Agenda packet — Orange City Council, June 24, 2025 (part 5 of 7)

1. 846
Planning Commission Minutes - Final Aptil21,2025

4.',t. an
use
4, PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearing to consider
housing as a permitted land
CECIA exemption.

4.2. ordinance establishing
for certain qualifying
Single Room Occupancy
properties and finding ol
Chair Vejar opened the public hearing at 5:42 p.m
Public Speakers:

None
Chair Vejar closed the public hearing at 5:43 p.m.

A motion was made by Commissioner Martinez, seconded by Commissioner McCormack to:
1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-24 recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to allow Single-Room Occupancy housing as a permitted use in certain zoning districts and related definitrons and development standards.

2. Find the ordinance categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061 (bX3) and 1 5378.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aves: Leslie, Martinez, Ivlaldonado, [\ilcCormack, and Veiar Noes: None

Absent: Vazquez, and Tucker
Public Hearing to consider an update to Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code (oMC) to amend provisions relating to number of chickens allowed on residential properties and setback requirements; and finding of CEeA exemption.

Chair Vejar opened the public hearing at 5:45
Public Soeakers:

Karen Bustamante spoke in favor of the Ordinance.

Chair Vejar closed the public hearing at 5:58 p.m.

A motion was made by Commissioner Martinez, seconded by Commissioner Leslie to:

1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 03-25 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Orange Municipal Code to update the number of chickens permitted on residential properties and setback requirements with added language stating "no poultry shall be maintained closer to an off-property structure used for human habitation than to the structure used for human habitation where the poultry is kept."

2. Find the ordinance categorically exempt from the California Envtronmental Quality Act (CEaA) per State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(bX3) and 15378.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: Leslie, Martinez, Maldonado, McCormack, and Vetar Noes: None

Absent: Yazquez, and Tucker

Page 2 ends

847
Planning Commission Minutes - Final Aptil 21, 2025

5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m The next Regular Planning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, ltay 5,2025, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber.

Ortli
Principal Planner

Page 3 of 3 ends

848
Attachment 5 – Chicken Keeping Scenarios
Scenario 1: Chicken coop is closer to neighbor dwelling than to site dwelling. This would be a violation under the Planning Commission proposed language.
849
Scenario 2: Chicken coop is closer to neighbor dwelling than to site dwelling. This would be a violation under the Planning Commission proposed language. 850
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.2. 6/24/2025 File #: 25-0339
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Russell Bunim, Community Development Director

1. SUBJECT
Continued Public Hearing to consider approval of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. (Continued from May 13, 2025)

2. SUMMARY
Public Hearing to approve the submission of the final 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and submit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Conduct and close Public Hearing.

2. Approve the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the 2025-2026 Annual Action plan and 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.

3. Authorize staff to incorporate comments received at the Public Hearing or make nonsubstantial changes if needed to the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan or the 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.

4. Authorize staff to submit the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute all forms and agreements, including those with Subrecipients, and any other documents required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development upon approval of the Plan.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
All public projects, programs, and administration will be fully funded through the Community Development Block Grant (310) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (317).

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Public Communication Strategy and Quality of Life

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates that jurisdictions receiving annual entitlement funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs develop a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) every five years. This plan is designed to establish the City’s housing and community development priorities, City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/19/2025 powered by Legistar™851
Item #: 8.2. 6/24/2025 File #: 25-0339
years. This plan is designed to establish the City’s housing and community development priorities, ensuring alignment with the objectives of the CDBG and HOME programs. Serving as a comprehensive strategic framework, the Con Plan enables the City to assess affordable housing and community development needs, evaluate market conditions, and make informed decisions based on data analysis.

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
As part of the development of the Con Plan, HUD requires participating jurisdictions to conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The AI is a comprehensive study aimed at identifying and evaluating potential barriers - both in the public and private sectors - that may hinder an individual’s ability to select housing free from discrimination. Additionally, it provides recommendations for addressing these barriers through a five-year Fair Housing Action Plan.

For the 2025-2029 AI, the City partnered with 33 other Orange County municipalities and the County of Orange to create a Regional AI. This comprehensive study addresses barriers to fair housing choice at both the countywide level and within the individual jurisdictions.

The Regional AI (Attachment A) was available for public review and comment from April 10, 2025 through May 12, 2025.
2025-2026 Annual Action Plan
The Con Plan is implemented through the Annual Action Plans (AAP) which provide a comprehensive summary of the strategies, activities, and federal and non-federal resources allocated each year to address the specific needs and objectives outlined in the Con Plan. The 2025-2029 Con Plan includes the first year of the plan, the 2025-2029 AAP.

Citizen Participation Process
The City advertised the Notice of Funding Availability in the City Orange News on November 14, 2025 and solicited applications for proposed projects and programs from November 14, 2025 through February 1, 2025. The City received eight applications for public programs and two applications for public infrastructure improvement projects. In addition, the Community Development Department requested funding to develop a business assistance program for the City Council’s consideration.

On February 13, 2025, the CDBG Program Committee convened a public meeting to review presentations on proposed public programs and projects seeking CDBG funding. On March 13, 2025, the Committee deliberated on recommended funding awards based on the City's anticipated allocation. In the event that the final award differed from projections, the Committee recommended that allocations be proportionally adjusted to reflect the actual funding received.

The Committee’s recommendations were incorporated into the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, which is part of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, and made available for public review from April 3, 2025, to May 7, 2025.

On April 8, 2025, the City Council held a public meeting to consider the initial approval of the draft 2025-2029 Regional AI and 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. During the meeting, the City received one public comment requesting a correction to the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, clarifying that the City of Orange does not have any cold weather shelters and emphasizing the need for additional lowand extremely low-income housing units. The comment was incorporated into the final version of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan.

On May 14, 2025, the City received notification that it will be allocated $1,010,888 in CDBG funding City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/19/2025 powered by Legistar™852
Item #: 8.2. 6/24/2025 File #: 25-0339
On May 14, 2025, the City received notification that it will be allocated $1,010,888 in CDBG funding and $338,366.50 in HOME funding, which is lower than the originally estimated allocations of $1,034,444 in CDBG and $354,054 in HOME funding. To account for this difference, final allocation recommendations were adjusted in the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan (Attachment B) to ensure alignment with the revised funding levels.

Staff is recommending the approval of the 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan that includes the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan for submission to HUD.

7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment A: Draft 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
· Attachment B: Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan
City of Orange Page 3 of 3 Printed on 6/19/2025
powered by Legistar™853
Agenda Item
City Council
Item #: 8.2. 6/24/2025 File #: 25-0339
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Tom Kisela, City Manager
FROM: Russell Bunim, Community Development Director

3. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1. Conduct and close Public Hearing.

2. Approve the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan including the 2025-2026 Annual Action plan and 2025-2029 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.

4. FISCAL IMPACT
All public projects, programs, and administration will be fully funded through the Community Development Block Grant (310) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (317).

5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Public Communication Strategy and Quality of Life

6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates that jurisdictions receiving annual entitlement funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) programs develop a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) every five years. This plan is designed to establish the City’s housing and community development priorities, City of Orange Page 1 of 3 Printed on 6/19/2025 powered by Legistar™854
Item #: 8.2. 6/24/2025 File #: 25-0339
years. This plan is designed to establish the City’s housing and community development priorities, ensuring alignment with the objectives of the CDBG and HOME programs. Serving as a comprehensive strategic framework, the Con Plan enables the City to assess affordable housing and community development needs, evaluate market conditions, and make informed decisions based on data analysis.

On May 14, 2025, the City received notification that it will be allocated $1,010,888 in CDBG funding City of Orange Page 2 of 3 Printed on 6/19/2025 powered by Legistar™855
Item #: 8.2. 6/24/2025 File #: 25-0339
On May 14, 2025, the City received notification that it will be allocated $1,010,888 in CDBG funding and $338,366.50 in HOME funding, which is lower than the originally estimated allocations of $1,034,444 in CDBG and $354,054 in HOME funding. To account for this difference, final allocation recommendations were adjusted in the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan (Attachment B) to ensure alignment with the revised funding levels.

EQUAL HOUSING

OPPORTUNITY
857
Orange County i 25-29 Regional AFH
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all individuals and organizations that contributed to the planning process, including, but not limited to, the following:

The individuals and organizations (including Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The Cambodian Family, and Orange County Families Forward) who attended the in-person and virtual community meetings.

The organizations that participated in the stakeholder interviews and focus groups, including Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family Shelter, Domus Development, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County.

Staff from all jurisdictions that participated in the planning effort, with additional thanks to staff from:
• The Cities of Costa Mesa, La Habra, and Santa Ana, for hosting in-person community meetings.
• The County of Orange and the Cities of Anaheim, Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Ana, and Rancho Santa Margarita for advertising the in-person and virtual community meetings through various channels.
• The City of Santa Ana, which served as lead agency responsible for coordinating the development of this report.

Document Version
Last updated: June 2, 2025
858
Orange County ii 25-29 Regional AFH
Cover Photo Credit
The cover photograph for this report was provided courtesy of C&C Development. The photograph features Terraces at Santiago in the City of Santa Ana’s Station District.

Terraces at Santiago is an award-winning 36-unit urban infill transit-oriented multifamily affordable rental housing development featuring a mix of two-, three-, and five-bedroom apartments. In keeping with surrounding neighborhoods, this property was designed with Spanish/Santa Barbara architectural influences. Exterior detailing accents include wrought iron, decorative gables, wall sconces, decorative arches, decorative wood rafter rails, decorative painted wood shutters, and recessed stucco elements with wrought iron lattice.

The building is LEED Gold Certified.
859
Orange County iii 25-29 Regional AFH
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1 II. Community Participation Process ...................................................................................... 3 A. Stakeholder Consultation................................................................................................. 3 B. Community Meetings ....................................................................................................... 3 III. Fair Housing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 5 A. Demographic and Housing Summary ............................................................................ 5 B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration ................................................................ 37 C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)............................... 59 D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity............................................................................. 65

1. Education ..................................................................................................................... 65

2. Employment ................................................................................................................ 79

3. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 91

4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods ................................................................... 98

5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods ............................................ 111

6. Disability and Access ................................................................................................ 119

7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity ................................................... 123 E. Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................................ 128 F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing .............................. 142 IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan .............................................................................. 145 A. Orange County Urban County ..................................................................................... 145

1. Unincorporated Orange County .............................................................................. 148

2. Brea............................................................................................................................. 155

3. Cypress....................................................................................................................... 158

4. Dana Point.................................................................................................................. 160

5. La Palma..................................................................................................................... 164

6. Laguna Beach ............................................................................................................ 169

7. Laguna Hills ............................................................................................................... 173

8. Laguna Woods ........................................................................................................... 178 860
Orange County iv 25-29 Regional AFH

9. Los Alamitos .............................................................................................................. 181

10. Placentia..................................................................................................................... 183

11. San Juan Capistrano................................................................................................. 188

12. Seal Beach ................................................................................................................. 190

13. Stanton....................................................................................................................... 192

14. Villa Park .................................................................................................................... 193

15. Yorba Linda................................................................................................................ 195 B. Aliso Viejo ...................................................................................................................... 198 C. Anaheim......................................................................................................................... 200 D. Buena Park ..................................................................................................................... 205 E. Costa Mesa .................................................................................................................... 208 F. Fountain Valley .............................................................................................................. 212 G. Fullerton ......................................................................................................................... 214 H. Garden Grove ................................................................................................................ 224 I. Huntington Beach ......................................................................................................... 226 J. Irvine............................................................................................................................... 227 K. La Habra ......................................................................................................................... 238 L. Laguna Niguel ............................................................................................................... 242 M. Lake Forest..................................................................................................................... 247 N. Mission Viejo.................................................................................................................. 249 O. Newport Beach.............................................................................................................. 251 P. Orange............................................................................................................................ 253 Q. Rancho Santa Margarita............................................................................................... 256 R. San Clemente ................................................................................................................ 259 S. Santa Ana....................................................................................................................... 262 T. Tustin.............................................................................................................................. 266 U. Westminster................................................................................................................... 270 861
Orange County 1 25-29 Regional AFH
I. Executive Summary
The Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) provides communities an opportunity to assess their progress toward the goals of eliminating housing discrimination and promoting access to housing opportunity for both current and future residents. Jurisdictions that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds, complete an AFH at least once every five years, consistent with the Consolidated Plan cycle, as part of their obligations under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the CranstonGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.

As a fair housing planning document, the AFH facilitates HUD grantee compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. Affirmatively furthering fair housing entails taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing applies to all activities and programs within a jurisdiction related to housing and urban development.

This AFH is a collaborative effort among the following jurisdictions:
• Orange County and the Urban County Program participating cities of Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach, Stanton, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. • The HUD Entitlement Cities of Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, City of Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster.

To prepare the AFH, jurisdictions first must identify fair housing issues. A fair housing issue refers to a condition within a specific geographic area that restricts fair housing choice or limits access to opportunity. Fair housing issues may include ongoing local or regional segregation/concentration or lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.

To identify fair housing issues, HUD recommends that jurisdictions gather and analyze data. For this AFH, the jurisdictions analyzed data on the following topics:
• Demographics
• Segregation or Concentration/Integration
• Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty • Disparities in Access to Opportunity
862
Orange County 2 25-29 Regional AFH
• Housing Needs
• Discrimination Complaints
The data utilized in the analysis are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, housing discrimination complaint data provided by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), and information gathered through the community participation process (described below).

The ACS data utilized in the assessment are from the 2018-2022 five-year estimates, which were the most current data across all participating jurisdictions at the time the analysis was conducted.

After analyzing the data and identifying fair housing issues, jurisdictions then must identify contributing factors. A contributing factor is any condition that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues. For each fair housing issue and its contributing factors, jurisdictions must then develop fair housing goals. A fair housing goal is a specific, meaningful action that can reasonably be expected to create meaningful positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by increasing fair housing choice or reducing disparities in access to opportunity.

For the contributing factors and fair housing goals in this AFH, the jurisdictions built upon the extensive work they have already done preparing their most recent Housing Elements, which cover an eight-year planning period. As part of the state-mandated Housing Element, California jurisdictions must conduct a fair housing assessment that includes an analysis of fair housing issues, identification of factors that create and/or contribute to those issues, and development of goals and meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.

Progress toward reaching the goals identified in the Housing Element must then be periodically reported to the state.

A summary of the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and fair housing goals for each jurisdiction can be found in Section IV of this AFH. 863
Orange County 3 25-29 Regional AFH
II. Community Participation Process
To develop the AFH, information was also gathered from residents, housing professionals, and service providers. Incorporating information from these sources is important for ensuring that the AFH reflects community needs and knowledge that may not be discernible from other data sources. The community participation process for this AFH involved the following efforts:

A. Stakeholder Consultation
Four one-on-one interviews, and two focus groups were conducted during January and February 2025 with organizations that provide fair housing services and/or housing and services to protected class groups throughout the County. The interviews and focus group sessions discussed the fair housing issues frequently encountered by the organizations, the underlying causes for those issues, and ongoing efforts currently to address them.

Participants also discussed additional actions their organizations would recommend.

Invitations to participate in the stakeholder consultation activities were sent to approximately 78 organizations identified by the jurisdictions involved in the planning process. Fourteen organizations, as well as staff from two of the participating jurisdictions, participated in these consultations, including: Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family Shelter, Domus Development, City of Garden Grove, City of Lake Forest, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County. Information gathered through these consultations is incorporated throughout this report.

B. Community Meetings
A total of six community meetings were held in March 2025 to gather public input on the fair housing issues impacting residents of Orange County, and the factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of those issues. These meetings included two virtual meetings and four in-person meetings held at the dates, times, and locations listed below.

