. Jobs
Data in Morgan Hill shows that for the most part very few individuals with disabilities are employed, comprising less than 3.4% of the total labor force.24 The data also shows that the median wage for these employees is also nearly 20,000 dollars less than for individuals without a disability.

When compared to the County as a whole, there is a significant disparity in employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities in Morgan Hill with a notably lower percentage of residents actively employed. It is clear that people with disabilities face many barriers in obtaining employment. It should be noted that the table includes elderly individuals in the population assessed. That may make this data seem more dramatic than it truly is, but low levels of access to employment for people with disabilities nonetheless remain a problem.

Few job training programs are available locally in Morgan Hill, but there is a vocational services program called Social Vocational Services in San Jose that provides educational training and supports for those with cognitive impairments.25
Table 6: 2013-2017 ACS 5-year Estimates, civilian noninstitutionalized population with disabilities aged 16 and over, employment and disability % in Labor
Force
% Employed
Santa Clara County 24.4% 21.4%
San Jose-Sunnyvale, Santa
Clara, CA Region

24.5% 21.5%
Morgan Hill 3.6% 3.4%
The table below corroborates this trend, showing low levels of employment for persons with developmental disabilities who receive services through the San Andreas Regional Center. The San Andreas Regional Center appears to slightly lag statewide averages with respect to the percentage of individuals with earned income but part of that gap may result from a lower proportion of individuals working in segregated settings like sheltered workshops.

Table 7: 2016 Employment Metrics for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, San Andreas Regional Center
23 https://innovateschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2017-Spotlight-on-Students-with-Disabilitiesin-Schools-within-SJUSD.pdf 24 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Morgan%20Hill&t=Disability&tid=ACSDT5Y2020.C18120 25 https://socialvocationalservices.org/

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 116
Regional
Center
Percentage
of Adults
Earning
Below
Minimum
Wage
Percentage
of
Consumers
with
Earned
Income
Percentage
of Adults
with a Paid
Job in a
CommunityBased
Setting
Percentage
of Adults
with
Integrated
Employmen
t As a Goal
in Their
Individual
Program
Plan
Percentage
of Adults
Current
Unemploye
d But
Wanting a
Job in the
Community
State Average 57% 14.2% 13% 27% 45%
San Andreas
Regional
Center 54% 11.3% 13% 23% 45%

4.b. Describe the processes that exist in the jurisdiction and region for people with disabilities to request and obtain reasonable accommodations and accessibility modifications to address the barriers discussed above.
i. Government services and facilities
Morgan Hill’s website includes readily identifiable accessibility pages that provide key information regarding website accessibility and the process for requests related to that subject.26 The website does not have easily identifiable resources regarding how to submit a reasonable accommodation more broadly.

The code of ordinances does provide for a process for applying for a reasonable accommodation in regulations related to zoning and land use. In addition, the City’s website provides information on how to request an accommodation for public hearings and meetings. ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals) Morgan Hill does not have a readily identifiable online tool for requesting accessibility improvements, such as curb cuts.
iii. Transportation
The VTA, which serves Morgan Hill, has a clear, dedicated page that describes its reasonable accommodations process, though it is not specific to Morgan Hill. The VTA’s policy appears to be consistent with legal requirements and best practices.
iv. Proficient schools and educational programs
Morgan Hill school district’s website provides a wealth of information for parents and families in need of special education services. Not only does it provide information on how to access supportive services, the website also offers information on students’ rights and the array of programs available to students in need of special supports. But no information is posted about 26 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/site/accessibility

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-117 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 how to request a reasonable accommodation or the districts’ policies regarding the evaluation of requests. This leaves a gap with respect to students who simultaneously have disabilities, such as mobility impairments, but may not require ongoing special education services. School districts should add content describing their reasonable accommodation policies to their websites. v. Jobs
It is generally very difficult to find information online regarding employers’ reasonable accommodation policies and practices, but the ADA requires most private employers and all state and local entities to provide reasonable accommodations if the requester satisfies the legal conditions for an accommodation.

4.c. Describe any difficulties in achieving homeownership experienced by people with disabilities and by people with different types of disabilities in the jurisdiction and region.

The American Community Survey does not disaggregate disability status by housing tenure.

Accordingly, it is not possible to precisely determine the homeownership rate for people with disabilities. Additionally, this Assessment did not reveal any local studies on homeownership among people with disabilities or lending discrimination against people with disabilities in Morgan Hill. Nationally, people with disabilities often face specific barriers in the mortgage lending process, including disparate treatment by mortgage brokers and failures to treat disability income as income. Despite the shortcomings in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act’s source of income protections, as interpreted by the courts, that law unambiguously prohibits discrimination in mortgage lending on the basis of receipt of Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Income. Thus, people with disabilities have more protection from lending discrimination in California than they do in many other states.

Contributing Factors of Disability and Access
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues related to disability and access, including Segregation, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.

Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Disability and Access:
• Access for persons with disabilities to proficient schools • Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities • Access to transportation for persons with disabilities • Inaccessible public or private infrastructure
• Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs • Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes • Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services; • Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services • Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing; • Lack of local or regional cooperation
• Land use and zoning laws
• Lending discrimination

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 118
• Location of accessible housing
• Loss of Affordable Housing
• Occupancy codes and restrictions
• Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities
• Source of income discrimination
• State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage or prohibit individuals with • Disabilities from living in apartments, family homes, supportive housing, shared housing and other integrated settings

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-119 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 e. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources List and summarize any of the following that have not been resolved:
● A charge or letter of finding from HUD concerning a violation of a civil rights-related law; ● A cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency concerning a violation of a state or local fair housing law; ● Any voluntary compliance agreements, conciliation agreements, or settlement agreements entered into with HUD or the Department of Justice; ● A letter of findings issued by or lawsuit filed or joined by the Department of Justice alleging a pattern or practice or systemic violation of a fair housing or civil rights law; ● A claim under the False Claims Act related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, or civil rights generally, including an alleged failure to affirmatively further fair housing; ● Pending administrative complaints or lawsuits against the locality alleging fair housing violations or discrimination.

Presently, no outstanding fair housing complaints are unresolved in Morgan Hill, however, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Mapping Tool indicates that 12 complaints were made since 2013.27 Of the total complaints, three were for disability discrimination, two were for racial discrimination, and 1 was for familial status discrimination, but no violation was found for any of these 12 complaints.28 Given the relatively small proportion of complaints made, fair housing discrimination is not a pronounced issue here, however, this data alone does not show whether violations occurred but only whether a complaint for the violation was made. Therefore, the information provided should be viewed with this consideration in mind.

Describe any state or local fair housing laws. What characteristics are protected under each law?
California Laws
The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including:
● Advertising
● Application and selection process
● Unlawful evictions
● Terms and conditions of tenancy
● Privileges of occupancy
● Mortgage loans and insurance
● Public and private land use practices
● Unlawful restrictive covenants
The following categories are protected by FEHA:
● Race or color
27 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60 28 Id.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 120
● Ancestry or national origin
● Sex, including Gender, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression ● Marital status
● Source of income
● Sexual orientation
● Familial status (households with children under 18 years of age) ● Religion
● Mental/physical disability
● Medical condition
● Age
● Genetic information
Although an individual with a criminal record is not considered a protected class under the law, new protections are in place to prevent a per se ban on individuals with criminal records. In 2021, California’s Housing and Community Development agency issued regulations regarding the use of criminal records in housing applications. The regulation forbids “any practice of a person that includes seeking information about, consideration of, or use of criminal history information” when it results in a discriminatory effect or constitutes intentional discrimination, or a discriminatory statement. 2 C.C.R. § 12265. It also prohibits a housing provider’s use of blanket bans on tenants with criminal histories and instead, requires the provider to use a multi-factor test to evaluate the applicant. 2 C.C.R. § 12269(5). Additionally, arrests or charges that did not lead to a conviction cannot be used in this criminal history review. 2 C.C.R. § 12265(a-b).

In addition, FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and accessibility provisions as the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. FEHA explicitly provides that violations can be proven through evidence of the unjustified disparate impact of challenged actions and inactions and establishes the burden-shifting framework that courts and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing must use in evaluating disparate impact claims.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical condition” as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. In practice, this has meant that the law protects against arbitrary discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of personal appearance.

Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can include: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage.

The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-121 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act may not be imposed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.

Finally, California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. In addition, this law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person’s citizenship or immigration status.

In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including:
● Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520)
● Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing (SB 2)
● Housing for extremely low income households, including single-room occupancy units (AB 2634)
● Housing for persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812) Although the FEHA purports to protect against source of income discrimination, the provision has been largely toothless. In October of 2019, the governor of California signed into law SB 329, prohibiting discrimination in housing based on source of income statewide.

Jurisdiction Ordinances
The City has passed several ordinances to expand the supply of affordable housing. In 2016, the City passed the Below Market Rate law that implements a program to preserve and increase the construction of affordable housing. The ordinance imposes deed restrictions on owner-based and rental-based properties, identifies eligible participants, and sets out the procedures to register and monitor these units as well as an enforcement provision for violations of the law.29 To supplement and strengthen this law, the City enacted its inclusionary zoning ordinance in 2018. The new law requires that any new housing development of two or more units reserve at least ten percent of units for occupancy by very low, low, and moderate-income households.30 But like other jurisdictions, the City allows for alternative means of satisfying this mandate including the payment of in-lieu fees, the construction of housing off-site or the donation of land for the construction of affordable units. 31 The fees collected are exclusively earmarked for expenditures related to funding affordable housing.32
The City’s existing zoning code also raised potential fair housing related concerns. Previously, the predominating challenge to the expansion of affordable housing in Morgan Hill was its Residential Development and Control Ordinance that limited housing growth and did not exempt affordable housing units from this residential growth cap.33 But in 2020, the State of California passed Senate Bill 330 suspending local ordinances that restrict housing construction until 2030. 29 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 14.12.10.
30 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 14.04.010.
31 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 14.08.010; 14.04.070.
32 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 14.04.080.
33 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 18.156.010.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 122
Since this law is relatively new, the impact of it on local growth cannot be discerned presently.

Moreover, currently, most of the City is zoned for single family homes, and very few districts offer multi-family housing to residents, and of the multi-family housing available, even fewer units are reserved for households in need of low-cost housing.34 This is likely to have a disparate impact on communities of color, individuals on a fixed income such as persons with disabilities, and larger families who are low-income.

Similarly, the City restricts employee housing on agricultural land to “transient labor” meaning agricultural laborers who permanently reside in the area cannot rely on this housing source.35 This is likely to indirectly lead to national origin discrimination because work related immigration status may impact one’s own and one’s family’s access to housing.

The City does provide a reasonable accommodation provision in its zoning code that describes the process for requesting a modification of existing zoning standards.36 This ordinance furthers Fair Housing goals.

Identify any local and regional agencies and organizations that provide fair housing information, outreach, and enforcement, including their capacity and the resources available to them.

Information about service and information providers in Morgan Hill is provided below. There appears to be a gap between the availability of these organizations’ services and public awareness of them. Over half of respondents to a survey conducted by the City of Morgan Hill as part of the community engagement process for this Assessment reported not knowing where they could get help if they experienced housing discrimination, and, of those who said that they did know where to turn, very few referenced the service providers listed below by name.

Morgan Hills Housekeys
Housekeys Inc. is a private company hired by the City to administer its affordable housing program. Housekeys assists residents with affordable home ownership and rental and also educates and assists developers or other entities with the permitting and processing involved in the development of affordable housing. The entity does not provide advocacy related to fair housing but does post fair housing information on its website including several FAQs and Know Your Rights pamphlets.37 Because Housekeys is the primary administrator for affordable housing but offers few supports for individuals concerned with fair housing issues, its range of services are inadequate to meet the fair housing needs of local residents.