In-person community meetings:
• March 5, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 5, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 6, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at La Habra City Hall, Festival Room, 110 E. La Habra Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631
864
Orange County 4 25-29 Regional AFH
• March 6, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Costa Mesa City Hall, Community Room, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Virtual community meetings:
• March 7, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
• March 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
Outreach to advertise the community meetings included the following efforts:
• City of Anaheim notified the 250 members of their Homeless Collaborative and community stakeholders.
• City of Aliso Viejo posted a copy of the notice to their City website and shared on social media and city newsletters.
• City of Buena Park posted the public notice on the City website and City Hall bulletin board.
• City of Fountain Valley posted the public notice on the City website • City of Fullerton published the public notice in the Fullerton Observer newspaper, placed the notice on the City of Fullerton website, and placed copies of the notice at various public facilities and libraries as well as over 25 affordable housing sites. • City of Irvine sent copies of the notice to subrecipient partners and other interested parties.
• City of Laguna Niguel posted the public notice on the City website and social media channels.
• City of Mission Viejo posted the public notice on the City website. • City of San Clemente posted the public notice on the City website. • City of Santa Ana published the public notice for the public meetings in six languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic) including the following publications: Orange County Register, La Opinion, Nguoi Viet Daily News, Korea Times, World Journal, and Beirut Times.
• City of Rancho Santa Margarita posted the public notice on bulletin boards outside City Hall, OCFA Station 45, and Trabuco Canyon Water District. • County of Orange sent information regarding the virtual community meetings to community centers in the unincorporated areas of the County.

A total of fifteen individuals participated in these meetings to share their knowledge on fair housing issues and contributing factors in Orange County. These included representatives from the following organizations: Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The Cambodian Family, Orange County Families Forward, City of Fountain Valley, and City of Buena Park. Information gathered through these meetings is incorporated throughout this report.
865
Orange County 5 25-29 Regional AFH
III. Fair Housing Analysis
A. Demographic and Housing Summary
Table 1 – Demographics, shows demographic information for the population of Orange County overall, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions0F 1 , the participating HUD
Entitlement Cities, and the region1F
2 . These data are from the Census Bureau’s 2018-2022
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Table 2 – Demographic Trends, shows similar data over time, dating back to 1990. These tables indicate the following:

Population
Orange County has a population of 3,175,227. The largest cities in the County are Anaheim (population 347,111), Santa Ana (population 311,379), and Irvine (population 304,527). The Urban County population is 585,178.

Race/Ethnicity
Orange County’s population is majority-minority; however, the largest population group is White (38.46%). Hispanic residents comprise the second largest population group (33.93%), followed by Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), who make up 21.77% of the County population. African Americans account for 1.54% of the County population.

Compared to the region, Orange County has a higher proportion of White and AAPI residents, and a smaller proportion of Hispanic and Black residents.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• The Urban County, Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Clemente have a significantly higher2F
3 proportion of White residents.
• Anaheim, La Habra, and Santa Ana have a significantly higher proportion of Hispanic residents.
• Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, and Westminster have a higher proportion of AAPI residents.

Since 1990, the County population has become more diverse, transitioning from a White majority in 1990 to a majority-minority population today. The number of White residents in 1 The Orange County Urban County comprises the County unincorporated area, twelve (12) cities with populations under 50,000 (participating cities) and two (2) cities, Placentia and Yorba Linda, with populations over 50,000 (metropolitan cities).
2The region is defined by HUD as the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which comprises Los Angeles and Orange counties.
3 For this analysis, “significantly higher” means that the percentage of residents of a particular race/ethnicity in a city is at least 10% higher than the percentage of residents of the same race/ethnicity in the County overall. 866
Orange County 6 25-29 Regional AFH
the County declined each decade, while the number of Hispanic and AAPI residents grew.

The number of Black residents increased between 1990-2010 but declined over the past decade. These same trends are generally shared with the region and across the Urban County and HUD Entitlement Cities, with the following exceptions:
• In the region, the Black population has been declining since 2000. • In Aliso Viejo, the population of all racial/ethnic groups, including White, has increased in each decade.
• In Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, the AAPI population has declined over the last decade.
• In Fountain Valley and Garden Grove, the Black population has been declining since 2000.
• In Irvine, the White and Black populations have been increasing since 2000, in addition to growing Hispanic and AAPI populations.
• In La Habra, the Black population continued to grow after 2010. • In Laguna Niguel and Lake Forest, the White population increased during the 1990s before declining over the subsequent decades, and the Black population has continued to grow over the last decade.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the White population increased during the 1990s before declining over the last two decades.
• In San Clemente, the White population grew between 1990-2010, before shrinking slightly over the last decade; and the AAPI population fell over the last decade. • In Santa Ana, the Black population has been falling since 1990, and the Hispanic population has been declining since 2000.
• In Tustin, the Black population has been declining since 1990.

National Origin
Orange County has a foreign-born population of 937,254 (29.52% of the total population3F 4 ).

The primary countries of origin for the foreign-born population are Mexico (9.17%) and Vietnam (4.69%).

In the region, 32.52% of the population is foreign born, which is slightly higher than in Orange County.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Newport Beach, Orange, and San Clemente have significantly lower percentages of foreign-born residents. 4 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B05006 867
Orange County 7 25-29 Regional AFH
• Garden Grove, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher percentages of foreign-born residents. In these cities, the main countries of origin for the foreign-born population are:
o Garden Grove: Vietnam and Mexico
o Irvine: China (excluding Taiwan), Korea, and India
o Santa Ana: Mexico and Vietnam
o Westminster: Vietnam and Mexico
Since 1990, the County’s foreign-born population has increased in each decade, with the most dramatic increase occurring during the 1990s. In comparison, • The foreign-born population in the region grew between 1990-2010 and has been declining since 2010.
• The foreign-born population has declined in the following jurisdictions:
o The Urban County, Anaheim, La Habra, Orange, and San Clemente, where the foreign-born population has been declining since 2010.
o Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, where the foreign-born population has been declining since 2000. However, in Santa Ana, foreign-born residents still make up approximately half of the total population.
• In Irvine, the foreign-born population has continued to grow rapidly, nearly doubling since 2010.

Limited English Proficiency
Individuals who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those who primarily speak a language other than English and speak English “less than very well.” In Orange County, there are 539,484 LEP individuals4F
5 , which is equal to approximately 16.99% of the
population. The primary languages spoken by the LEP population in the County are Spanish (11.72%) and Vietnamese (3.45%).

In the region, 21.95% of the population is LEP, which is slightly higher than in Orange County.

Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, have significantly lower percentages of LEP residents.
• Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher percentages of LEP residents. In these cities, the primary languages spoken by the LEP population are:
o Anaheim: Spanish and Vietnamese
5 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601 868
Orange County 8 25-29 Regional AFH
o Buena Park: Spanish and Korean
o Garden Grove:Vietnamese and Spanish
o Santa Ana: Spanish and Vietnamese
o Westminster:Vietnamese and Spanish
Between 1990-2010, the County’s LEP population increased. Since 2010, the County’s LEP population has declined, though it remains well above the 1990 LEP population. In comparison:
• The LEP population in the region grew during the 1990s but has been declining since 2000.
• The LEP population has grown each decade since 1990, including since 2010, in the Urban County jurisdictions, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Westminster. • The LEP population has been declining since 2000 in Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana.
• In Garden Grove, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, the LEP population declined between 2000-2010, but has increased since 2010.

Age
Approximately 63.2% of the Orange County population is between the ages of 18 and 64;

15.38% are aged 65 and older, and 21.42% are younger than 18. The age distribution of the population in the region is similar. In comparison to the County overall, the Urban County, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and Newport Beach all have slightly older populations, with over one-fifth of their population aged 65 and older.

Since 1990, the County’s population has been getting older. Currently, the County’s population has a smaller proportion of the population (when compared to 1990) in both the “Under 18” and “18-64” year-old age categories, and a higher proportion of the population in the “65+” age category. The same general trend is evident in the region and all other jurisdictions, except for Aliso Viejo, where the percentage of the population under age 18 has increased, and the percentage of the population aged 65 and older has decreased, since 1990.

Families with Children
In Orange County, approximately 41.56% of families have children. This is slightly higher than the region, where 40.02% of families have children. Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo and Tustin have significantly higher percentages of families with children (52.06% and 52.64%, respectively), and in Irvine, over half (50.45%) of families have children.
869
Orange County 9 25-29 Regional AFH
• Laguna Niguel, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Westminster have the lowest percentages of families with children, although the percentages are not significantly lower than those for the County overall.

The percentage of families with children in the County is lower today than it was in 1990, when 48.04% of families had children. This is also true in the region and the other jurisdictions, with the following exceptions:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and Tustin, where the current percentage of families with children is higher than it was in 1990.

Table 1 – Demographics
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 870
Orange County 10 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 871
Orange County 11 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 872
Orange County 12 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 873
Orange County 13 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 874
Orange County 14 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 875
Orange County 15 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 876
Orange County 16 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.

Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families. 877
Orange County 17 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends
878
Orange County 18 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)
879
Orange County 19 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)
880
Orange County 20 25-29 Regional AFH
The following paragraphs describe housing patterns, including tenure, cost burden, and the location of renters and owners.

Tenure
Table 3 - Housing Tenure, shows data on housing tenure for the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This table indicates the following:

In Orange County overall, the homeownership rate is 56.5%. This is higher than the homeownership for the region, which is 48.7%. Among the jurisdictions, • The following have a comparable homeownership rate (within five percentage points of the County’s rate)
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o La Habra
o Newport Beach
o Orange
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is lower than the homeownership rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points, indicating a higher percentage of households are renters:
o Anaheim
o Costa Mesa
o Irvine
o Santa Ana
o Tustin
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is higher than the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Fountain Valley
o Laguna Niguel
o Lake Forest
o Mission Viejo
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o San Clemente
881
Orange County 21 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 3 – Housing Tenure
882
Orange County 22 25-29 Regional AFH
Cost Burden
Table 4 – Cost Burden shows data on housing cost burden for the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Cost burden is defined as spending more than 30% of monthly gross income on housing-related costs. This table presents the following:

In Orange County overall, over half (53.2%) of all renters are cost burdened. The rate is significantly lower for homeowners (30.3%). These rates are comparable to the experience of owners and renters across the region. Among the jurisdictions, • The following have a comparable rate of cost burdened renters (within five percentage points of the County’s rate)
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Costa Mesa
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o Irvine
o Laguna Niguel
o La Habra
o Mission Viejo
o Orange
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o Santa Ana
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost-burden rate that is lower than the rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o Newport Beach
o San Clemente
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost-burden rate that is higher than the rate for the County overall, by at least five percentage points, meaning a higher percentage of renters in these jurisdictions are cost burdened compared to the County overall:
o Anaheim
o Fountain Valley
o Lake Forest
o Tustin
883
Orange County 23 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 4 – Cost Burden
884
Orange County 24 25-29 Regional AFH
Location of Renters and Owners
Map 1 – Housing Tenure. is a series of maps showing the distribution of renter households in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were produced by California HCD to facilitate the fair housing planning process 5F 6 . On the maps,
the darker shaded areas have a higher proportion of renter households. These maps reflect the following:
• In Orange County overall, renters are concentrated in the north, west, and central parts of the County. Moving east and south from the border with Los Angeles County, a higher percentage of housing units are owner-occupied.

Within the participating jurisdictions, there are concentrations of renter-occupied and owner-occupied housing in the following areas:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions there are relatively few areas with a high percentage of renter households, with the exceptions of Placentia, which has high concentrations of renter households in the southwest corner of the city and in parts of the city near CSU-Fullerton; and Los Alamitos, which has a high concentration of renters in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive. Conversely, there are various parts of the Urban County jurisdictions with relatively high concentrations of owner households, including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated area to the east of Yorba Linda, North Tustin, Seal Beach (outside the Naval Weapons Station), Rossmoor, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, and Northwest Brea.
• In Aliso Viejo there is a relatively high percentage of renter households south of SR73 between Aliso Viejo Parkway and Woodfield Park, and a relatively high percentage of owner households along the southern and western edges of city, south of SR-73 and west of Pacific Park Drive and Wood Canyon Drive.
• In Anaheim there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the Census Tracts north of SR-91 in Northeast Anaheim; between the Convention Center and I5, and around Angel Stadium, in the southeastern part of the city; and in the Census Tract south of I-5 bounded by Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street, in the northwestern part of the city. There is a relatively high percentage of owner households in Anaheim Hills.
• In Buena Park there is a relatively high percentage of renters in the Census Tracts just north of I-5.
6 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 885
Orange County 25 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Costa Mesa there are relatively high concentrations of renter households north of SR-55 in the downtown area, and west of Orange Coast College; and there is a relatively high percentage of owner households north of Adams Avenue. • In Fountain Valley there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the neighborhoods south of Talbert Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street, and in the neighborhood just to the west of Mile Square Regional Park. • In Fullerton there are relatively high percentages of renter households in and around CSU Fullerton and along Highland Ave between SR-91 and Orangethorpe Avenue (adjacent to the Fullerton Metrocenter shopping mall); and there are relatively high percentages of owner households in Census Tracts between CSU Fullerton and Brea Boulevard, and between Harbor Boulevard and the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve. • In Garden Grove, there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in West Garden Grove, compared to the rest of the city.
• In Huntington Beach there are high percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city, as well as in the area surrounding the Huntington Club country club. • In Irvine there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the southwestern part of the city—specifically in the Census Tracts west of Harvard Ave, around San Remo Park, and north of UC Irvine in University Town Center; and near the I-5/I-405 interchange—specifically in the Census Tracts encompassing the Irvine Medical and Science Complex, the Irvine Spectrum Center, and East Irvine. • In La Habra there are a relatively high percentage of owner households in the neighborhoods south of SR-90 and west of Euclid St.
• In Laguna Niguel there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the southeast corner of the city (bordering San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point), adjacent to the El Niguel County Club, and in the neighborhoods between Crown Valley Pkwy and Alicia Pkwy.
• In Lake Forest there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the northeast of the city (to the north of SR-24) and in the southwest of the city (south of Trabuco Rd and west of Ridge Route Dr).
• In Mission Viejo there are relatively high percentages of owner households throughout the city, with some renters located in the southern part of the city. • In Newport Beach there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in the Newport Coast community, and a relatively high percentage of renters around the Newport Beach Country Club.
• In the City of Orange there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the southwestern corner of the city, west of SR-57 and I-5, and relatively high percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city. • In Rancho Santa Margarita there is a relatively high percentage of owner households throughout the city, with some renters located in the neighborhoods just to the east of SR-241 between Antonio Pkwy and Santa Margarita Pkwy. 886
Orange County 26 25-29 Regional AFH
• In San Clemente there is a relatively high percentage of renter households in the neighborhoods south of Max Berg Plaza Park, and relatively high percentages of homeowners in a number of neighborhoods to the north and northwest. • In Santa Ana there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the downtown area and in the neighborhoods southeast of downtown. • In Tustin there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the neighborhoods adjacent to SR-55 south of I-5, and relatively high percentages of owner households in the northeast part of the city.
• In Westminster there are relatively high percentages of renters in the neighborhoods just north and south of Westminster Blvd between Hoover St. and Beach Blvd.

Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
887
Orange County 27 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
888
Orange County 28 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
889
Orange County 29 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
890
Orange County 30 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis describes the demographics of residents of publicly supported housing.

Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity, provides the demographics of residents of different types of publicly support housing programs, including Public Housing, Project-Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. This table shows that, in Orange County:
• The majority of publicly supported housing is provided through the HCV Program (over 20,000 households with HCVs countywide). Additionally, there are approximately 4,000 units in Project-based Section 8 properties and approximately 100 units in Other Multifamily properties. There are no Public Housing units in the County.
• A significant portion of households with HCVs are headed by an AAPI individual (41.16%), followed by households headed by a White individual (25.32%), then Hispanic-headed households (21.12%), and then Black households (7.06%). • Project-based Section 8 units have a similar racial composition to the HCV Program overall; however, the percentages of households headed by AAPI and White individuals are higher (47.11% and 33.06% respectively), and households headed by Hispanic and Black individuals are lower (15.19% and 1.77% respectively).