Project Sentinel
Project Sentinel is the primary Fair Housing contact in Morgan Hill and is the sole entity identified on the City’s website. It is a non-profit organization focused on assisting in housing discrimination matters, dispute resolution, and housing counseling. Project Sentinel ’s housing practice assists individuals with housing problems such as discrimination, mortgage foreclosure and delinquency, rental issues including repairs, deposits, privacy, dispute resolution, home buyer education, post purchase education, and reverse mortgages. Additionally, their Fair Housing Center provides education and counseling to community members, housing providers, and tenants about fair 34 Morgan Hill Zoning Map, https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/328/Zoning-Map. 35 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 18.124.020. 36 Morgan Hill Muni. Code, 18.118.010
37 https://www.housekeys1.com/fair-housing-information

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-123 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 housing laws, and investigate complaints and advocate for those who have experienced housing discrimination. The City’s website only identifies Project Sentinel as a resource for fair housing advocacy.

Bay Area Legal Aid
BALA represents low- and very low-income residents within their seven county service area, which includes Santa Clara County. Their housing practice provides legal assistance regarding public, subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lockouts and utility shut-offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations.

It’s important to note that Legal Aid is restricted from representing undocumented clients.

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley provides free legal advice and representation to low-income individuals in Santa Clara County. In their housing practice, they assist with defending eviction lawsuits, housing discrimination issues such as reasonable accommodation requests for individuals with disabilities, enforcing the San Jose Tenant Protection Ordinance, legal outreach and support for renter organizing/campaigns, help with housing authority hearings, Section 8 and other low-income housing issues like terminations and eligibility determinations, legal advice and information to tenants regarding notices, and advice and information about foreclosure prevention.

Senior Adults Legal Assistance
SALA is a nonprofit elder law office, providing free legal services to residents of Santa Clara County who are age 60 and older. SALA provides legal services across multiple, non-housing contexts, and in the housing context SALA provides legal assistance in landlord-tenant matters, subsidized/senior housing matters, and mobile home residency matters.

Asian Law Alliance
The Asian Law Alliance provides services at a free or low cost basis to Asian/Pacific and low income people, and offers services in Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, and other languages as needed. In the housing realm, their mission is to ensure access to decent housing, and prevent and combat illegal and discriminatory housing practices.

Santa Clara County Self-Service Center/Family Law Facilitators Office The Santa Clara County Self-Service Center is a program based out of San Jose that provides information on court procedures and referrals to organizations that can provide legal assistance in emergency circumstances including individuals facing eviction. The Center does not provide direct representation nor provide legal advice based on an individual plaintiff’s case, however, it will assist a pro-se individual with filling out paper work and navigating the court system generally.

Department of Fair Employment and Housing
The California DFEH is a state agency dedicated to enforcing California’s civil rights laws. Its mission targets unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, hate

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 124
violence, and human trafficking. Victims of discrimination can submit complaints directly to the department.

Additional Information
Provide additional relevant information, if any, about fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources in the jurisdiction and region.

This Assessment did not reveal any additional relevant information.

Contributing Factors of Fair Housing Enforcement
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues related to fair housing enforcement, including Segregation, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.

Please see the Appendix for the following Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach and Resources:
• Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement • Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations • Lack of state or local fair housing laws
• Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law • Other

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-125 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022

5.4 Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
I. Increase Affordable Housing Opportunities for Protected Class Members in Eastern Morgan Hill.

Although Morgan Hill is a relatively integrated city, affordable housing is not evenly distributed throughout it, with the city’s large number of Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units clustered in or near downtown Morgan Hill. The downtown portions of Morgan Hill tend to have higher concentrations of Hispanic residents and relatively lower access to proficient schools than do areas to the east. Additionally, an outsized share of undeveloped land that is within the City’s sphere of influence is in the eastern part of the city or in neighboring unincorporated areas. As these areas are likely to see significant market-rate development, ensuring the availability of affordable housing in these areas will help ensure inclusion and access to opportunity. a. Identify opportunities and sites for affordable housing development in eastern Morgan Hill.

Although the City of Morgan Hill has sufficient permitted development in its pipeline to ensure that it does not need to identify additional sites to meet its RHNA targets, identifying sites in eastern Morgan Hill would advance the goal of fostering greater integration and ensure a steady supply of affordable housing in the future. Additionally, identifying sites for affordable housing in eastern Morgan Hill now for purposes of the City’s next Housing Element could increase the likelihood of 100% affordable housing developments and units for extremely low-income households created separately from affordable housing created through mandatory inclusionary housing. Prioritize the housing subsidies in eastern Morgan Hill to achieve affordability set-asides and depth of affordability exceeding the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

For developments that are in the pipeline but for which the final mix of affordability levels is not yet determined, the City should prioritize making funds available to developments in eastern Morgan Hill where a higher percentage of affordable units and units affordable at lower income levels would help foster greater integration and access to proficient schools. b. Study the creation of affordable housing overlay districts in advance of the next Housing Element cycle.

For future Housing Element cycles, zoning changes may be necessary in Morgan Hill. Affordable housing overlay districts are a tool that can help meet the need for units for very low- and extremely low-income households while avoiding the opportunity cost of scarce rezoned sites being snatched up for predominantly market-rate development.

II. Protect Tenants from Displacement.

Morgan Hill has a significant homeownership gap with 80.6% of White households owning their homes as opposed to just 53.3% of Hispanic households. While homeownership can protect residents from the impact of rising housing costs, tenants are left vulnerable. A.B. 1482 limits extremely high rent increases, but even allowable increases can still push tenants out, especially if repeated year-after-year. In addition to Hispanic families, adults ages 18 through 64 who have disabilities are also disproportionately likely to rent.38 Although families with children are not 38 Overall, persons with disabilities are not disproportionately likely to rent because the population of persons with disabilities is disproportionately older and older adults are disproportionately likely to be homeowners.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 126
disproportionately likely to rent, the impact of displacement on families that do rent can be particularly acute due to disruption to school assignment and attendance. Morgan Hill should deploy a variety of policy tools to curb displacement.
a. Consider adoption of a mediation requirement for rent increases of 5% or more.

California’s Costa-Hawkins Act preempts the application of local rent stabilization ordinances to single-family homes, condominiums, and homes built after February 1, 1995. As a city that has roughly doubled in population since 1990, that means that a significant proportion of Morgan Hill’s relatively modest stock of multifamily housing would be exempt from any rent stabilization ordinance. As a result, the costs of administering rent stabilization may outweigh the benefits that it would deliver to tenants. By contrast, the Costa-Hawkins Act does not prevent California cities from adopting rent increase mediation requirements as some other jurisdictions in the Bay Area have. A mediation requirement might seek to encourage landlords to forgo the opportunity to raise rents by levels that exceed what might be allowed under nearby rent stabilization ordinances (5% in San Jose) but that are not unlawful under A.B. 1482 (10% due to recent increases in inflation). b. Study the possibility of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance.

California cities are able to adopt tenant relocation assistance ordinances that require landlords to provide financial assistance to low- and moderate-income tenants displaced as a result of the landlords’ actions. The City of Morgan Hill should study the value and feasibility of adopting such a policy locally, looking at (1) the frequency with which tenants are displaced in Morgan Hill through the types of actions that could be triggering events for relocation assistance, (2) the amount of relocation benefits that would be necessary to enable Morgan Hill residents at income levels typical for affected buildings to be able to remain in the city, and (3) the efficacy of relocation assistance ordinances in other cities in the Bay Area at enabling displaced tenants to find new housing near their former homes.
c. Seek funding or develop paths of support for access to counsel in possessory eviction cases.

Access to counsel has a significant impact on tenant outcomes in possessory eviction cases, potentially preventing eviction but also having the potential to facilitate better relocation outcomes for tenants who do end up relocating. By providing additional funding to close the gap between the current capacity of legal services providers and the total need for representation in possessory eviction cases. Increased access to counsel may have particular benefits for tenants with disabilities who may have additional defenses available to them in eviction cases that are unavailable to others.
d. Support shared-equity homeownership models.

Another way of protecting protected class members who are tenants from displacement is to create opportunities for them to access homeownership. Although creating homeownership opportunities for very low- and extremely low-income households can be difficult, shared-equity models like limited equity cooperatives and community land trusts have proven track records. The City could seek to support these models both through land donation and through the commitment of subsidy dollars. Shared-equity homeownership models may also provide opportunities for the creation of affordable housing in locations that are not realistic candidates for major rezoning.

Single-family homes on small lots may be a viable housing type for a shared-equity homeownership effort.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-127 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 e. Review the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to provide deeper for-sale affordability beyond the updated 2021 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Currently, the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires the provision of units affordable to moderate-income households in for-sale developments. Requiring that developers achieve deeper owner-occupied affordability through cross-subsidization and existing incentives may not be effective. However, the City could seek to bridge the gap between inclusionary for-sale units and low-income households by providing financial support. Additionally, in light of the homeownership gap in Morgan Hill, the City should require developers to affirmatively market forsale inclusionary units to Hispanic households. f. Adopt preferences for tenants who have been displaced from rental housing in Morgan Hill.

The City should consider implementing an admissions preferences for affordable housing for tenants who have recently been displaced. These tenants are more likely to be members of protected classes. Such a preference could apply both in inclusionary developments and in affordable developments that receive City funds.

III. Connect Morgan Hill Residents to Employment Opportunities.

In general, access to a wide range of types of opportunity are available to residents of Morgan Hill. Although school proficiency is not equal across the city, there are high-performing schools in the city. Access to environmental health is generally higher than in much of the region. Key related exceptions involve transportation and job access. Morgan Hill does not have the abundance of job opportunities that exist further north in Santa Clara County. The disconnect between where Morgan Hill residents – a population that is more heavily Hispanic than the broader region – live and where jobs are concentrated can be addressed in two broad ways. First, the City can seek to increase employment opportunities in Morgan Hill itself. Second, the City can seek to address transportation gaps in order to make it easier for residents to reach jobs in northern Santa Clara County.
a. Prioritize the creation of jobs that are accessible to low- and very low-income workers who reside within the Downtown Morgan Hill Priority Development Area (PDA).

The burden of long commutes to northern Santa Clara County does not fall evenly on all workers.

Employees in high-paying technology and other professional jobs are better able to absorb the cost of relatively high fares on Caltrain or car maintenance and gas (or the expense of buying an electric of more fuel-efficient vehicle). Additionally, they are more likely to have jobs that allow them to work at home some or all of the time. For lower income workers, often living in downtown Morgan Hill, in service, retail, manufacturing, and logistics jobs, high transportation costs may be a significant burden with the potential to cancel out the reduced housing costs of living in Morgan Hill rather than northern Santa Clara County. When making zoning decisions with implications for types of job creation and determining how to utilize limited resources for incentivizing job creation, the City should prioritize the creation of jobs that strike a balance between decent wages and low barriers to entry (in terms of educational attainment and other credentials). b. Create incentives for local businesses to hire Morgan Hill residents.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 128
For jobs that exist in Morgan Hill, increasing the likelihood that Morgan Hill residents obtain those jobs would help to reduce disparities in access to employment faced by Hispanic residents. These incentives could include expedited processing of permit applications, a tax break or some other subsidy for each job filled by a Morgan Hill resident.
c. Advocate for VTA to expand bus service in Morgan Hill.

Morgan Hill has both local bus service and connections to San Jose through VTA bus lines, but local service is limited, both in terms of areas served and frequency, and hours of service. The City does not have control over VTA’s bus network but should encourage expansions of service that make commuting by bus a more realistic option for workers in Morgan Hill, including service and retail workers who are more likely to work evenings and weekends. In particular, the corridor along Dunne Avenue has significant development but lacks local bus service. d. Study local first mile/last mile transit service solutions in Morgan Hill building on lessons learned from the first on-call shuttle service established within the City.