Within the participating jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of publicly supported housing units varies:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of households in the HCV Program and in Project-based Section 8 units matches the County overall, with the one exception being that the number of AAPI and White households in Project-based Section 8 units are equal (each comprise 36.75% of those units).
• In Aliso Viejo, the only publicly supported housing available is through the HCV Program. Two-thirds of households using HCVs in the city are White. • In Anaheim, there are Project-based Section 8 developments in addition to households using HCVs. In the Project-based Section 8 units, the majority of households are AAPI. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households make up the largest single group of voucher recipients, followed by AAPI and White households. • In Buena Park, the overwhelming majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI. In the HCV Program, approximately one-third of households are Hispanic, 25% AAPI, 25% White, and nearly one-fifth of households are Black. • In Costa Mesa, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White, and there are no Black households in Project-based Section 8 units.
891
Orange County 31 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are AAPI, and there are no Black households in Project-based Section 8 units.
• In Fullerton, nearly all of the households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI and the majority of households in Other Multifamily program units are White. In the HCV Program, White and Hispanic families each make up approximately one-third of households, and Black and AAPI families each make up approximately 14% of households.
• In Garden Grove, a large majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are AAPI (over 80% in each program). • In Huntington Beach, over 50% of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI and around one-third are White. In the HCV Program, over 40% of households are White and around one-third are AAPI.
• In Irvine, White households are the majority in Project-based Section 8 and Other Multifamily program units and are the largest share of households in the HCV Program (46.76%). In the HCV Program, Black households are the second largest racial/ethnic group, comprising approximately one-fifth of households. • In La Habra, Hispanic households are the majority of HCV Program participants. The second largest racial/ethnic group is White households, who comprise 25% of households in the program. In Project-based Section 8 units, Hispanic, White, and AAPI each comprise approximately one-third of households. • In Laguna Niguel, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Lake Forest, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city. • In Mission Viejo, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing included in the HUD-provided data. (However, per the City’s Housing Element and other local sources, there are various publicly supported housing developments in the city.)
• In Newport Beach, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Orange, White and Hispanic households each comprise a slightly more than 40% of households in Project-based Section 8 units, and approximately one-third of households in the HCV Program. AAPI households make up around 25% of households in the HCV Program.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city. • In San Clemente, the majority of households in both Project-based Section 8 housing and the HCV Program are White.
892
Orange County 32 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Santa Ana, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units and in the HCV Program are AAPI. The second largest racial/ethnic group in each of these programs is Hispanic households.
• In Tustin, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI (over 70%) and approximately one-fifth are White. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households are the largest group (38%), followed by White households (33%). • In Westminster, AAPI households are the majority in both Project-based Section 8 units and in the HCV Program.
893
Orange County 33 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 653 6.67% 2,696 27.54% 6,055 61.84% 374 3.82% Project-Based Section 8 9,108 23.49% 6,733 17.37% 10,666 27.51% 12,058 31.10% Other Multifamily 1,706 32.43% 450 8.55% 1,173 22.30% 1,909 36.29% HCV Program 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Households 1,741,265 40.51% 332,330 7.73% 1,458,220 33.92% 666,628 15.51% 0-30% of AMI 242,025 29.00% 96,395 11.55% 355,100 42.55% 122,168 14.64% 0-50% of AMI 425,645 28.94% 149,340 10.16% 661,570 44.99% 203,018 13.81% 0-80% of AMI 682,980 30.49% 208,645 9.31% 990,690 44.22% 310,058 13.84% Orange County, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 1,362 33.06% 73 1.77% 626 15.19% 1,941 47.11% Other Multifamily 71 68.27% 8 7.69% 10 9.62% 6 5.77%
HCV Program 5,776 25.32% 1,610 7.06% 4,819 21.12% 9,390 41.16% Total Households 537,517 51.84% 16,903 1.63% 241,657 23.30% 186,863 18.02% 0-30% of AMI 63,893 40.68% 2,935 1.87% 52,308 33.30% 34,051 21.68% 0-50% of AMI 119,885 41.29% 5,251 1.81% 102,916 35.45% 55,867 19.24% 0-80% of AMI 206,268 43.82% 8,396 1.78% 160,512 34.10% 85,187 18.10% Orange County Urban County
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 154 36.75% 11 2.63% 96 22.91% 154 36.75% Other Multifamily 21 87.50% 0 0.00% 3 12.50% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 729 31.81% 164 7.16% 420 18.35% 969 42.30%
Total Households 123,567 64.87% 3,074 1.61% 30,302 15.91% 29,493 15.48% 0-30% of AMI 14,141 57.02% 339 1.37% 5,608 22.61% 4,234 17.07% 0-50% of AMI 27,749 57.61% 644 1.34% 10,983 22.80% 7,883 16.36% 0-80% of AMI 46,897 59.09% 1,298 1.64% 17,045 21.48% 12,551 15.82% Aliso Viejo, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 109 66.09% 17 10.60% 23 13.90% 14 8.60%
Total Households 12,570 67.58% 380 2.04% 2,120 11.40% 2,830 15.22% 0-30% of AMI 960 67.37% 85 5.96% 100 7.02% 205 14.39%
0-50% of AMI 1,675 66.07% 180 7.10% 195 7.69% 385 15.19% 0-80% of AMI 3,540 65.98% 250 4.66% 555 10.34% 770 14.35% Anaheim, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 58 21.48% 14 5.19% 51 18.89% 146 54.07% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 1,273 26.52% 430 8.96% 1,788 37.25% 1,290 26.89% Total Households 36,390 36.39% 2,688 2.69% 41,509 41.51% 17,464 17.46% 0-30% of AMI 5,410 26.79% 670 3.32% 10,364 51.32% 3,345 16.56% 0-50% of AMI 10,610 27.99% 1,214 3.20% 19,969 52.68% 5,429 14.32% 0-80% of AMI 17,010 28.83% 1,723 2.92% 30,514 51.72% 8,554 14.50% Buena Park, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 13 11.40% 1 0.88% 5 4.39% 95 83.33% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 174 24.25% 127 17.65% 232 32.25% 184 25.54% Total Households 7,540 32.34% 835 3.58% 7,705 33.05% 6,830 29.29% 0-30% of AMI 885 21.74% 250 6.14% 1,545 37.96% 1,300 31.94% 0-50% of AMI 1,820 22.28% 315 3.86% 3,590 43.94% 2,270 27.78% 0-80% of AMI 3,180 25.68% 515 4.16% 5,020 40.53% 3,440 27.78% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals. 894
Orange County 34 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Costa Mesa, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 69 65.09% 0 0.00% 19 17.92% 18 16.98% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 376 57.17% 23 3.50% 107 16.24% 149 22.64%
Total Households 25,230 61.75% 695 1.70% 10,105 24.73% 3,870 9.47% 0-30% of AMI 3,720 54.35% 105 1.53% 2,380 34.77% 480 7.01% 0-50% of AMI 6,395 51.45% 175 1.41% 4,680 37.65% 955 7.68% 0-80% of AMI 10,960 53.71% 285 1.40% 6,955 34.08% 1,800 8.82% Fountain Valley, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 10 14.29% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 59 84.29% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 99 19.23% 6 1.21% 44 8.55% 363 70.42%
Total Households 10,409 55.16% 175 0.93% 2,166 11.48% 5,794 30.70% 0-30% of AMI 1,305 49.25% 0 0.00% 227 8.57% 1,015 38.30% 0-50% of AMI 2,299 51.26% 25 0.56% 472 10.52% 1,539 34.31% 0-80% of AMI 4,214 52.51% 70 0.87% 1,036 12.91% 2,529 31.51% Fullerton, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 5 5.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.00% 94 94.00% Other Multifamily 38 79.17% 3 6.25% 5 10.42% 2 4.17%
HCV Program 264 38.23% 96 13.99% 232 33.64% 95 13.71%
Total Households 20,005 44.40% 1,448 3.21% 11,890 26.39% 10,615 23.56% 0-30% of AMI 3,305 37.49% 344 3.90% 2,835 32.16% 2,100 23.82% 0-50% of AMI 5,515 37.14% 434 2.92% 5,350 36.03% 3,205 21.58% 0-80% of AMI 9,305 38.61% 789 3.27% 8,375 34.75% 4,965 20.60% Garden Grove, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 34 13.28% 3 1.17% 4 1.56% 215 83.98% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 133 4.98% 35 1.30% 219 8.24% 2,270 85.23%
Total Households 14,254 29.92% 592 1.24% 13,550 28.44% 18,417 38.66% 0-30% of AMI 2,160 20.26% 165 1.55% 3,100 29.08% 5,054 47.42% 0-50% of AMI 3,865 20.48% 204 1.08% 6,200 32.86% 8,244 43.69% 0-80% of AMI 7,080 23.55% 303 1.01% 10,125 33.68% 12,043 40.06% Huntington Beach, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 133 35.00% 4 1.05% 41 10.79% 200 52.63% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 461 42.58% 50 4.61% 166 15.36% 399 36.88%
Total Households 53,650 71.15% 753 1.00% 10,855 14.40% 8,114 10.76% 0-30% of AMI 5,730 60.89% 115 1.22% 2,140 22.74% 1,220 12.96% 0-50% of AMI 11,035 62.66% 183 1.04% 3,905 22.17% 2,105 11.95% 0-80% of AMI 20,055 65.89% 323 1.06% 6,110 20.08% 3,205 10.53% Irvine, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 428 59.03% 24 3.31% 42 5.79% 231 31.86% Other Multifamily 12 52.17% 5 21.74% 2 8.70% 4 17.39%
HCV Program 682 46.76% 282 19.34% 246 16.84% 243 16.67% Total Households 45,515 50.61% 1,800 2.00% 6,788 7.55% 33,230 36.95% 0-30% of AMI 6,055 45.27% 230 1.72% 1,145 8.56% 5,260 39.33% 0-50% of AMI 9,580 46.56% 510 2.48% 1,939 9.42% 7,670 37.28% 0-80% of AMI 16,010 49.11% 625 1.92% 2,959 9.08% 11,750 36.04% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals. 895
Orange County 35 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals. 896
Orange County 36 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 87 62.31% 21 14.87% 24 17.06% 6 4.50%
Total Households 11,890 69.59% 285 1.67% 2,674 15.65% 1,855 10.86% 0-30% of AMI 1,095 66.57% 0 0.00% 440 26.75% 60 3.65%
0-50% of AMI 1,855 61.22% 50 1.65% 805 26.57% 215 7.10% 0-80% of AMI 3,525 65.58% 65 1.21% 1,295 24.09% 355 6.60% San Clemente, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 52 73.24% 0 0.00% 9 12.68% 9 12.68% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 100 72.35% 5 3.82% 26 18.61% 6 4.62%
Total Households 19,495 79.56% 130 0.53% 3,264 13.32% 965 3.94% 0-30% of AMI 1,820 67.16% 20 0.74% 605 22.32% 35 1.29%
0-50% of AMI 3,980 70.76% 20 0.36% 1,264 22.47% 65 1.16% 0-80% of AMI 6,420 72.62% 55 0.62% 1,809 20.46% 225 2.55% Santa Ana, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 44 5.47% 9 1.12% 202 25.12% 462 57.46% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 191 10.86% 69 3.89% 537 30.49% 958 54.41%
Total Households 12,430 16.55% 899 1.20% 50,935 67.83% 9,959 13.26% 0-30% of AMI 1,570 8.63% 159 0.87% 13,565 74.59% 2,745 15.09% 0-50% of AMI 3,405 9.76% 299 0.86% 26,460 75.88% 4,400 12.62% 0-80% of AMI 6,150 11.63% 529 1.00% 39,210 74.16% 6,440 12.18% Tustin, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 20 19.42% 0 0.00% 10 9.71% 73 70.87% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 192 33.12% 86 14.95% 219 37.88% 79 13.70%
Total Households 10,485 40.69% 604 2.34% 7,710 29.92% 6,084 23.61% 0-30% of AMI 1,480 39.31% 160 4.25% 1,465 38.91% 589 15.64% 0-50% of AMI 2,660 34.08% 240 3.07% 3,535 45.29% 1,134 14.53% 0-80% of AMI 4,595 34.93% 375 2.85% 5,965 45.34% 1,874 14.25% Westminster, CA
Housing Type # % # % # % # %
Public Housing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 3 3.03% 0 0.00% 1 1.01% 95 95.96% Other Multifamily 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
HCV Program 122 5.13% 21 0.87% 103 4.33% 2,131 89.46%
Total Households 9,270 34.01% 203 0.74% 5,165 18.95% 12,121 44.47% 0-30% of AMI 1,595 22.62% 14 0.20% 1,195 16.95% 4,154 58.92% 0-50% of AMI 2,800 23.64% 24 0.20% 2,260 19.08% 6,599 55.71% 0-80% of AMI 4,685 27.38% 79 0.46% 3,630 21.22% 8,397 49.08% White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.

White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
897
Orange County 37 25-29 Regional AFH
B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration
The following analysis describes segregation/concentration levels, identifies the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation/concentration, and explains how these levels and patterns have changed over time.

Table 6 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, displays how segregated/concentrated or integrated various racial/ethnic groups are in the region, the Orange County Urban County, and the HUD Entitlement Cities using a Dissimilarity Index, which is calculated using data from the 2010 Decennial Census. The Dissimilarity Index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is commonly used for assessing residential segregation/integration between two groups. Dissimilarity index values indicate the following:
• Values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation/concentration)
• Values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation/concentration • Values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation/concentration
Please note two key shortcomings of these data:

1. The data only measure segregation between Black and White, Hispanic, and White, and AAPI and White residents. As a result, no conclusions can be drawn regarding segregation among Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents.

2. The data measure segregation only within each jurisdiction and do provide insights into racial/ethnic segregation across jurisdictional boundaries.

Table 6 shows that, in the region, there are high levels of segregation between Black and White residents and between Hispanic and White residents, and there is moderate segregation between AAPI and White residents. Since 1990, segregation between Black and White residents has declined, while segregation between Hispanic/White and AAPI/White has increased.

In Orange County the following jurisdictions are highly integrated, indicating low levels of segregation/concentration among the groups analyzed:
• The Urban County jurisdictions – While segregation levels are higher compared to 1990, they have trended downward since 2000 for Black/White and Hispanic/White residents.
• Aliso Viejo – Since 1990, concentrations of Hispanic and AAPI residents have been increasing but remain low.
898
Orange County 38 25-29 Regional AFH
• Anaheim – Segregation levels between Black/White and AAPI/White have been increasing since 1990. Segregation level between Hispanic/White were high in 2000 but have since declined.
• Buena Park – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low. • Fountain Valley – Since 1990, segregation levels between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White have been increasing but remain low. • Fullerton – Segregation level between AAPI/White is increasing but remains low. • Garden Grove – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low. • Huntington Beach – Segregation level between Black/White increased between 2000-2010 but remains low.
• Irvine – Segregation levels between the groups analyzed decreased between 2000- 2010.
• La Habra – Since 1990, segregation between Black/White residents has increased, though remains low, and segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White has decreased.
• Laguna Niguel – Between 1990-2010, concentrations of Black and Hispanic residents increased, though remain low.
• Lake Forest – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Mission Viejo – Between 1990-2010, concentration of Hispanic residents increased, though remains low.
• Newport Beach – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Orange – Between 1990-2010, segregation between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Rancho Santa Margarita – Concentration by race/ethnic group has increased since 1990 but remains low.
• Westminster – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low.

In Orange County the following jurisdictions have moderate levels of segregation between at least two of the racial groups analyzed (no jurisdictions in the County have high levels of segregation):
• Costa Mesa –There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.

Segregation levels declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. • Santa Ana –There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents, and between AAPI and White. Segregation levels between Hispanic/White residents declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. Since 1990, segregation between AAPI/White residents has increased.
• Tustin – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.