To the extent that VTA or Caltrain services expansion are both outside the City’s control and may be unlikely to occur, the City can still focus on the development of first mile/last mile options that connect residents to Caltrain and regional bus service. If the City is successful in facilitating affordable housing development in the eastern portion of the city, which has less access to regional transportation networks, it will be critical ensure that first mile/last mile solutions are coordinated with such development.

IV. Increase Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach, and Education in Morgan Hill.

Santa Clara County contracts with Project Sentinel, a private, nonprofit organization, to provide fair housing services throughout the Santa Clara Urban County, which includes Morgan Hill. As the largest city in the Urban County, however, it is likely that Morgan Hill could benefit from more geographically targeted enforcement, outreach, and education efforts to counter housing discrimination. Such efforts might focus on discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher holders, which only became unlawful as of January 2020. The City might consider either entering into a separate contract with Project Sentinel or providing funds to Santa Clara County to increase its contract amount and target some portion of Project Sentinel’s efforts to Morgan Hill specifically.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-129 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022

5.5 Contributing Factors Appendix
Access to financial services
This analysis of access to financial services is measured by physical access to bank branch locations. The FDIC provides information on the location of banks by physical addresses, cities and towns, counties, and states. According to the FDIC dataset, Morgan Hill has nine FDICRegulated Full-Service Brick and Mortar Branches39 for their population of just over 45,000 people.40 This is relatively consistent with the amount of financial services offered throughout other municipalities in Santa Clara County. Although the existence of physical financial services does not examine discriminatory practices within these services, it does suggest that many residents have sufficient access to financial services.

Access to proficient schools for persons with disabilities Morgan Hill Unified School District (MHUSD) offers special education services to 1,072 students with disabilities. Programs include WorkAbility, a training program for special education students ages 14.9-22 that provides career awareness and exploration in addition to secondary education.41 MHUSD’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) provides strategic and intensive interventions in support to underperforming student groups such as Low Socioeconomic Status, English Learner, Migrant, and Foster/Homeless.42 Students with disabilities in MHUSD disproportionately face suspension, with the average suspension rate being 5% in 2018-2019 (pre-COVID, when schools were open), but the rate for students with disabilities being almost double the rate at 9.7%.43 Disproportionate student punishment can be an additional barrier for students with disabilities from accessing and staying within proficient schools.

Across Santa Clara County, students are not easily able to transfer between school districts without actually changing residences, and access to high-quality programs that may not be available in their home district generally is not grounds for inter-district transfer. Disparities in school discipline also decrease access to proficient schools and to any education whatsoever.

Across Santa Clara County, the suspension rate for students with disabilities is over three times the rate for students who do not have disabilities. This is a higher rate of disparity than the statewide rate.

Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities Data from HUD shows that, across jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, persons with disabilities are underrepresented in Project-Based Section 8 developments in relation to their proportion of the income-eligible populations. Because local governments in the area do not play a direct role in the administration of Project-Based Section 8 developments, support for fair housing organizations to engage in testing of these developments may be the most effective way of 39 All FDIC-related data derived from: Download Data, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfindsuite/bankfind?activeStatus=0%20OR%201&branchOffices=true&city=Morgan%20Hill&pageNumber=1&resultLimit=25& stalp=CA
40 All population and minority population data derived from: QuickFacts, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/morganhillcitycalifornia/BZA010219. 41 DataQuest, California Department of Education, Morgan Hill Unified Report, 2019-20 Enrollment by Subgroup for Charter and Non-Charter Schools
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrCharterSub.aspx?cds=4369583&agglevel=district&year=2019-20&ro=y 42 MHUSA LCAP Plan, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wQ7bfUZcUZ5_r-CCqanA1KnkGndBI_-u/view 43 Morgan Hill Unified School District, Local Control Accountability Plan and Annual Update (LCAP) Template (2018).

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 130
addressing this underrepresentation. Although the data does not reflect similar disparities for other types of publicly supported housing, low-income persons with disabilities may also have limited access to Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units due to the way rents are set in those developments.

Morgan Hill has a moderate proportion of residents with disabilities. According to the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate, roughly 4,033 residents of Morgan Hill have disabilities, amounted to 9.1% of the total population. In contrast, approximately 8.0% of county residents have a disability. Organizations supporting people living with disabilities in housing matters in Morgan Hill are not based in in the city itself. Instead, disability housing services are mostly based in San José, or other areas.

Access to transportation for persons with disabilities
In Santa Clara County, VTA Access Paratransit (a non-profit organization) works with the county’s Valley Transit Authority to provide rides to seniors and adults under the American Disabilities Act (ADA) who cannot drive. A person must only have a partial disability and live in the county to become eligible for VTA Access service. It costs $4.00 for a one-way trip of any distance.44 This is cheaper than rideshare services. The person must schedule their ride one to three days in advance, and their pickup and drop-off locations have to be in the county. The person must also go through their eligibility certification process, which includes a one-page Data Card and a phone interview. The Data Card asks for basic personal information, such as the person’s birthdate, addresses, primary language; explanation of the person’s primary disability; and information regarding any mobility aids or specialized equipment.45 Morgan Hill has a Caltrain stop at 17300 Depot Street in Morgan Hill. This station is in Zone 6, and it takes approximately two hours to reach San Francisco Ken Transportation is also available for all residents of Santa Clara County who need nonemergency rides. It is intended for people in wheelchairs or that need assistance using vehicles.46 The barrier to access to transportation for persons with disabilities, which is closely tied to broader issues with transportation in the area, is an overall lack of public transportation. Due to their disproportionately low incomes and the decreased likelihood of being able to use private vehicles for transportation, persons with disabilities bear the brunt of deficiencies in the system. Lack of transportation is connected to health and employment outcomes as low-income persons with disabilities often need public transportation to get to medical appointments or to workplaces.

Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing
The Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) administers admissions and occupancy policies and procedures for Housing Choice Voucher holders in Morgan Hill. SCCHA lists only one local preference for its Housing Choice Voucher Program: income eligible families displaced as a result of a federally-declared disaster. Additionally, SCCHA states in its HCV Administrative Plan that it will issue available 59-Mainstream vouchers to eligible people on the Section 8 Waiting List who have a disabled (elderly or non-elderly) head of household, spouse, and/or co-head.

SCCHA receives direct applicant referrals from partnering agencies for the following programs:
44 Paratransit and elder transport services, Sarah Care of Campbell, https://sarahcarecampbell.com/paratransitservices.php (last visited Jun 10, 2021). 45 Personal Data Card, Certification and Authorization for Release of Protected Health Information, EnglishApp_2017.pdf, http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/EnglishApp_2017.pdf (last visited Jun 10, 2021). 46 Ken Transportation | A Medical Transportation Provider in San Jose, California | About Us, , http://www.kentransport.com/medical-transportation-about-us (last visited Jun 10, 2021).

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-131 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Chronically Homeless Direct Referral Program, Special Needs Population Direct Referral Program, and Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program. Those who are referred from these programs are able to bypass the Section 8 or Project-Based Voucher waiting lists. Finally, SCCHA may draw from the waiting list and/or receive direct referrals from the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing for the Mainstream Voucher Program SCCHA also applies criminal background screening policies which are fairly consistent with fair housing best practices. The Housing Authority applies a reasonable lookback period of just three years. However, their policy also states that they may terminate assistance “if a household member has engaged in criminal activity (by preponderance of evidence) regardless of whether the member has been arrested or convicted.” Still, in determining whether to deny or terminate assistance, the Housing Authority considers a multitude of factors, including the seriousness of the case, the effect of termination on other household members, the participation or culpability of other household members, the time elapsed, recent history, and likelihood of favorable conduct in the future.

The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Morgan Hill has a substantial supply of LIHTC and BMR housing but few units produced through other programs. There are no 3+ bedroom BMR units in the city.47 At the same time, at least 366 LIHTC units in Morgan Hill (more than one-third of the total supply) appear to have three or more bedrooms.48 A lack of affordable units in a range of sizes can cause overcrowding as families are forced to share smaller units. In Morgan Hill, 14% of renter households experience overcrowding (the same rate as renters in the county). 0% of Black, 0% of Native American, 5% of White, 5% of Asian American or Pacific Islander, and 14% of Hispanic residents of the city experience overcrowding. (These racial categories are all referring to individuals of that race alone, except Hispanic which is referring to Hispanic people of all races.) This issue is compounded by the lack of 3+ bedroom BMR housing. The Morgan Hill Family – Scattered Site project is a new construction 41-unit apartment project located in the Morgan Hill. Altogether, 18 of these units are 3-bedroom units (including one reserved for a staff manager).49 Besides the manager unit, all units are reserved for Project-Based Voucher holders. SCCHA’s Housing Choice Voucher waiting list last formally opened in 2006 and the average wait for a household to receive a housing voucher is 8-10 years. However, SCCHA has begun opening “interest lists” for HCV assistance, and households are able to sign up for the interest list at this time.

The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation Public transportation is extremely limited in Morgan Hill. Caltrain50 and VTA51 offer regional service between Morgan Hill and San Jose, but that service is relatively infrequent. Additionally, Caltrain fares are unaffordable for some low-income commuters. VTA also operates local bus service in Morgan Hill, but that service also suffers from geographic coverage gaps in the eastern part of the city and long headways.52
The public transportation system in Santa Clara County has significant gaps that render existing systems, including those of the Valley Transportation Authority and Caltrain less usable to lowincome individuals who are disproportionately members of protected classes. Specifically, bus service is extremely limited in many parts of the county, particularly outside of San Jose, with 47 City of Morgan Hill, BMR Rental List - Updated October 2021. 48 https://lihtc.huduser.gov/ 49 MORGAN HILL FAMILY APARTMENTS, 41 UNITS (A SCATTERED SITE PROJECT). 50 https://www.caltrain.com/stations/systemmap.html 51 https://www.vta.org/go/routes/68
52 https://www.vta.org/go/routes/87

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 132
some major arterial streets lacking any service. Even where service exists, 30-minute headways or wait times between buses are common. Transportation between South County and San Jose can be extremely time-consuming with trip times of nearly two hours, not accounting for unexpected traffic, between Gilroy and San José. Faster forms of transportation, such as Caltrain, are often too expensive for daily use by members of protected classes, and the Valley Transportation Authority’s light rail system is limited in scope, not traveling past Mountain View to Palo Alto, not connecting to Cupertino, and not connecting to South County. Advocates and stakeholders reported that the VTA’s bus network is spread too thin and has too few buses and/or wait times between buses to efficiently and effectively meet people’s needs. In turn, those problems reduce ridership, resulting in decreased fare revenue and a justification for cutting service further.

Community opposition
Community opposition has not derailed or delayed the development of affordable housing to nearly the extent of some other cities in Santa Clara County and the broader Bay Area. Morgan Hill’s large supply of LIHTC and BMR units, as well as the fact that it already has sufficient permitted units to meet its RHNA allocation for the next Housing Element cycle are all indicative of community support for affordable housing. By contrast, particularly in the highest resource portions of the region, housing production, and affordable housing production in particular, has lagged, in part due to community opposition.

Deteriorated and abandoned properties
Between its relatively young housing stock and the high demand for housing in both the city and the region, 53 Morgan Hill has few issues with deteriorated and abandoned properties. For the most part, that high demand in the region ensures that housing is turned over and rehabilitated frequently. This demand has created gentrification that, in turn, has led to a rapid increase in highend, luxury buildings replacing deteriorated older housing – creating cost difficulties for existing neighborhood residents and leading a large proportion of households to be rent-burdened. At the same time, this gentrification has ensured housing stock is rarely on the market long enough to become deteriorated or abandoned.54 Gentrification and displacement risk in Morgan Hill are of concern but not to the same extent as in other cities in the region that have higher concentrations of renters and more renters living in non-deed restricted older units.