Segregation levels declined between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. 899
Orange County 39 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 55.32 55.50 54.64 30.48 36.54 35.55 1.79 6.49 8.90 Black/White 72.75 68.12 65.22 32.90 35.33 34.07 15.82 12.66 11.59 Hispanic/White 60.12 62.44 62.15 36.26 42.43 39.52 0.19 14.88 15.67 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.46 46.02 45.77 32.65 36.76 37.16 0.31 4.86 7.94 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 29.33 31.57 31.56 18.17 22.07 21.40 29.84 36.88 34.33 Black/White 22.16 25.87 27.69 21.76 23.51 25.25 30.17 27.07 27.67 Hispanic/White 38.77 40.24 38.70 26.64 33.21 30.85 34.52 45.33 41.88 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.23 17.28 21.53 11.56 13.87 16.44 30.36 31.94 30.59 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 14.25 22.27 23.54 25.53 31.16 30.52 25.05 31.79 32.16 Black/White 27.24 27.57 26.28 30.60 31.84 26.53 22.19 23.11 23.45 Hispanic/White 21.64 28.33 29.59 33.72 39.98 38.28 27.67 32.64 33.20 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.85 22.12 23.58 30.41 33.48 35.24 27.45 34.97 33.98 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 21.11 23.44 21.58 16.49 21.55 18.01 28.18 26.72 24.14 Black/White 21.45 19.99 24.20 42.99 27.84 19.37 12.56 13.25 19.36 Hispanic/White 28.10 33.37 30.09 21.98 22.79 17.88 33.93 30.96 28.59 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.86 20.11 18.25 18.18 22.57 18.73 40.48 38.69 36.53 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 9.17 12.98 16.34 9.39 15.38 17.28 13.67 15.17 15.75 Black/White 13.82 22.75 16.24 12.43 12.16 9.52 18.03 20.63 16.83 Hispanic/White 13.34 20.76 22.79 15.72 26.10 27.63 12.26 18.75 20.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.37 12.68 13.82 8.84 11.06 13.46 20.00 16.83 13.98 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 13.20 15.04 17.04 23.75 24.25 22.59 5.43 12.26 14.07 Black/White 21.92 19.85 15.96 24.17 24.63 24.89 7.18 12.64 13.35 Hispanic/White 14.33 18.29 18.21 30.31 29.99 26.95 5.73 19.52 23.13 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.99 23.74 25.92 19.44 22.28 22.53 6.70 8.56 9.55 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 21.89 25.93 16.76 47.77 49.28 46.49 26.33 36.73 32.93 Black/White 13.86 19.08 14.93 36.53 27.91 25.15 42.49 35.11 29.02 Hispanic/White 27.16 32.90 23.71 53.09 53.61 50.00 31.13 48.20 42.54 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 14.66 14.76 16.56 43.10 46.77 46.87 19.20 17.74 19.76 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Non-White/White 24.58 28.05 31.59
Black/White 11.56 14.18 17.62
Hispanic/White 30.31 29.74 31.83
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.15 29.73 34.65
Lake Forest, CA
Note 1: Data Source: Decennial Census, accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).

Westminster, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Orange, CA
Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Aliso Viejo, CA
Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Orange County Urban County
Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA La Habra, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA
900
Orange County 40 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis identifies areas with relatively high segregation/concentration and integration and indicates the predominant groups living in each area.

Race/Ethnicity
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration, is a series of maps showing racial/ethnic concentrations in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps are published by California HCD using methodology from the Othering & Belonging Institute, which combines various measures of segregation and integration (including a dissimilarity index), and uses data from 2020. On these maps, dark red indicates areas where people of color (POC) experience high levels of segregation/concentration; green indicates areas where White residents experience high levels of segregation/concentration; yellow indicates areas that are racially/ethnically integrated.

Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity, is a series of maps showing the predominant racial/ethnic group by Census Tract in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. The colors indicate different racial/ethnic groups, and the relative strength of the shading indicates the extent to which one group is dominant over the next most populous group (with darker shading indicating a higher concentration of that racial/ethnic group). These maps were created by California HCD using 2017-2021 ACS data, to facilitate fair housing planning. 6F
7 Collectively, the maps illustrate that in Orange County overall, there are areas of high POC segregation/concentration in the central and northern parts of the County (including the cities of Santa Ana, Westminster, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Fullerton), and there are areas of high White segregation/concentration along the entire coast (including Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Paint, Capistrano Beach, and San Clemente) and in the southern part of the County (including Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, and Rancho Santa Margarita).

Within each participating jurisdiction, there are areas of high segregation/integration in the following locations:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are areas of high White segregation in Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Santa Margarita, North Tustin, Seal Beach, Yorba Linda, northern Placentia, Villa Park, and Orange Park Acres.
o There are areas of high POC segregation in Stanton (which are predominantly Hispanic or AAPI), Cypress (which are predominantly AAPI), northern Yorba 7 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 901
Orange County 41 25-29 Regional AFH
Linda (which are predominantly AAPI), La Palma (which are predominantly AAPI), and San Juan Capistrano (which is predominantly Hispanic). o There are areas of integration including the Atwood neighborhood in Placentia, which is predominantly Hispanic; Brea just northwest of the SR90/SR-57 interchange, which is a predominantly Hispanic area; and in Los Alamitos, in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive, which is predominantly Hispanic. • In Aliso Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northern and eastern parts of the city. • In Anaheim, the map shows integrated areas in Southeast Anaheim (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group), in western Anaheim west of Brookhurst Street (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group in many neighborhoods, and AAPI residents are the predominant group in a few others), and in the neighborhoods between Modjeska Park and Palm Lane Park in the Hermosa Village community (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group). The map shows another integrated area in Northeast Anaheim, to the north of SR-91. However, this is primarily an industrial/commercial area. The city also has neighborhoods of high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods north of downtown and along SR91, and neighborhoods south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The Anaheim Hills area demonstrates a high White segregation.
• In Buena Park, most of the city is considered an area of low-medium segregation with the exception of the following areas: the northeast corner of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and is predominantly AAPI; the neighborhood between I-5, Artesia Boulevard, Beach Boulevard, and the Los Angeles County border is also considered an area of high POC segregation, and is predominantly Hispanic; and the neighborhoods south of Boisseranc Park between Dale Street and the nurseries, is considered a racially integrated area. • In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods between downtown and the Costa Mesa Country Club are areas of high POC segregation, with a predominantly Hispanic population.

The neighborhoods in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive) are all areas of high White segregation, as are the neighborhoods north of the Country Club and the neighborhoods between Estancia High School and Canyon Park.
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of Census Tracts are considered areas of high POC segregation, and many have a predominantly AAPI population (particularly north of Warner Avenue). The neighborhoods surrounding the intersection of Magnolia Street and Ellis Avenue in the city’s southwest, and between Brookhurst Street and Ward Street south of I-405, are considered areas of high White segregation. 902
Orange County 42 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fullerton, there are various neighborhoods that are considered racially integrated, including in the area around CSU Fullerton and extending west to Fullerton College, and in the southwest area of the city. There are also areas considered to have high POC segregation, including most of the neighborhoods west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Malvern Avenue, which are predominantly AAPI areas. • In Garden Grove, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation except for West Garden Grove. In West Garden Grove, the residential neighborhoods west of Knott Street are considered areas of high White segregation.

East of Knott Street is primarily industrial and commercial land uses. In the high POC segregation areas, AAPI residents are the predominant group west of 9th Street and Hispanic residents are the predominant group east of there. • In Huntington Beach, most of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White, with the exception of one Census Tract in the center of the city that is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Irvine, there are a number of Census Tracts considered to be areas of high POC segregation, some of which are predominantly AAPI and others are predominantly White. These areas include the neighborhoods between I-405 and UC Irvine, the Westpark community north of I-405, the neighborhoods between Como Channel and I-5, and the Northwood community north of I-5. There are also areas of high White segregation in Irvine, including the neighborhood bounded by Turtle Rock Drive the area surrounding the Strawberry Farms Golf Club, the Woodbridge community north of I-405, and the neighborhood west of the Oak Creek Golf Club. Please note that data was unavailable for many parts of the city, as indicated by the grey shading. • In La Habra, there are various neighborhoods considered to have high POC segregation, including neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. The city also has two racially integrated areas, one that extends across its border to the west (between SR-90 and the railroad tracks) and another that extends across its border to the south (south of SR-90 and east of Euclid St).
• In Laguna Niguel, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northeastern and eastern parts of the city. • In Lake Forest, most of the city’s neighborhoods have a predominantly White population. There are predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in the southeast corner of the city, along El Toro Road, and the northwest corner of the city is predominantly AAPI.
• In Mission Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration in the southern, northern, and western parts of the city.
903
Orange County 43 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Newport Beach, the entire city is classified as an area of high White segregation. • In Orange, most of the city to the north and east of Villa Park is considered an area of high White segregation, and most of the city to the south and west of Villa Park is considered an area of low-medium POC segregation. In the low-medium segregation areas, the neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic west of Glassel Street with a high concentration of Hispanic residents in the neighborhoods north of Walnut Avenue. The neighborhoods between Glassel Street and SR-55 are predominantly White, and the neighborhoods east of SR-55 and south of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic. There is one area in the city that is considered integrated. This area lies to the south of Villa Park and runs south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue toward El Modena. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the neighborhoods east of SR-241 between Antonio Parkway and Santa Margarita Parkway.
• In San Clemente, the majority of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, with the exception of one Census Tract encompassing neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as low-medium concentration with a predominantly White population.
• In Santa Ana, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly Hispanic population except for the Riverview West community which is predominantly AAPI. There are some areas of low-medium POC segregation in the city, including the neighborhoods north of I-5, Floral Park, West Floral Park, Fisher Park, Morrison/Eldridge Park, Riverglen, Casa de Santiago, and neighborhoods south of Warner Avenue.There is one integrated area in the southern part of the city between Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping Mall, where White residents are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, there are racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I-5. These are surrounded by neighborhoods of low-medium segregation that are a mix of predominantly White, Hispanic, and AAPI.
• In Westminster, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly AAPI population with a few exceptions. The northwestern corner of the city, between I-405 and Bolsa Chica Road is an area of high White segregation. Across I-405 from those neighborhoods is an integrated area with a predominantly Hispanic population (west of Edwards Avenue). This area includes mobile home parks near the intersections of SR-22 and I-405. 904
Orange County 44 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
905
Orange County 45 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
906
Orange County 46 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
907
Orange County 47 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
908
Orange County 48 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Region Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
909
Orange County 49 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
910
Orange County 50 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
911
Orange County 51 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis compares the locations of publicly supported housing with the areas of concentration.

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing, is a series of maps showing the location of federaland state-subsidized housing in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from California Housing Partnership7F
8 . On the maps, the size of each dot
correlates to the number of publicly-supported housing units in an area—larger dots indicate higher numbers of units. The shading of the Census Tracts indicates the percentage of renter occupied housing units in that Tract that are supported by a HCV, including both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. The darker shading indicates higher percentages of vouchers.

The locations of publicly supported housing on these maps align with the areas of segregation and integration on Map 2 (Racial/Ethnic Segregation/Integration), in the following places:
8 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 912
Orange County 52 25-29 Regional AFH
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and areas of high POC segregation in the following places:
▪ Cypress – in the neighborhood around King Elementary School, in the north of the city.
▪ Placentia – in the southwest corner of the city
▪ Stanton – throughout the city
▪ San Juan Capistrano – in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74)
o There is overlap between areas without any publicly supported housing and either low HCV use or no data on HCV use, and areas of high White segregation, the following places:
▪ Rossmoor, Seal Beach, North Tustin, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, and Dana Point
• In Aliso Viejo, there are publicly supported units and higher percentages of units with vouchers in the south of city, which is an area of high White concentration. • In Anaheim, there are multiple publicly supported housing developments downtown and north of downtown, which are high POC segregation areas. The map also shows a concentration of vouchers in the high POC segregation area between Santa Ana River and Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station and west of Imperial Highway (SR-90). However, this is largely a commercial/industrial area with few housing units. In the western part of the city, around Western High School, there is also a cluster of publicly supported housing developments in a racially integrated area.
• In Buena Park, most publicly supported housing units are located in between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), which is a low-medium segregation area like most of the city.
• In Costa Mesa, the largest number of publicly supported housing units and the highest concentration of vouchers is in high POC segregation area located downtown and west of downtown.
• In Fountain Valley, the location of publicly supported housing units and highest concentrations of vouchers mirrors the high POC segregation areas. • In Fullerton, publicly supported housing units are mostly clustered in the center of the city, which is a low-medium segregation area.
• In Garden Grove, there are lots of publicly supported housing units in the center of city along Garden Grove Boulevard, which is a high POC segregation area.

There are no publicly supported housing units in West Garden Grove, which is an area of high White segregation.
913
Orange County 53 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Huntington Beach, the map shows publicly supported housing units located in the center of the city. Local data identify affordable housing projects distributed broadly across the city.
• In Irvine, the high POC segregation areas north of I-405 overlap with the location of publicly supported housing units. In other parts of the city where there is high voucher use and multiple publicly supported housing developments, there is no segregation data available.
• In La Habra, publicly supported housing units are located in the city’s center and north neighborhoods, which are all low-medium or high POC segregation areas. • In Laguna Niguel, the map shows one public supported housing development (near the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and La Paz Road) and a small concentration of voucher use in northwest part of city, which is a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that another development in the western part of the City also receives vouchers.
• In Lake Forest, there are publicly supported housing units in the northwest, near the intersection of SR-241 and Alton Parkway.There are a smaller number of units in the south of the city, along El Toro Road.
• In Mission Viejo, the map shows two publicly supported housing developments in the southern part of the city. One of these developments, in the southeast, aligns with a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that there are additional publicly supported housing developments that are not reflected in the HUD-provided data.
• In Newport Beach, there are two publicly supported housing developments (one east and one west of Newport Center), both of which are in high White segregation areas.
• In Orange, all publicly supported housing units and households with vouchers are located to the west and south of Villa Park (which are low-medium segregation areas). There are no units or vouchers in use to the east of Villa Park, where it is a high White segregation area.The largest publicly supported housing development (biggest blue dot) is in the integrated area to the south of Villa Park, running south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue towards El Modena.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no publicly supported housing units. There are some vouchers in use in the northeast part of the city that is a low-medium concentration area
• In San Clemente, there is a cluster of publicly supported housing units in the lowmedium concentration area north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park. • In Santa Ana, a significant number of publicly supported housing units are located downtown and southeast of downtown, both of which are high POC segregation areas. There is a higher concentration of vouchers, as well as some publicly 914
Orange County 54 25-29 Regional AFH
supported housing units, west of the Santa Ana River, which is also a high POC segregation area.
• In Tustin, there is a large concentration of publicly supported housing units in the south. Segregation data for this area are unavailable; however, according to Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity) the population is predominantly AAPI. • In Westminster, the location of publicly supported housing units and areas with highest concentration of vouchers aligns with the high POC segregation areas in the central part of the city. There are no publicly supported housing units, and fewer vouchers in use, in the western parts of the city that are high White segregation, racially integrated, and low-medium segregation areas.

Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
915
Orange County 55 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region (HCV Only)
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
916
Orange County 56 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
917
Orange County 57 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
918
Orange County 58 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above (including siting decisions of private or publicly supported housing or the location of residents using Housing Choice Vouchers).

Broadly speaking, the patterns of residential segregation/concentration by race – both between and within jurisdictions in Orange County and across the United States – are due, in part, to:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation, which created many of the residential patterns that still exist today.
• Local land use and zoning laws that have perpetuated patterns of racial segregation, some of which remain in place, while others which have been removed but continue to have lasting effects.
• Market factors, including the high cost of land and existing housing throughout Orange County, constrain the development of new affordable housing and limit access for families to existing housing.
919
Orange County 59 25-29 Regional AFH
• Discrimination in the private housing market, including source-of-income discrimination, driven in part by a lack of knowledge of state and federal fair housing laws and regulations, which in turn limits housing mobility. • There are numerous ethnic enclaves of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other groups throughout Orange County. These enclaves provide a sense of community and a social network that may help newcomers preserve their cultural identities.

However, these active choices should not obscure the significant impact of structural barriers to fair housing choice and discrimination.

Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that segregation/concentration patterns in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity) areas. • Lack of housing mobility for some minority groups based on a lack of credit history coupled with high demand for affordable housing across the County, which permits landlords and property management companies to prioritize applicants based on credit history.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to segregation/concentration in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.

C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) The following analysis identifies R/ECAPs and/or groupings of R/ECAP tracts.

HUD defines racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) as Census Tracts that meet both of the following criteria:
• a non-White population of 50 percent or more, and
• a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or a poverty rate that is three or more times the average Tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

The analysis in this report uses a measure of segregation and concentrated poverty created by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California HCD. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s poverty concentration and racial segregation filter aligns with HUD's R/ECAP methodology but is designed to more effectively reflect the level of racial and ethnic diversity in many parts of California. This measure uses the following criteria to define Census Tracts as “High Segregation and Poverty” areas:
• Tracts and rural block groups where at least 30 percent of the population is living below the poverty level (note that college and graduate students are removed from 920
Orange County 60 25-29 Regional AFH
the poverty calculation in the filter in Census Tracts where they comprise at least 25% of the population); and
• Tracts that have a Location Quotient (LQ) higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color. The LQ measures relative segregation by calculating how much more segregated a Census Tract is relative to a larger area (in this case, the County).

Compared to the measure used by HUD (which is an absolute threshold of nonWhite population in a Census Tract), this measure better captures inequality operating on individuals at the neighborhood level.

Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas, indicates racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Orange County (note that the only R/ECAP areas are located in the central part of the County). This map was created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data. This map shows R/ECAPs in the following areas:
• Placentia – in the southwestern corner of the city, south of Orangethorpe Avenue • Anaheim – northeast of Disneyland, along Ball Road and I-5 • Garden Grove – in the northern part of the city to between Brookhurst Street and Gilbert Street, north of Chapman Avenue
• Santa Ana – covering multiple Census Tracts in the downtown • Costa Mesa – on the west side of downtown and the area southwest of downtown (between Newport Avenue (SR-55) and Placentia Avenue, south of 19th Street). 921
Orange County 61 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes and identifies the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs, and how these demographics compare with the overall demographics of the area.

To identify the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs and compare them to the overall demographics of the surrounding areas, we look at the areas designated as “High Segregation and Poverty” on Map 5 (High Segregation and Poverty Areas) in relation to the demographic information on Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity). The analysis finds that R/ECAPs in Orange County are predominantly Hispanic. Specifically, • In Placentia, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods to the west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim. The neighborhoods to the east are predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.
• In Costa Mesa, the R/ECAP area is predominantly Hispanic, as are the adjacent neighborhoods to the north and west. The Census Tracts to the east, across Newport Avenue, are all predominantly White.
• In Garden Grove, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic and is surrounded by Census Tracts that are predominantly AAPI.
922
Orange County 62 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Santa Ana, the R/ECAP Tracts are predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.

The following analysis describes how R/ECAPs align with the location of publicly supported housing.

Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs, shows the location of public-supported housing in Orange County in comparison to the location of the R/ECAPs (outlined in red).

This map shows no overarching patterns between the location of publicly supported housing and R/ECAPs.
• In Placentia, the R/ECAP area is home to one public housing development of 50-100 units, and between 5-15% of renter-occupied units in the Tract utilize a voucher— which is similar to other Tracts in the city.
• In Anaheim, there are no publicly supported housing units in the R/ECAP Tract, and fewer than 5% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP Tract utilize a voucher. • In Costa Mesa, the largest publicly supported housing development in the city is located on the northern boundary of the R/ECAP area. There is no data on voucher usage in the Tract.
• In Garden Grove, 15-30% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP tract utilize a voucher, which is similar to a number of other non-R/ECAPTracts in the city. There are no publicly supported housing developments in the R/ECAP Tract. • In Santa Ana, fewer than 5% of renter-occupied housing units in the R/ECAP areas utilize a voucher; however, there are various publicly supported housing developments within the boundaries of the R/ECAP area.
923
Orange County 63 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs
Source: Created by authors using map from California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer 924
Orange County 64 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

In the most recent Housing Elements prepared and adopted by each jurisdiction, the following factors were identified that contribute to the existence of R/ECAPs in these jurisdictions.

In Placentia:
• Lack of affordable housing, which limits housing mobility. • Limited participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. • Land use and development practices that constrain affordable housing development.
• Private discrimination in housing, due in part to a lack of fair housing knowledge and enforcement.

In Anaheim:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation have created many of the residential patterns that still exist today. Additionally, the high cost of land and existing housing in Anaheim (and throughout Orange County) are significant constraints to the development of new affordable housing and access for families to existing housing.

In Costa Mesa:
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families. • Lack of affordable housing due to both governmental and market constraints.

In Garden Grove:
• Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes, due to high land and development costs in the region, public opposition to new development, and land use and zoning laws.
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families. • Limited access to financial services.
• Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency. • Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.

In Santa Ana:
• Lack of fair housing education and outreach.
• Lack of affordable housing.
925
Orange County 65 25-29 Regional AFH
D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following paragraphs analyze disparities in access to opportunity for education, employment, transportation, poverty, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, disability and access, and patterns in any disparities to access to opportunity.

1. Education
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (below), includes a School Proficiency Index, which measures the proximity various racial/ethnic groups have, based on where they live, to neighborhoods with high-performing schools. School proficiency is measured using school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams. The index is based on a range of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better proximity to highperforming schools.

Table 6 shows the following disparities in access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods with high performing schools. Access is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, and highest for White and AAPI residents. Access is especially low for Black residents living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, Hispanic residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, and this disparity is even more pronounced for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Compared to the region, access is better across all groups and there are smaller disparities between groups.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups. • In Anaheim, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups in the city and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.

Access also tends to be worse for residents living below the FPL, with Hispanic residents living below the FPL having the least access to neighborhoods with highperforming schools. • In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Residents in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than their counterparts regionwide, and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the region.
• In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have less access to neighborhoods with highperforming schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic 926
Orange County 66 25-29 Regional AFH
residents living below the FPL. Generally, residents in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than their counterparts regionwide, and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the region.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups, with little disparity between race/ethnic groups, except for Native Americans living below the FPL, who have relatively poor access. • In Fullerton, access to neighborhoods with high performing schools is comparable to the region, with relatively low access and evidence of racial/ethnic disparities.

Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.
• In Garden Grove, Hispanic residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, though these disparities are less pronounced than in the region as a whole.
• In Huntington Beach, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, and these disparities are more pronounced for residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups. • In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups, though residents living below the federal FPL have less access to these types of neighborhoods. Hispanic residents living below the federal FPL, in particular, have the least access compared to other groups. • In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups. • In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
• In Orange, there are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with highperforming schools, with Black and Hispanic residents having less access than other groups. These disparities are less pronounced than in the region overall—this is because, Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents of Orange have better access to these kinds of neighborhoods than their counterparts in the region overall, while White and AAPI residents of Orange have less access. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all groups.
927
Orange County 67 25-29 Regional AFH
• In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups with few disparities between groups. • In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low for all groups and there are significant disparities between race/ethnic groups.

Hispanic and Native American residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools.
• In Tustin, Hispanic and Native American residents living below the FPL have significantly less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other groups.
• In Westminster, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups. 928
Orange County 68 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 65.19 68.03 67.43 77.63 73.13 54.59 21.35 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.07 33.82 35.34 87.25 79.02 40.72 11.92 Hispanic 35.53 39.72 35.73 86.48 77.78 43.70 12.36
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.03 61.94 57.64 85.13 75.98 51.11 13.13 Native American, Non-Hispanic 48.40 50.70 48.58 81.04 75.36 45.88 17.68 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.66 60.62 59.62 83.19 78.51 56.98 18.46 Black, Non-Hispanic 24.12 28.03 26.41 88.34 81.07 36.90 11.74 Hispanic 25.05 33.70 29.50 89.09 80.94 44.63 10.63
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.45 57.59 51.41 88.58 80.61 52.88 11.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 33.63 39.10 36.05 84.43 78.22 47.65 16.22 Orange County Urban County, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.48 81.89 74.59 60.92 67.05 46.96 24.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 69.50 75.53 68.16 74.64 71.50 44.07 15.23 Hispanic 58.20 67.52 59.65 75.35 73.08 45.50 15.65
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.64 76.68 67.46 77.05 70.10 43.85 13.93 Native American, Non-Hispanic 68.87 73.43 68.92 69.65 69.78 46.01 19.49 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 68.31 77.99 69.03 62.05 71.85 49.98 24.26 Black, Non-Hispanic 57.08 70.54 60.65 74.14 71.46 42.77 13.74 Hispanic 40.26 56.48 46.97 79.38 77.74 45.63 12.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.82 72.84 58.95 82.14 75.35 40.98 10.57 Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.71 78.50 58.72 80.71 75.06 48.72 12.85 Aliso Viejo, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 86.40 83.80 89.60 25.37 76.58 67.81 44.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 85.66 83.41 89.02 26.10 79.11 67.21 44.13 Hispanic 84.11 84.55 88.33 26.59 79.32 68.55 43.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 87.35 84.31 89.76 24.91 75.76 67.91 44.68 Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.17 83.12 88.93 26.36 79.02 67.87 44.33 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 82.37 81.49 87.38 28.15 80.65 67.31 43.92 Black, Non-Hispanic 96.00 90.96 92.00 20.00 71.00 68.85 44.00 Hispanic 87.11 86.95 88.83 25.18 80.76 67.92 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 79.67 82.36 87.60 28.86 79.35 68.30 43.19 Native American, Non-Hispanic 89.00 73.76 91.00 20.00 71.00 64.40 46.00 Anaheim, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 57.74 51.16 55.99 86.30 72.67 43.78 11.42 Black, Non-Hispanic 42.85 39.66 45.37 89.16 78.00 36.96 8.52 Hispanic 36.00 27.30 39.83 90.59 79.51 50.51 7.89
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 49.75 44.50 50.68 87.98 75.45 37.02 9.49 Native American, Non-Hispanic 44.95 36.79 46.32 89.37 77.46 48.18 8.95 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 45.90 40.49 46.79 89.04 77.96 42.96 9.09 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.74 34.14 37.42 89.65 79.84 31.61 7.85 Hispanic 29.41 22.31 35.78 91.71 81.27 52.65 7.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.63 44.33 47.94 88.35 76.64 30.85 9.12 Native American, Non-Hispanic 28.04 34.19 30.87 92.22 79.80 57.77 8.38 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 929
Orange County 69 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Buena Park, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.45 68.12 55.62 88.37 74.04 32.63 5.85 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.36 56.49 50.18 88.38 76.06 36.64 5.75 Hispanic 45.66 56.38 48.40 87.86 75.87 38.65 5.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.85 56.16 88.51 74.65 34.48 5.98 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.49 66.44 52.73 88.12 74.89 31.49 5.74 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.80 63.19 53.10 88.01 75.46 34.13 5.82 Black, Non-Hispanic 34.70 61.54 49.56 89.06 79.09 51.37 6.30 Hispanic 36.05 49.35 44.29 87.95 77.28 40.67 5.51
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.60 62.69 52.02 88.88 76.16 33.32 5.99 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.17 70.34 82.13 88.84 71.20 32.56 6.92 Costa Mesa, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72 Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65 Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58 Black, Non-Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50 Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46 Native American, Non-Hispanic 50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03 Fountain Valley, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.99 77.95 66.97 88.74 72.84 63.54 10.36 Black, Non-Hispanic 63.35 74.50 64.34 89.00 77.04 67.34 9.23 Hispanic 61.51 73.48 61.11 89.32 76.51 64.27 9.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.19 74.62 62.14 88.86 73.78 61.25 9.43 Native American, Non-Hispanic 71.09 77.77 66.67 88.24 73.04 61.75 9.83 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 73.72 79.47 71.04 88.66 70.86 60.63 12.98 Black, Non-Hispanic 59.12 85.62 60.95 89.98 80.00 64.77 7.03 Hispanic 62.05 75.52 64.05 88.78 73.78 52.61 10.82
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.02 71.44 61.18 88.82 76.72 64.70 8.84 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.00 58.70 39.00 91.00 79.00 33.65 9.00 Fullerton, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 62.61 56.65 61.50 87.07 76.65 55.54 8.66 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.62 47.75 52.52 88.60 79.69 50.90 7.95 Hispanic 42.72 39.02 45.92 88.92 79.56 48.09 7.72
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.92 66.82 67.55 86.58 74.57 45.70 8.74 Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.94 46.15 50.35 88.41 78.82 50.79 7.98 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 55.56 50.27 55.74 89.34 80.78 56.42 8.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.98 38.56 45.43 90.92 83.87 43.50 7.52 Hispanic 37.93 36.39 41.66 89.84 80.77 46.43 7.60
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.46 64.03 66.38 88.24 78.20 51.50 8.57 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.11 42.19 54.89 87.14 77.59 36.66 7.59 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 930
Orange County 70 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Garden Grove, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 51.61 62.62 46.45 89.02 75.00 36.85 5.30 Black, Non-Hispanic 41.29 55.63 41.33 89.90 78.05 34.48 5.93 Hispanic 38.31 49.57 38.53 90.25 78.44 36.49 6.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.53 57.58 38.40 89.26 78.09 26.41 6.31 Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.49 57.15 40.82 89.84 77.88 33.27 6.01 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 43.98 59.78 40.82 89.70 77.12 33.92 5.82 Black, Non-Hispanic 31.36 52.83 42.46 88.39 77.73 22.40 6.08 Hispanic 33.96 47.89 37.29 90.91 80.88 38.03 6.46
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 34.39 57.31 37.26 89.10 78.63 24.49 6.43 Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.46 59.54 38.35 90.71 82.88 20.33 5.55 Huntington Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 73.22 76.09 73.40 86.19 75.11 39.88 27.16 Black, Non-Hispanic 66.28 64.48 68.38 86.93 77.62 44.20 22.24 Hispanic 56.39 62.72 61.50 86.96 78.62 46.28 19.14
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 70.78 72.77 69.79 85.78 74.36 43.09 23.36 Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.29 73.74 70.28 86.49 76.42 41.44 25.86 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.07 73.38 72.99 86.92 77.44 38.84 27.86 Black, Non-Hispanic 46.90 56.51 58.56 88.62 80.11 43.69 17.85 Hispanic 42.73 56.09 51.58 87.45 81.23 47.75 14.39
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.40 65.76 67.00 86.92 78.76 42.40 23.92 Native American, Non-Hispanic 72.02 78.94 63.69 86.00 64.39 36.61 26.65 Irvine, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 75.51 91.83 85.86 86.03 75.70 82.98 24.62 Black, Non-Hispanic 71.46 90.47 85.50 87.62 77.90 85.02 24.34 Hispanic 71.82 91.30 84.30 87.17 77.18 84.06 24.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.27 91.74 86.27 86.36 76.01 81.99 24.03 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.19 91.00 86.39 86.51 77.19 85.15 24.45 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 74.06 91.44 81.96 88.76 79.32 87.44 26.01 Black, Non-Hispanic 70.68 91.56 89.17 86.53 76.94 79.65 24.23 Hispanic 72.33 89.99 77.69 89.76 80.78 89.91 26.12
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.04 93.12 76.85 88.34 80.05 88.66 27.79 Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.05 92.63 64.82 92.82 83.98 89.60 26.21 La Habra, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 54.95 45.37 49.14 85.13 74.94 24.60 9.57 Black, Non-Hispanic 51.87 41.91 49.43 85.67 76.39 21.77 9.50 Hispanic 49.15 38.57 41.33 85.10 76.65 25.54 9.56
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 63.20 44.08 62.32 84.33 71.22 22.13 9.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 51.76 43.96 45.26 84.53 75.07 26.27 9.56 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 56.10 47.10 49.00 84.46 74.26 24.56 9.48 Black, Non-Hispanic 52.83 41.39 42.26 87.37 77.76 28.47 9.43 Hispanic 46.12 36.01 37.54 85.25 76.92 28.33 9.70
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.15 40.10 53.86 86.17 73.95 25.19 9.48 Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.40 39.69 33.09 88.64 77.34 23.54 9.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 931
Orange County 71 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Laguna Niguel, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.15 78.68 81.92 20.01 65.30 24.83 44.29 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.53 78.56 81.05 20.78 66.76 27.40 43.54 Hispanic 74.16 77.79 80.90 21.60 68.64 26.05 42.93
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 76.21 79.74 81.58 21.17 67.10 30.29 43.17 Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.38 78.54 81.49 20.46 66.97 23.45 45.40 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 76.39 77.56 79.65 20.30 66.57 26.91 43.73 Black, Non-Hispanic 71.95 74.35 89.13 22.25 72.54 11.92 43.47 Hispanic 75.89 78.28 79.36 21.25 67.62 30.40 44.20
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.56 80.73 75.10 23.52 71.49 42.28 41.54 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Lake Forest, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.36 72.36 81.64 32.24 69.42 71.33 42.33 Black, Non-Hispanic 73.27 69.65 81.67 32.34 70.96 72.67 42.25 Hispanic 67.04 66.07 76.36 31.35 73.18 70.57 39.94
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 73.63 72.58 82.39 32.16 69.56 73.34 42.56 Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.43 68.97 79.14 32.03 71.55 69.17 41.59 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.42 68.73 79.06 32.70 72.03 71.31 41.04 Black, Non-Hispanic 80.40 60.52 86.90 25.18 69.16 38.16 45.46 Hispanic 63.26 57.73 67.26 26.85 71.64 76.10 35.45
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.70 65.12 73.73 35.90 75.46 69.11 39.66 Native American, Non-Hispanic 27.00 62.47 60.00 31.00 85.00 71.40 34.00 Mission Viejo, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.64 76.96 76.49 20.23 60.25 21.34 46.11 Black, Non-Hispanic 79.61 72.77 76.94 20.85 64.05 27.65 45.55 Hispanic 77.56 73.46 73.81 20.70 64.44 27.95 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 80.69 77.17 77.29 20.55 60.53 22.69 45.63 Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.23 74.24 74.50 21.07 62.03 22.20 46.25 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 80.70 78.05 76.43 20.42 61.66 22.41 46.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 70.69 76.42 81.54 21.23 69.77 27.61 43.31 Hispanic 73.93 74.29 66.28 20.00 66.08 35.01 41.77
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.62 76.39 81.02 20.31 65.65 30.45 42.20 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Newport Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.31 90.17 82.88 86.59 75.16 90.40 41.36 Black, Non-Hispanic 78.86 89.72 81.85 86.92 76.61 90.54 40.65 Hispanic 79.04 88.93 81.76 86.93 76.81 89.82 40.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.48 91.60 85.94 83.05 68.64 89.19 38.80 Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.22 88.29 81.86 88.35 78.06 91.17 40.73 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 78.99 89.20 83.30 87.76 78.81 90.38 43.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 78.71 86.38 78.21 89.58 85.43 87.99 48.46 Hispanic 82.46 87.75 81.41 88.28 77.88 89.87 41.76
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.34 88.97 82.79 88.43 76.05 92.09 39.15 Native American, Non-Hispanic 77.00 89.17 88.00 93.00 85.00 95.55 40.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 932
Orange County 72 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) Orange, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 59.85 60.76 61.19 87.39 72.03 69.31 10.04 Black, Non-Hispanic 52.12 48.57 51.47 89.40 77.99 78.41 8.77 Hispanic 48.30 50.65 52.77 88.89 76.83 76.42 9.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.06 58.78 59.94 87.51 72.50 67.82 9.94 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.37 55.48 56.10 88.33 74.75 73.95 9.39 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 57.04 52.92 58.45 89.18 76.75 78.49 9.16 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.85 42.16 41.19 83.58 78.05 89.55 9.52 Hispanic 45.47 53.35 53.02 89.09 76.93 73.57 9.08
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.82 43.86 48.07 89.57 79.90 81.30 8.42 Native American, Non-Hispanic 64.21 51.31 53.78 90.52 79.37 86.78 8.55 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 87.82 84.08 87.29 19.01 61.49 12.75 54.08 Black, Non-Hispanic 85.22 82.80 86.30 20.39 66.64 13.57 53.73 Hispanic 84.08 80.19 85.16 21.29 69.41 11.83 54.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 86.50 84.59 87.52 19.55 63.25 12.85 53.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.05 82.04 86.50 20.09 66.32 11.54 53.88 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 83.99 77.97 85.14 20.86 67.77 9.82 54.55 Black, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Hispanic 79.71 72.25 79.75 22.39 74.90 7.51 54.71
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 92.08 91.03 89.00 16.53 50.91 17.71 53.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a San Clemente, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.02 73.91 77.79 15.18 58.61 30.53 54.50 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.72 74.47 77.50 15.14 58.28 33.23 53.99 Hispanic 64.41 66.23 74.88 16.13 64.05 28.18 54.33
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 77.00 75.99 77.85 14.57 56.60 36.23 53.93 Native American, Non-Hispanic 70.21 72.47 77.11 16.20 60.72 31.36 54.49 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 72.53 69.89 77.05 15.87 60.90 29.70 54.94 Black, Non-Hispanic 33.81 63.97 69.04 14.71 67.68 30.34 53.00 Hispanic 64.44 65.67 75.42 15.59 64.76 30.60 54.22
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.99 79.46 77.89 13.66 59.13 42.42 53.36 Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.92 82.92 81.47 13.38 53.61 35.91 53.08 Santa Ana, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 43.58 40.95 48.31 92.62 80.95 74.89 10.29 Black, Non-Hispanic 37.22 34.86 40.19 92.78 81.04 67.18 10.60 Hispanic 27.34 28.45 33.05 92.92 80.41 62.17 11.06
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 37.32 41.90 37.03 92.43 79.82 52.24 10.44 Native American, Non-Hispanic 30.92 33.84 37.35 92.65 79.81 61.51 10.65 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 36.59 35.69 45.31 92.55 81.75 72.63 10.59 Black, Non-Hispanic 30.40 34.66 39.64 91.94 82.25 76.57 10.44 Hispanic 22.21 27.00 30.56 93.36 82.18 60.87 10.98
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.22 40.88 35.66 92.11 80.53 46.13 10.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 22.28 21.56 35.82 93.35 79.06 60.67 11.72 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 933
Orange County 73 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued) By comparing the School Proficiency Index in Table 6 to the demographic data in Table 1 (Demographics), a pattern emerges showing that cities where all residents have access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, have a lower percentage of Hispanic residents than the County overall. In other words, Hispanic residents are concentrated in cities with fewer high-performing schools. Specifically, in the following cities, the School Proficiency Index is 70 or higher for every racial/ethnic group, and the percentage of the population that is Hispanic is lower than the countywide percentage of 33.93%:
• Aliso Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 83 for all groups, and 20.02% of the population is Hispanic.
• Fountain Valley, where the School Proficiency Index is over 73 for all groups, and

17.08% of the population is Hispanic.
• Irvine, where the School Proficiency Index is over 90 for all groups, and 11.24% of the population is Hispanic.
• Laguna Niguel, where the School Proficiency Index is over 77 for all groups, and

16.10% of the population is Hispanic.
• Mission Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 72 for all groups, and

19.67% of the population is Hispanic.

Tustin, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 63.67 71.61 73.97 89.66 78.12 75.92 12.00 Black, Non-Hispanic 49.37 60.11 64.18 92.75 83.81 83.31 10.82 Hispanic 44.93 51.70 59.55 93.52 85.08 86.73 9.74
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 54.59 67.08 73.12 90.92 80.48 78.28 12.30 Native American, Non-Hispanic 58.55 62.31 69.02 91.12 81.54 81.61 10.47 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 50.82 67.17 68.54 92.03 82.78 82.13 11.15 Black, Non-Hispanic 53.03 52.08 60.97 93.61 85.87 88.59 9.55 Hispanic 33.68 38.03 51.91 95.23 88.33 88.99 8.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 51.22 62.44 67.76 91.95 82.30 84.23 11.07 Native American, Non-Hispanic 21.99 34.26 62.35 95.29 87.57 92.46 8.78 Westminster, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 49.67 72.09 47.64 86.39 76.49 42.87 6.57 Black, Non-Hispanic 40.88 69.65 44.06 86.96 78.34 40.93 6.86 Hispanic 35.08 63.82 39.25 87.10 78.73 37.10 6.50
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 35.42 65.32 39.47 87.81 79.49 29.74 7.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.72 69.82 44.55 87.26 77.82 41.17 6.24 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.88 69.22 42.57 86.90 77.90 37.35 6.79 Black, Non-Hispanic 32.08 67.37 41.25 85.75 77.20 41.57 7.92 Hispanic 32.07 60.97 36.24 86.89 78.84 40.17 5.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 31.20 62.98 38.17 87.91 80.04 31.20 7.13 Native American, Non-Hispanic 37.94 63.01 34.15 89.90 81.79 23.92 8.00 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.

Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation). 934
Orange County 74 25-29 Regional AFH
• Newport Beach, where the School Proficiency Index is over 88 for all groups, and

10.47% of the population is Hispanic.
• Rancho Santa Margarita, where the School Proficiency Index is over 80 for all groups, and 20.41% of the population is Hispanic.

Map 7 – Education Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s Education Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data8F
9 . The Education Composite Score for a particular Census Tract is based on four indicators, all of which are based on enrollment-weighted averages of the three schools closest to the tract’s center point 9F 10:
• Math and Reading Proficiency, where “Proficiency” is the percentage of students performing at grade-level in the 4th grade.
• High School Graduation Rate, which is calculated using California Department of Education data on the percent of students who graduate in four years. • Student Poverty, which is measured as the percentage of students that do not receive free and reduced-price lunch.

A tract’s composite score is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. Each indicator that falls above the regional median adds one point to the final score. On the maps, the categories equal the following scores:
• Highest: >3-4
• High: >2-3
• Moderate: >1-2
• Low: 0-1
These maps, along with Map 3 showing the predominant race/ethnicity in each area, show the following relationship between residency patterns and proximity to proficient schools by race/ethnicity:
• In the County overall,
o Cities in the central County have the lowest education scores, indicating that residents in these areas are less likely to live near high quality schools. Areas in the southern County, along the coast, and in the unincorporated areas in the north and east parts of the County, have the highest education scores. 9 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 10 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
935
Orange County 75 25-29 Regional AFH
Low education score areas generally correspond to areas where the population is predominantly Hispanic.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o Brea and Los Alamitos have high education scores and are predominantly White in most but not all areas.
o Cypress has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI and White population.
o La Palma has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI population o Yorba Linda, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Tustin, unincorporated areas of the County, Laguna Woods, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills, all have the highest education scores and are predominantly White.
o Dana Point has a mix of education scores, all areas are predominantly White. o Placentia has low education scores in the southeast, which align with the predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
o San Juan Capistrano has low education score areas that are a mix of predominantly Hispanic and predominantly White neighborhoods. • In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have the highest education score and are predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, most of the city’s neighborhoods have low education scores and are predominantly Hispanic. The exception is Anaheim Hills, which is both predominantly White, and has the highest education scores. • In Buena Park, there are neighborhoods with low education scores in the city’s center and southeast, which are also areas of predominant Hispanic population. • In Costa Mesa, the southwest quarter of the city has low education scores. This area is a mix of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in and around downtown, and predominantly White neighborhoods to the west.
• In Fountain Valley, almost all of the city’s neighborhoods have high education scores.

These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI. • In Fullerton, neighborhoods in the south of the city have low education scores and are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents. • In Garden Grove, the neighborhoods with low education score areas in the east are predominantly Hispanic, and the neighborhoods with low education scores in the northwest are predominantly Hispanic and AAPI.
• In Huntington Beach, the neighborhoods with the highest education scores correlate to areas that are predominantly White, which is most of the city. One area of the city with low education scores has a predominantly Hispanic population. • In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have the highest education score. These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI. 936
Orange County 76 25-29 Regional AFH
• In La Habra, neighborhoods with low education scores are located in the center and eastern part of the city, which are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Lake Forest, all neighborhoods have high education scores and most are predominantly White, except in the southeastern corner of the city, along El Toro Road, which is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods have high education scores, and most are predominantly White except in the southern part of the city. • In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Orange, neighborhoods in the western half of the city have low education scores and are predominantly Hispanic. The neighborhoods with the highest education scores are in the eastern half of the city. The high education score areas north and west of Villa Park are predominantly White, and the high education score areas south and west of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In San Clemente, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are predominantly White.
• In Santa Ana, neighborhoods with low education score areas comprise most of the city, and are areas where population is predominantly Hispanic. • In Tustin, the neighborhoods with low education scores are predominantly Hispanic and White, and the neighborhoods with the highest education scores are predominantly AAPI.
• In Westminster, there is a mix of moderate, high, and highest education score areas.

There is one part of the city with low education scores, in the north. This area is predominantly Hispanic.
937
Orange County 77 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 7 – Education Score – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
938
Orange County 78 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 7 – Education Score – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
939
Orange County 79 25-29 Regional AFH

2. Employment
Table 6 includes a Jobs Proximity Index, which measures the physical distance between where residents of different races/ethnicities live and the location of jobs. A higher index value indicates better access to employment opportunities. Table 6 also includes a Labor Market Index, which measures the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percentage of the population aged 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. A higher index value indicates that residents live in a neighborhood with higher labor force participation and human capital.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force participation and human capital in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in both the Jobs Proximity and the Labor Market Index. The Jobs Proximity Index is the lowest for Black residents, especially those living below FPL. It is also low for Hispanic residents. White residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods close to jobs.The Labor Market Index is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, especially those living below FPL, and highest for White residents. Generally, the Labor Market Index is lower for individuals living below FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. However, there are disparities between racial/ethnic groups, with Hispanic residents having significantly less access than other groups, and White residents having more access.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. This is also true for access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices, the city performs significantly better than the region overall. • In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic residents have the least access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Black and AAPI residents have the least access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices, the city is comparable to the region overall, with lowto-moderate scores and significant disparities between groups. • In Buena Park, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs.

There is moderate access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and 940
Orange County 80 25-29 Regional AFH
human capital, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities—Hispanic residents have the least access to these neighborhoods. Compared to the region, access is higher for Hispanic and Black residents in the city.
• In Costa Mesa, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is high for all races/ethnicities, with only slight disparities—Hispanic residents have the least access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is also high for all races/ethnicities, but with significant disparities between races/ethnicities—again Hispanic residents have the least access. On both indices, the city performs better than the region overall for all racial/ethnic groups.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital, is relatively high for all groups except for Native American residents living below the FPL, who have very low index values for each measure.
• In Fullerton, all race/ethnicities have moderate access to neighborhoods close to jobs, with slight disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access of any group. Regarding access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, there are some disparities between groups (with Hispanic residents having the least access), and index values for Hispanic, Black, and AAPI residents are higher than their counterparts regionwide. • In Garden Grove, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with some disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access. Compared to the region, all groups in Garden Grove have less access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is also relatively low for all groups in the city, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities. Access is lowest for Hispanic and AAPI residents. Compared to the region, the Labor Market Index in the city is higher for Black and Hispanic residents, and lower for all others. • In Huntington Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively low for all groups, with few disparities between races/ethnicities. Overall, groups in the city have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital; however, there are large disparities between groups. Hispanic residents, and especially those living below the FPL, have the least access to these neighborhoods. • In Irvine, access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than the region).

The only significant disparities are for Black residents living below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and Native American residents living below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. There are disparities, however, in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic 941
Orange County 81 25-29 Regional AFH
residents and Native American residents living below FPL have the least access of all groups. Compared to region, Hispanic, Black and AAPI residents in the city have more access, while White residents have less access.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is lower than the region for all groups, with little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity between groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively high, and higher than region, for all groups. There is very little disparity between groups, except for Black residents below FPL, who have very low access to neighborhoods close to jobs. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is higher than in the region for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanic, AAPI, and Native American residents living below FPL, all of whom have significantly less access.
• In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanics living below FPL, for whom access is relatively low compared to other city residents but is still higher than in the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, is high for all groups, with very little disparity between groups.
• In Orange, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher than the region, but there are some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI and White residents. There are also disparities in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Black and Hispanic residents overall, and Black and AAPI residents living below FPL have the least access. However, access is higher for all groups (except White residents), in comparison to the region.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with no disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with some disparities—Hispanic residents living below FPL have the least access. • In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with very little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than in the region), with some disparity—namely, Hispanic residents living below FPL have less access. • In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in region, with some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI residents, especially those living below FPL. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is lower than in the region for all groups except Black residents, and 942
Orange County 82 25-29 Regional AFH
there are significant disparities in access—Hispanic residents have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group. • In Tustin, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in region, with some disparities between races/ethnicities—White residents have the least access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is higher than in the region, with some disparities—Hispanic residents have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group.
• In Westminster, there are disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs by race/ethnicity. Native American residents living below FPL, and AAPI residents, have the least access. There are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital by race/ethnicity—Native American residents living below FPL and Hispanic and AAPI residents overall, have less access.

Compared to the region, access in the city is slightly better for Black and Hispanic residents, worse for all other groups.

The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their ability to obtain a job.

Map 8 – Economic Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s Economic Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data10F
11 . The Economic Composite Score for a particular Census Tract is based on four indicators11F
12:
• Poverty Rate – Measured as the percentage of the Tract residents who live above 200 percent of the FPL (the 200 percent threshold is used to account for the higher cost of living in California compared to other regions of the United States). • Adult Education Rate – Measured as the percentage of adults aged 25 years and older in each Tract, who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. • Employment Rate- Measured as the percentage of individuals in each Tract ages 20 to 64 who are employed in either the civilian labor force or the armed forces. • Home Value – Measured as the median home value (dollars) of owner-occupied housing units in each tract.
11 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 12 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
943
Orange County 83 25-29 Regional AFH
The composite score for each Tract is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. On the map, a higher numerical score indicates more positive economic outcomes.