Displacement and lack of housing support for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking
Domestic violence (DV) remains a notable issue within Morgan Hill. Santa Clara County, where Morgan Hill is located, averages 9 deaths a year due to domestic violence with many more people being affected by non-fatal forms of interpersonal violence55. Across the country and within Morgan Hill, victims and survivors of domestic violence are forced to make the decision between remaining within a physically or emotionally abusive relationship or household to ensure themselves access to housing or to adopt the risk of losing such shelter in order to escape this violence. The accessibility of domestic violence shelters within Santa Clara County is notably 53 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2015-2022, 29 (2014), https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/HealthElement_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf. 54 Bruce Colbert, Resolving California’s Housing and Homeless Crisis, NEW GEOGRAPHY (Nov. 15, 2018), https://www.newgeography.com/content/006142-resolving-californias-housing-and-homeless-crisis (discussing the effects of gentrification, including reductions in deteriorated housing). 55 Emanuel Lee, Domestic Violence Cases Decrease During Pandemic San Jose Inside (2020), https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/domestic-violence-cases-decrease-during-pandemic/ (last visited Jun 23, 2021).

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-133 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 limited when compared to the number of survivors in need of housing support; 2,500 people are turned away from such shelters annually within the area.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing are aware of the dangerous decision that many people, disproportionately women, are forced to make, and included within a larger 2019 grant to combat homelessness within the area, the county received $1 million in federal funding to be allocated to housing support for survivors of domestic violence.56 As accessible and affordable housing continues to be a priority within Morgan Hill and Santa Clara County, it is imperative that there are intentional steps taken to ensure this accessibility remains true for domestic violence survivors.

Additionally, California state law protects victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or abused elder or dependent adult who terminates their lease early.57 The tenant must provide written notice to the landlord, along with a copy of a temporary restraining order, emergency protective order, or protective order that protects the household member from further domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or abuse of an elder or dependent adult. Alternatively, proof may be shown by submitting a copy of a written report by a peace officer stating that the victim has filed an official report, or documentation from a qualified third party acting in their professional capacity to indicate the resident is seeking assistance for physical or mental injuries or abuse stemming from the abuse at issue. Notice to terminate the tenancy must be given within 180 days of the issuance date of the qualifying order or within 180 days of the date that any qualifying written report is made.

Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
For the most part, the high demand for housing in Santa Clara County,58 including in Morgan Hill, ensures that housing is turned over and rehabilitated frequently. This demand has created gentrification that, in turn, has led to a rapid increase in high-end, luxury buildings replacing deteriorated older housing – creating cost difficulties for existing neighborhood residents and leading to cost-burden and severe cost-burden. Morgan Hill has not experienced decline in its population of people of color, likely as a result of its strong affordable housing production and relatively lower housing costs than in northern Santa Clara County. There is a need for strong anti-displacement policies in Morgan Hill to prevent low-income residents, who are disproportionately likely to be Hispanic and/or to have disabilities, from being pushed out of the city, if housing costs in Morgan Hill rise to the levels of northern Santa Clara County or if affordability covenants for deed-restricted units expire.

Impediments to mobility
There are no mobility counseling programs in Santa Clara County, including in Morgan Hill.

Santa Clara County utilizes exception payment standards to bring more apartments in high opportunity areas within reach of Housing Choice Voucher holders. For example, the payment standard for a one-bedroom unit is $2,360. A Zillow search conducted during this Assessment of Fair Housing process revealed 20 advertised units within that price range. The payment standard 56 Laurel Anderson & Marina Hinestrona, County of Santa Clara Receives over $21 Million in Federal Funding for Homeless Housing Programs County News (2019),
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/newsroom/Pages/federalfundingforhomelesshousingprograms.aspx (last visited Jun 23, 2021). 57 Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.7 58 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 2015-2022, 29 (2014), https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/HealthElement_2015_Adopted_Final.pdf.

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 134
for a two-bedroom unit is $2,851. A Zillow search again revealed 20 available units under that price.

Santa Clara County uses separate waiting lists for its various affordable housing programs and has a policy of absorbing all incoming vouchers porting into the county. The City of Morgan Hill uses a single partner – Housekeys – to administer the lease-up process for all of its BMR properties, which, in turn, makes it easier for tenants to find affordable units in the city regardless of location.

Inaccessible buildings, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other public or private infrastructure
This Assessment did not reveal any current or ongoing concerns about inaccessibility within government facilities and services within Morgan Hill. Santa Clara County has additional measures to ensure that government facilities and services are accessible. This includes the position of a Coordinator of Programs for the Disabled whose role is to ensure accommodations and field complains of accessibility violations within the county,59 as well as a newly established Office of Disability Affairs who will ensure compliance and equitableness within county accessibility.60 This is a positive sign that the government facility and services within the City of Morgan Hill will match this accessibility, as there are otherwise county-wide measures to hold them accountable if they do not.

Inaccessible government facilities or services
This Assessment did not reveal any current or ongoing concerns about inaccessibility within government facilities and services within Morgan Hill. The city website is accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly users with vision impairments) as required with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.61
Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs In Morgan Hill, the average home value is $1,399,720, which has increased by 26.4% between 2021 and 2022.62 The median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,841, which is a 17% yearover-year change from 2020.63 These high housing costs are out of reach for households at many income levels but particularly for extremely low- and very-low income households that are disproportionately Hispanic and that disproportionately include persons with disabilities. High housing costs make it difficult to move to Morgan Hill, and, within Morgan Hill, they make the downtown area, where the vast majority of deed-restricted affordable housing is located, the primary viable living option. However, downtown Morgan Hill may not afford residents as high access to proficient schools as eastern Morgan Hill where housing costs are even more out of reach. These issues are in many ways even more intense in the broader region as northern Santa Clara County – particularly the West Valley – has many areas with extremely high housing costs as well as abundant educational and employment opportunities.

Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes 59 Public Access functional for Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Access Under the Americans with Disabilities Act - County of Santa Clara, https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Pages/public-access-americans-disabilities-act.aspx (last visited Jun 25, 2021).
60 Katie Lauer, Santa Clara County Creates Office of Disability Affairs to Improve Accessibility San Jose Inside (2021), https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/santa-clara-county-creates-office-of-disability-affairs-to-improve-accessibility/ (last visited Jun 25, 2021).
61 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/accessibility 62 https://www.zillow.com/morgan-hill-ca/home-values/ 63 https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/morgan-hill-ca

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing H5
Page H-5-135 City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Although Morgan Hill has been successful in its efforts to foster significant development of LIHTC and BMR housing in recent years, BMR development has included relatively more one- and twobedroom units than three-bedroom units. There appear to be no available three-bedroom BMR units whatsoever.64 As discussed above, with at least 366 LIHTC units with three or more bedrooms, larger LIHTC units are relatively more available than are larger BMR units. Because most affordable multifamily development in Morgan Hill has been fairly recent, most such units were subject to accessibility requirements.

It is also imperative that not only is there a sufficient amount of affordable housing, but that there are also enough units across a range of unit sizes so that these developments are accessible to groups or families of all numbers. A lack of affordable units in a range of sizes can cause overcrowding as families are forced to share smaller units. Overcrowding is already an issue in Santa Clara County, especially among Hispanic households. The 2015-2019 American Community Survey shows that Hispanic households experience overcrowding at a rate of 17.9%.

This is almost double the rate of the next-highest group, which is Asian American households (9.2%).

Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services Much of the infrastructure for in-home and community-based supportive services in Morgan Hill consists of private businesses and small nonprofit organizations rather than government or public services, and few nonprofit or governmental services are based in Morgan Hill itself. For example, the San Andreas Regional Center, a nonprofit that serves individuals with developmental disabilities and their families, operates in Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. Similarly, resources regarding in-home and community-based supportive services are provided primarily at the county level rather than the city level. At the county level, due to the absence of any waiting list for Home and Community-Based Services for persons with developmental disabilities, this issue primarily affects people with psychiatric disabilities. A robust array of services, including the most intensive models of community-based services like Assertive Community Treatment, are available. Additionally, across types of disabilities, undocumented adults face barriers due to federal restrictions of Medicaid assistance for undocumented people.

The California Legislature has approved state funding for Medi-Cal services for undocumented people until they reach the age of 26, a critical investment that exceeds that of any other state, but there remains a funding gap for services for most undocumented adults.

Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services There is a large overall shortage of affordable housing in Morgan Hill, as suggested by the large proportion of households that are rent-burdened. Without more overall affordable housing, it is impossible to provide more affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services. Morgan Hill is home to one development assisted with Measure A funds – Crossings on Monterey – and has one more in the pipeline – Royal Oak Village.65 These developments either have or are planned to have fewer units than most Measure A developments assisted by Santa Clara County. Housing for individuals who need supportive services in Santa Clara County is largely located outside of Morgan Hill—for example, in San José. As a consequence, only around 5% of those in need of supportive services qualify for Permanent Supportive Housing, which has led to increasing homelessness in the region, which affects Morgan Hill alongside its neighbors.

Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications 64 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/24873/BMR-Rental-Unit-List-October-2021-PDF 65 https://osh.sccgov.org/housing-community-development/2016-measure-affordable-housing-bond/2016- measure-housing-bond

Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing
City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 | Adopted XXXXX XX, 2022 Page H-5- 136
The City of Morgan Hill provides funding to Rebuilding Together to assist with home rehabilitation, which often includes accessibility modifications.66
Farewell to Falls is a free, home-based program intended to prevent seniors from falling in their homes in Santa Clara County (and San Mateo County). The program focuses on home modifications. Farewell to Falls works through the Trauma Service and Emergency Department at Stanford University Medical Center.67
Home Safety Services provides home modifications, such as grab bars, stair railings and wheelchair ramps, for seniors. Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley also aid with home modifications for low-income homeowners in Morgan Hill, among other cities and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.68
Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing Much of the Morgan Hill assistance available to those from marginalized communities attempting to transition from an institutional setting to integrated housing is non-specific to the city and instead operates at a county level for all of Santa Clara. This does allow for the assistance to be more robust and cover more groups in need of transition help. For disabled adults, the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center offers resources and supportive housing-related services. The Santa Clara Resource Reentry Center offers housing assistance and referrals for individuals attempting to reintegrate into society after leaving the criminal justice system. Although not an institutional setting, there are attempts to help homeless individuals transition into integrated housing as well such as through the Community Plan to End Homelessness69 which has been endorsed by Morgan Hill. 70
Lack of community revitalization strategies
The City of Morgan Hill does not lack community revitalization strategies. The city’s downtown area is the most racially, ethnically, and socioeconomic part of the city, as well as the part of the city that has the highest concentration of residents in greater need of access to opportunity. The Downtown Specific Plan presents a holistic vision for ensuring that the downtown area is economically vibrant and affords residents access to opportunity.71 Regionally, there also does not appear to be a lack of place-based revitalization planning.

Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement There are multiple fair housing organizations serving Morgan Hill. The organization most directly focused on fair housing is Project Sentinel, a non-profit based in Santa Clara (but serving the entire county) which aims to promote fair housing through fair housing testing, the filing of administrative complaints, and landlord-tenant mediation.72 Santa Clara County provides CDBG funds to Project Sentinel to serve a geographic area that includes Morgan Hill.73 Other organizations include Bay Area Legal Aid, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Senior Adults Legal Assistance, Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County, and Asian Law Alliance, each of which 66 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/316/Housing-Rehabilitation 67 Senior & Aging Adult Resources - Santa Clara County Fire Department, https://www.sccfd.org/education-andpreparedness-overview/safety-information-referral-assistance/senior-aging-resources (last visited Jun 24, 2021). 68 Ibid. 69 Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness 2020-2025 (2020). 70 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37598/20-069-Endorsing-2020-CommunityPlan-to-End-Homelessness?bidId= 71 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/668/Downtown-Specific-Plan 72 https://www.housing.org/about
73 https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/1859/Fair-Housing