These maps show the following relationship between residency patterns and economic outcomes, including employment:
• Countywide, there is a similar pattern to the education scores, with cities in the central County tending to have lower economic scores than cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the southern, northern, and eastern parts of the County. Low score areas generally correspond to areas where the population is predominantly Hispanic of AAPI, whereas the high score areas correspond to predominantly White areas.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are generally good economic outcomes in Cypress, Yorba Linda, North Tustin, La Palma, Los Alamitos, unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda, Brea, North Tustin, Orange Park Acres, Villa Park, Seal Beach (except for the Tract where Leisure World, a retirement community, is located), Rossmoor, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Ladera Ranch, and Capistrano Beach. o There is a mix of economic outcomes in the following places:
▪ Placentia, where there are lower economic scores in the southwest corner of the city, which is predominantly Hispanic.
▪ Laguna Woods and North Laguna Hills, which are predominantly White and have lower economic scores.
▪ San Juan Capistrano, where there are lower economic scores in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74), which is also a high POC segregation area and predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration. • In Anaheim, neighborhoods with lower economic scores include neighborhoods considered to be areas of high POC segregation, including those north of downtown and along SR-91, and south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. Conversely, Anaheim Hills has high economic scores and is predominantly White.
• In Buena Park, the neighborhoods between I-5 and SR-91 have the lowest economic scores in the city. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The northeastern corner of the city, which is predominantly AAPI, has the highest economic scores in the city. • In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods in and surrounding downtown, on the west side of Newport Boulevard have the lowest economic scores. These are also areas that are predominantly Hispanic.
944
Orange County 84 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores. • In Fullerton, there is a general north/south divide between areas with higher and lower economic scores. The southeastern neighborhoods, which are predominantly Hispanic, have the lowest economic scores, while the northern half of the city, predominantly White and AAPI neighborhoods, have the highest economic scores. • In Garden Grove, economic scores are moderate north of Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) and are higher in West Garden Grove. Economic scores are generally lower south of SR-22.
• In Huntington Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores. • In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except in the area surrounding UC Irvine, and in the neighborhoods east of the intersections of SR-133 and I-5—these are predominantly AAPI.
• In La Habra, the areas with the lowest economic scores are the same areas with high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. • In Laguna Niguel, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration. • In Lake Forest, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except for in the southeastern corner, which is a predominantly Hispanic area. • In Mission Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration. • In Newport Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are all areas of high White segregation. • In Orange, neighborhoods across the city have good economic scores. The best economic scores are in the neighborhoods north and east of Villa Park, where the population is predominantly White and classified as an area of high White segregation. The neighborhoods with lower economic scores are located west of Glassel Street and north of Walnut Avenue, which is a predominantly Hispanic area. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are generally areas of high White concentration.
• In San Clemente, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration. • In Santa Ana, there are neighborhoods with low economic scores in much of the central and western parts of the city, which correspond to the areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic, except for the Riverview West community, which is predominantly AAPI. Neighborhoods with higher economic scores are in the northern and southern parts of the city, which are areas of lowmedium segregation. 945
Orange County 85 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Tustin, all neighborhoods have good economic scores except for one neighborhood south of I-5 and west of SR-55, adjacent to Santa Ana. This is also a predominantly Hispanic area and is classified as an area of high POC segregation. • In Westminster, economic scores are lowest in the central part of the city, in the neighborhoods south of Westminster Boulevard, east of Hoover Street, and north of Bolsa Avenue. These are all areas of predominantly AAPI population.

Map 8 – Economic Score – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
946
Orange County 86 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
947
Orange County 87 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
948
Orange County 88 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the groups that are least successful in accessing employment.

Table 7 - Labor Force Participation and Unemployment, shows 2018-2022 ACS data on labor force participation rates and unemployment rates in the region and Orange County, for the overall population and by race/ethnicity, disability status, and sex. The table shows that:
• Orange County has lower unemployment rates than the region for every group measured in the table, except for Pacific Islanders.
• Labor force participation rates are generally higher in Orange County than the region, except for White individuals (lower in the County than the region) and Asian individuals (same rate in County and region).
• Similar to the region overall, Black individuals have the highest unemployment rate in Orange County. In the County, Pacific Islanders have the second highest unemployment rate.
949
Orange County 89 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 65.00% 6.60% 65.60% 5.40% 75.30% 3.80% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.40% 6.30% 62.80% 5.10% 75.50% 3.50% Black 60.70% 10.40% 70.60% 7.70% 84.90% 8.90%
Hispanic 67.60% 6.60% 70.70% 5.50% 78.00% 3.00%
Asian 62.70% 5.30% 62.70% 5.10% 71.00% 3.00%
Pacific Islander 66.40% 7.00% 68.70% 7.30% 100.00% 0.00% Native American 66.20% 7.90% 70.60% 5.20% 100.00% 0.00% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 84.10% 6.10% 85.90% 4.70% 91.10% 2.90%
Female 72.80% 6.50% 73.50% 5.40% 79.00% 4.10%
Disability Status
With any disability 46.80% 13.30% 51.00% 10.80% 68.50% 2.90% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 67.40% 5.40% 69.00% 5.40% 73.20% 5.00% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 62.70% 5.00% 61.40% 6.40% 71.20% 5.00% Black 72.30% 9.30% 77.70% 3.30% 91.60% 5.90%
Hispanic 70.80% 5.40% 72.40% 5.00% 76.50% 5.80%
Asian 64.20% 4.70% 70.90% 5.00% 64.10% 2.60%
Pacific Islander 66.80% 2.50% 63.30% 33.50% 92.80% 2.80% Native American 73.70% 4.10% 67.80% 18.30% 72.90% 3.70% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 86.20% 4.70% 87.00% 5.60% 89.50% 4.00%
Female 73.90% 5.50% 77.00% 4.90% 78.50% 5.00%
Disability Status
With any disability 47.50% 13.40% 50.10% 13.70% 57.80% 11.50% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 61.80% 6.00% 65.40% 6.90% 64.30% 5.80% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 57.40% 6.90% 60.40% 6.60% 59.70% 6.70% Black 70.50% 27.80% 63.10% 17.80% 57.80% 0.00%
Hispanic 72.90% 3.90% 71.10% 6.60% 72.90% 4.90%
Asian 62.10% 5.10% 63.60% 6.90% 59.60% 6.40%
Pacific Islander 65.20% 20.40% 83.50% 0.00% 65.60% 13.00% Native American 66.00% 0.00% 73.20% 8.30% 78.70% 5.90%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 83.30% 7.40% 85.00% 5.50% 83.30% 5.00%
Female 75.30% 4.80% 71.80% 7.50% 74.00% 5.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 37.40% 12.10% 52.00% 10.50% 46.40% 10.70% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 66.30% 5.40% 65.60% 5.50% 66.20% 5.50% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.80% 5.10% 66.90% 6.30% 63.50% 4.70% Black 80.90% 13.10% 73.10% 5.20% 63.40% 9.80%
Hispanic 75.70% 5.70% 68.10% 5.50% 74.10% 3.00%
Asian 63.40% 5.40% 63.40% 4.50% 69.40% 9.60%
Pacific Islander 77.70% 6.40% 79.30% 0.60% 93.10% 0.00% Native American 56.00% 4.00% 65.20% 4.00% 89.70% 0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.70% 5.50% 83.10% 4.10% 86.70% 4.30%
Female 77.40% 4.60% 70.10% 6.40% 75.00% 6.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 53.80% 13.00% 54.10% 11.20% 37.80% 10.50% Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA Laguna Niguel, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Orange County, CA Aliso Viejo, CA Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA
950
Orange County 90 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment (continued) Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 68.30% 7.20% 69.20% 5.00% 63.60% 4.40% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.60% 7.60% 67.20% 5.20% 60.30% 4.70% Black 76.00% 3.60% 54.70% 3.50% 71.10% 2.80%
Hispanic 71.20% 7.70% 75.20% 5.50% 71.50% 3.20%
Asian 65.30% 4.30% 67.50% 3.30% 66.20% 5.00%
Pacific Islander 100.00% 0.00% 60.70% 0.00% 89.50% 0.00% Native American 57.70% 0.00% 94.90% 0.00% 72.80% 0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.90% 6.20% 88.90% 4.30% 88.60% 3.50%
Female 76.60% 7.50% 73.80% 5.00% 75.10% 4.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 49.80% 15.90% 57.30% 7.50% 53.90% 3.70% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 62.40% 4.10% 66.10% 4.70% 74.30% 3.30% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 60.50% 4.70% 64.00% 4.00% 73.60% 3.00% Black 54.80% 0.00% 60.90% 5.60% 82.10% 1.60%
Hispanic 76.80% 2.70% 69.20% 5.40% 80.20% 3.80%
Asian 57.50% 0.80% 64.90% 3.10% 72.70% 3.40%
Pacific Islander 100.00% 0.00% 59.60% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Native American 65.40% 0.00% 76.50% 0.00% 95.00% 21.60% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.70% 3.80% 82.30% 4.20% 92.90% 3.50%
Female 68.60% 3.90% 75.60% 4.20% 77.10% 2.20%
Disability Status
With any disability 60.30% 10.40% 52.40% 5.10% 62.10% 5.20% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 63.10% 5.30% 66.70% 5.50% 69.00% 5.90% Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 61.90% 5.80% 59.90% 3.90% 65.90% 7.30% Black 71.50% 0.00% 70.50% 6.60% 74.00% 8.00%
Hispanic 70.70% 4.70% 68.50% 5.30% 72.50% 6.50%
Asian 52.20% 3.90% 61.70% 7.40% 67.80% 4.00%
Pacific Islander 30.90% 0.00% 42.10% 24.90% 63.50% 14.80% Native American 100.00% 0.00% 70.00% 6.40% 68.20% 0.00% Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.40% 4.80% 85.00% 4.90% 89.70% 4.40%
Female 71.60% 5.30% 71.60% 5.20% 75.80% 6.50%
Disability Status
With any disability 52.60% 4.40% 51.70% 9.60% 51.40% 11.20% Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 59.90% 7.50%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 58.00% 5.80%
Black 71.40% 3.80%
Hispanic 66.60% 9.00%
Asian 57.40% 7.20%
Pacific Islander 36.30% 25.60%
Native American 47.60% 15.40%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 82.10% 7.20%
Female 71.20% 7.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 42.10% 12.90%
Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Orange, CA Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Westminster, CA
La Habra, CA Lake Forest, CA Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
951
Orange County 91 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Transportation
This analysis describes any disparities in access to transportation related to costs and access to public transit by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes a Transit Index, which measures the likelihood that residents will utilize public transportation. Higher index values indicate better access to public transit in a neighborhood. Table 6 also includes a Low Transportation Cost Index, which measures the cost of transportation in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate lower transportation costs. Transportation costs may be low in a neighborhood due to better access to public transportation, or to the density of housing, services, and employment, or contributing factors.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to transit and to neighborhoods with low transportation costs in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are relatively high for all groups, though there are significant disparities between racial/ethnic groups. Both indices are lowest for White residents and highest for Black residents and are higher across all groups for individuals living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to transit is slightly lower for all groups compared to the region but is still relatively high. There are also significant disparities, with AAPI residents having the best access, and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is lower for all groups compared to the region overall but is still relatively high. There are some disparities between groups, with Hispanic residents having the best access, and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people living below the FPL, except for Hispanic residents living below the FPL who have similar access to the overall Hispanic population. • In Aliso Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high for all groups, with small disparities between groups—access is lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the FPL.
• In Anaheim, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Buena Park, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Costa Mesa, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
952
Orange County 92 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups. Black residents living below the FPL have the highest access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs. • In Fullerton, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Garden Grove, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Huntington Beach, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups. Native American residents living below the FPL have relatively low access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs, compared to other groups in city and the region.
• In Irvine, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Lake Forest, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Mission Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to transit is high for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is comparable to the region for most groups, except for AAPI residents in the city, who have less access than other groups and compared to the region.
• In Orange, access to transit is high for all groups and slightly better than access in the region. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high for all groups and is comparable to the region as a whole. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. AAPI residents living below the FPL have significantly lower access than other groups. • In San Clemente, access to transit is low for all groups, and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region. There are some racial/ethnic disparities in access to neighborhoods with low 953
Orange County 93 25-29 Regional AFH
transportation costs—Native American residents living below the FPL line, and AAPI residents of all income levels, have less access compared to other groups. • In Santa Ana, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Tustin, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Westminster, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs are high for all groups.

The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their access to transportation.

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas, is a series of maps showing the areas of north, central, and south Orange County, and the region, that have access to “high quality” public transit, defined as having scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 12F
13 . On the maps, the outlined areas are those within
half a mile of a transit stop that is served by public transit with scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less.

These maps show the following relationship between a person’s place of residence and access to transportation:
• Countywide, high quality transit areas (HQTAs) are concentrated in central County cities, and there are no HQTAs in the southern or northeast parts of the County. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are HQTAs in the following places
o In Brea, there is a HQTA in the center of city, overlapping with the racially integrated Census Tract that has a predominantly Hispanic population. o In Cypress, there is a HQTA on the southern edge of the city. o In Stanton, HQTAs cover the entire city.
o In Seal Beach, there are HQTAs along Seal Beach Boulevard north of US-1. o In Rossmoor, the southeastern corner of the city is a HQTA, along Seal Beach Boulevard.
o In Los Alamitos, the northern edge of the city is part of an HQTA. o In Laguna Woods, the eastern half of the city is a HQTA, along El Toro Rd. o In Laguna Hills, the part of the city adjacent to the HQTAs in Laguna Woods and Lake Forest is a HQTA.
13 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 954
Orange County 94 25-29 Regional AFH
o The following areas have no HQTAs: Placentia, Yorba Linda, unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda, La Palma, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, El Modena, North Tustin, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Capistrano Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Ladera Ranch, and North Laguna Hills
• In Aliso Viejo, there are no HQTAs
• In Anaheim, there are HQTAs in the western part of city along Beach Boulevard; in the central and southern part of city along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, including the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center near Angel Stadium; and in the eastern part of the city near the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station. These areas overlap with both high POC segregation areas and racially integrated areas.
• In Buena Park, there are HQTAs in the eastern half of city, along Beach Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
• In Costa Mesa, HQTAs cover most of the city’s area except for the high White segregation areas in the northwest (the neighborhoods north and west of the Country Club) and in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive), which do not have HQTAs.
• In Fountain Valley, there are no HQTAs
• In Fullerton, there are HQTAs in downtown Fullerton and up to Fullerton College, including the area around the Metrolink station.
• In Garden Grove, there are HQTAs south of SR-22, in West Garden Grove, and in the eastern part of the city. There are no HQTAs in the city’s north-central area. • In Huntington Beach, most of the city is not a HQTA.There is one HQTA around the intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (US-1). • In Irvine, there are HQTAs located near UC Irvine and John Wayne Airport, and the Irvine Medical and Science Complex. The majority of the city does not have HQTAs. • In La Habra, the western half of the city is a HQTA. In the eastern half of the city, which is a high POC segregation area and has a concentration of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods, there are no HQTAs
• In Laguna Niguel, there are no HQTAs except in a small area in the northeast corner along Crown Valley Parkway, adjacent to Mission Viejo.
• In Lake Forest, most of the city is not a HQTA. There are two HQTAs in the city: one in Foothill Ranch, north of SR-241(around Towne Center); and the other in the city’s southeastern corner along El Toro Rd (which is a predominantly Hispanic area). • In Mission Viejo, most of the city does not have HQTAs. There are two HQTAs in the city: one in the southern part, along Crown Valley Parkway (which is a low-medium concentration area with a predominantly Hispanic population); and the other in the northern part of the city, around the intersections of Santa Margarita Parkway with Los Alisos Boulevard and Marguerite Parkway (which are low-medium concentration areas with predominantly White populations) 955
Orange County 95 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Newport Beach, there are HQTAs just south of Costa Mesa and around the Civic Center. Much of the city does not have HQTAs.
• In Orange, there are HQTAs downtown, in the neighborhoods west and northwest of downtown, and along the westside of Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) north of Katella Avenue. There are no HQTAs east of the Costa Mesa Freeway. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no HQTAs
• In San Clemente, there are no HQTAs
• In Santa Ana, most of the city is covered by HQTAs, except for northeast and southeast corners.
• In Tustin, most of the city does not have HQTAs.There are two HQTAs in the following areas: one HQTA is in the racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I-5, in and around downtown; the other HQTA is in South Tustin, around the Metrolink train station.
• In Westminster, most of the city is considered a HQTA, with the exception of the western and southeastern areas.

Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
956
Orange County 96 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – North Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
957
Orange County 97 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Central Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
958
Orange County 98 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – South Orange County Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes a Low Poverty Index, which measures the level of poverty in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic and Black residents have the least access, and White residents have the most access. Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL. However, there are significant disparities in access.

Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.

Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population.
959
Orange County 99 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Aliso Viejo, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods.

Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.

Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. Compared to the region, White, AAPI, and Native American residents of the city have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods; and Black residents of the city have better access. • In Buena Park, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale because Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic and Black residents, and highest for White residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Native American residents.
• In Costa Mesa, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that all groups, except for White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a whole. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic residents and highest for AAPI residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Black residents
• In Fountain Valley, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents, and Native American residents living below the FPL, having the least access.
• In Fullerton, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents, including those living below the FPL, and Black residents living below the FPL, having the least access.
• In Garden Grove, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods. AAPI and Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the best access. The population living below the FPL has less access across all groups. Compared to the region, disparities in the city are less pronounced due to lower index values for White and AAPI residents in the city, and higher index values for all other groups in the city, as compared to values in the region. • In Huntington Beach, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic residents having the least access and White residents having the most access. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except for Native American residents.
960
Orange County 100 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Irvine, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, except for White residents. There are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods by race/ethnicity. Hispanic residents have the least access. AAPI residents overall have the most access, however, the AAPI population living below the FPL has significantly less access compared to the overall AAPI population in the city.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic residents having the least access. For the population living below the FPL, access is much lower for Native American residents compared to any other group, access is lower for AAPI residents compared to the overall AAPI population, and access is higher for Black residents compared to the overall Black population. • In Mission Viejo, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some disparities exist for individuals living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having less access than other groups in the city (though still with better access compared to the region). • In Newport Beach, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Orange, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale because all groups, except for White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a whole. Hispanic residents in the city have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Additionally, Black residents living below the FPL have significantly lower access.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, and there is little racial/ethnic disparity. For the population living below the FPL, racial/ethnic disparities are larger, mainly because the AAPI population below the FPL has the most access to low-poverty neighborhoods of any group in the city.
• In San Clemente, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic residents experiencing the least access. Disparities are larger for the population 961
Orange County 101 25-29 Regional AFH
living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having the least access in the city.
• In Santa Ana, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods. Hispanic residents have the least access overall, and White residents have the most access overall. For the population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups. Compared to the region, all groups in the city have less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, except for Black residents, who have access comparable to the region overall.
• In Tustin, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents in the city have higher access relative to the region, and White and AAPI residents have lower access relative to region. In the city, Hispanic residents have the lowest access. For the population living below the FPL, there are also significant disparities. Access to low-poverty neighborhoods is lowest for Native American and Hispanic residents living below the FPL, and access for White residents living below the FPL is significantly lower than access for the overall White population.
• In Westminster, access to low poverty neighborhoods is lower than in the region for all groups, except for Black residents, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access, overall. For the population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups and is lowest for AAPI residents.

Map 10 – Poverty Status, is a series of maps showing the percent of households, by Census Tract, living below the FPL in north, central, and south Orange County, and in the region.

These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates13F 14 .

These maps show the following relationship between an individual’s place of residence and their exposure to poverty:
• Countywide, higher poverty areas are in the central County cities, whereas the areas along the coast, in the south, and in the northeast are low poverty areas. • In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are high poverty areas (i.e., with poverty rates above 20%) in the following places:
o In Placentia, in the southwest corner of the city, which is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
o In Stanton, in the neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the eastside of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue. 14 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 962
Orange County 102 25-29 Regional AFH
o In San Juan Capistrano, there is one tract between Camino Del Avion, Del Obispo Street, and Alipaz Street, which has a poverty rate over 20% and is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Anaheim, the highest poverty area is located downtown north of Lincoln Avenue (in a predominantly Hispanic area). There are other areas of concentrated poverty south and west of downtown, which are also predominantly Hispanic. The areas of lowest poverty are downtown south of Lincoln Avenue, east of downtown (including the racially integrated areas), in Northeast Anaheim, and in Anaheim Hills. • In Buena Park, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Costa Mesa, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Fountain Valley, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Fullerton, there are high poverty areas in the southeast (predominantly Hispanic, low-medium segregation areas) and surrounding CSU Fullerton (likely due to the presence of college students).
• In Garden Grove, there are high poverty areas in the industrial area in West Garden Grove, in the Census Tract between Brookhurst Street and Gilbert Street north of Chapman Avenue (a low-medium segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic), and in the Census Tract in between SR-22 and Garden Grove Boulevard west of Gilbert Street (a high POC segregation area that is predominantly AAPI). • In Huntington Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Irvine, the highest poverty area is surrounding UC Irvine (likely due to the presence of college students). There is also a high poverty area west of San Diego Creek north of I-405. This is primarily an industrial/commercial area encompassing the Irvine Business Complex.
• In La Habra, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Laguna Niguel, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Lake Forest, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Mission Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Newport Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Orange, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%, and all neighborhoods east of Villa Park have poverty rates below 10%.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In San Clemente, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Santa Ana, high poverty areas are concentrated in downtown and southeast of downtown where land use is primarily industrial and commercial, and in western Santa Ana, specifically the Census Tract northwest of the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, where Kona Kai Mobile Home Park is located. All of these areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly Hispanic populations.
963
Orange County 103 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Tustin, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%. • In Westminster, there are high poverty areas between Edwards Street and Beach Boulevard along Westminster Boulevard, and south of Bolsa Avenue west of Bushard Street. These areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly AAPI populations.

Map 10 – Poverty Status – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
964
Orange County 104 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
965
Orange County 105 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
966
Orange County 106 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Table 8 - Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin, shows data from the 2018-2022 ACS on poverty rates by race/ethnicity and national origin, for the region, Orange County, the Urban County jurisdictions, and the HUD Entitlement Cities. The table shows the following:
• Countywide, the poverty rate is lower than region for all groups except AAPI residents (who have a poverty rate comparable to the region). There are significant racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the White poverty rate, and the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the poverty rate is lower than the County overall. Similar to the County overall, the Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the White poverty rate, and the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. • In Aliso Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Anaheim, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. Black and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates. 967
Orange County 107 25-29 Regional AFH
Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Buena Park, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. Similar to the County overall, Black residents have the highest poverty rate. • In Costa Mesa, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate in the city is over 20%, which is nearly three times as high as the White poverty rate and double the AAPI poverty rate. Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Fountain Valley, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Fullerton, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate, and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities than in the County overall. The Black poverty rate is over 22%, which is almost three times higher than the White and AAPI poverty rates. The Hispanic poverty rate is above 17%, which is more than double the White and AAPI rates. Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Garden Grove, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. There are relatively small disparities by race/ethnicity, with Black residents experiencing the highest poverty rates, and foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In Huntington Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and the foreign-born population is much more likely to live below poverty than the nativeborn population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Irvine, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the region poverty rate. Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents experience similar poverty rates, which are all higher than the poverty rate for White residents. Foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In La Habra, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. Foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents, and Hispanic residents have a higher poverty rate than other groups. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.) • In Laguna Niguel, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. However, there are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in 968
Orange County 108 25-29 Regional AFH
the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than nativeborn residents. • In Lake Forest, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. However, there are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than nativeborn residents. • In Mission Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. The data show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate. • In Newport Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Unlike the County overall, foreign-born residents in the city are less likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. Poverty rates for Black, AAPI, and Native American residents are the highest. However, note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate. • In Orange, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. In the city, Native American and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County.The data show the Native American poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate.
• In San Clemente, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. The data show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate. • In Santa Ana, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region poverty rate. Black residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly 20%). • In Tustin, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region poverty rate. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly double the White poverty rate), and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents.
• In Westminster, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and the region.The Black poverty rate is over 20% and more than double the White poverty rate. The AAPI poverty rate is over 18% and is also more than double the White poverty rate.

Foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
969
Orange County 109 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin 970
Orange County 110 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin (continued) 971
Orange County 111 25-29 Regional AFH

5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups.

Table 6 includes an Environmental Health Index, which captures the potential exposure to harmful toxins in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to harmful toxins, and therefore better environmental quality, in a neighborhood.

Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and lowest for Black residents followed by Hispanic and AAPI residents. Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, with the least access experienced by Hispanic residents living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and lowest for AAPI residents followed by Black and Hispanic residents.

Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, except for White residents who have comparable access to the overall population.
• In Aliso Viejo, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Anaheim, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Buena Park, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Costa Mesa, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region, but access is still low.There are some racial/ethnic disparities in access. Overall, AAPI residents have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and Hispanic residents have the best access. For the population living below the FPL, Black and Native American residents have the least access.
• In Fountain Valley, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents compared to the region. There are small disparities in access for the population living below the FPL. Specifically, Black residents living below the FPL have the least access.
972
Orange County 112 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fullerton, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Garden Grove, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity. • In Huntington Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still fairly low and there are some racial/ethnic disparities. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is lowest for Hispanic residents, and even more so for Hispanic residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than those of the region, but access is still low for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Laguna Niguel, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited and there are some disparities among the population living below the FPL—specifically, Native American residents living below the FPL have the least access. • In Mission Viejo, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Newport Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Orange, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In San Clemente, there is relatively high access to environmentally health neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Santa Ana, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Tustin, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
973
Orange County 113 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Westminster, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Map 11 – Environmental Health, is a series of maps showing data from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using CalEnviroScreen data from OEHHA14F
15 .

The CalEnviroScreen tool is designed to identify communities most affected by pollution, and those where residents may be especially vulnerable to its effects. To do this, it uses a composite score based on 13 different indicators of pollution burden – such as exposure indicators (e.g., diesel particulate matter levels and lead risk from housing and environmental effect indicators (e.g., location of solid waste facilities) - as well as eight indicators of population characteristics including sensitive population indicators (e.g., asthma rates) and socioeconomic factor factors (e.g., poverty and linguistic isolation). More detailed information on the mapping methodology is available on the OEHHA website15F 16 .

On these maps, green areas represent regions with more positive environmental factors, while red areas indicate regions with more negative environmental factors.

These maps show the following relationship between an individual’s place of residence and their access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods:
• Countywide, the areas with more positive environmental factors are along the coast, in the south, and northeast.The areas with more negative environmental factors are in the central parts of the County north of I-405 and west of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, most neighborhoods have primarily positive environmental factors. The areas with more negative environmental factors are located in the following places:
o Stanton.
o Southwest Placentia, next to Fullerton, which is an area of high POC segregation and is predominantly Hispanic.
o San Juan Capistrano, in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74), which is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. 15 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 16 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen
974
Orange County 114 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Anaheim, Anaheim Hills (a high White segregation area), has positive environmental factors. Much of the rest of the city is affected by negative environmental factors, with the severe environmental factors located in and around downtown, along I-5 cutting across the city, and along Riverside Freeway (SR-91) on the northern edge of the city.
• In Buena Park, there is one Census Tract with a score lower than 40 (indicating more positive environmental factors). This area is between La Palma Avenue and Crescent Avenue, on either side of Knott Avenue. Areas of the city with more negative environmental factors include the neighborhoods north of the Artesia Freeway (SR91) and adjacent to I-5, and the western part of the city, which includes numerous warehouses and distribution facilities.
• In Costa Mesa, areas with more positive environmental factors include neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are high White segregation areas, as well as neighborhoods along the western edge of the city and north of I-405, which are also predominantly White. The areas with more negative environmental factors include neighborhoods downtown, which are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Fountain Valley, areas with more positive environmental factors include the neighborhoods in the southwest corner of city, which have a high concentration of White residents, and those surrounding Mile Square Regional Park, a high POC segregation area that is predominantly AAPI. The rest of the city experiences moderate environmental factors.
• In Fullerton, areas with more positive environmental factors include the neighborhoods near the Panorama Nature Preserve in the city’s northeast. Areas with more negative environmental factors include the neighborhoods in the southeast part of the city, which are predominantly Hispanic—this area includes the commercial/industrial area along the Riverside Freeway (SR-91); and neighborhoods in the southwest part of the city, around Fullerton Municipal Airport and to the south, which are also predominantly Hispanic.
• In Garden Grove, residential neighborhoods in West Garden Grove, west of Knott Street have more positive environmental factors and are areas of high White segregation. The rest of the city experiences less positive environmental factors, with the most negative factors located in West Garden Grove, east of Knott Street an industrial and commercial area, and along Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22), in the city’s southeast.
• In Huntington Beach, most of the city – particularly along the coast and in the southeastern region – has more positive environmental factors. However, an area with less positive environmental factors is in the industrial/commercial area between Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and Gothard Street, spanning from Talbert 975
Orange County 115 25-29 Regional AFH
Avenue to Edinger Avenue.This area overlaps with the one predominantly Hispanic Census Tract.
• In Irvine, most of the neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.

The few places with more negative environmental factors include the area west of San Diego Creek north of I-405 (which is primarily comprised of industrial and commercial land uses, including the Irvine Business Complex), the area between UC Irvine and I-405 (which is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly AAPI), and the eastern part of city along I-5 near Lake Forest, where Irvine Industrial Complex East and Irvine Technology Center are located.
• In La Habra, most of the city is affected by negative environmental factors, with the most negative factors concentrated in the central and southeast areas of the city/ This is likely due to the proximity to warehouses, distribution centers, and Imperial Highway (SR-90).These areas overlap with the high POC segregation areas, which are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. • In Lake Forest, most neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors, except for those south of Serrano Creek, which experience more negative environmental factors.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. • In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors. • In Orange, the neighborhoods east of Villa Park, which haver high White segregation, experience more positive environmental factors. Neighborhoods west of Glassel Street, which are predominantly Hispanic, are affected by more negative environmental factors.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
• In San Clemente, most neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors, except for one area with moderate environmental factors. This area encompasses the neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, and is classified as a low-medium concentration area with a predominantly White population.
• In Santa Ana, most of the city has negative environmental factors, with the most negative factors located in the east and southeast side of the city along the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), where many of the commercial/industrial land uses are located. Other highly impacted areas include downtown and neighborhoods west of downtown. These are all areas of high POC segregation, and most are predominantly Hispanic, except for one of the Tracts to the far west of downtown, which is predominantly AAPI. There is one Census Tract with positive environmental factors located in the southern part of the city, within a racially integrated area between 976
Orange County 116 25-29 Regional AFH
Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping Mall, where White residents are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, neighborhoods north of I-5 have more positive environmental factors, and neighborhoods south of I-5 have more negative environmental factors. • In Westminster, most of the city has negative environmental factors, with the most negative factors located in the central neighborhoods, from I-405 north, between Beach Boulevard and Edwards Street.

Map 11 – Environmental Health – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
977
Orange County 117 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
978
Orange County 118 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
979
Orange County 119 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer

6. Disability and Access
The following analysis describes the barriers that deny individuals with disabilities access to opportunity and community assets.

Table 7 – Disability by Type, presents the percentage of residents with various disabilities living in the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and in HUD Entitlement City. In the region and Orange County overall, the most prevalent form of disability is ambulatory difficulty, followed by independent living difficulty. Ambulatory difficulty is also the most prevalent form of disability in the Urban County jurisdictions and all HUD Entitlement Cities except for Aliso Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, where cognitive difficulty is most prevalent, and Irvine, where independent living difficulty is most prevalent.
980
Orange County 120 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Disability by Type
981
Orange County 121 25-29 Regional AFH
According to data from HUD, in Orange County, a total of 398 housing discrimination cases were opened between January 2019 and November 2024 (when this report was prepared).

As shown in Table 8, below, the majority (65.33%) of cases alleged discrimination based on disability. (Please note, the total number of cases in the table below equal more than 398, and the percentages equal more than 100% because one case can involve allegations of discrimination based on multiple protected classes). Table 9 shows the number of cases by jurisdiction, and the number and percentage of cases that included allegations of discrimination based on disability status. As the table shows, in nearly all jurisdictions, discrimination based (in whole or in part) on disability status comprises most cases.

Table 8 – Discrimination Complaints, Orange County, 2019-2024 982
Orange County 122 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 9 – Discrimination Complaints by Jurisdiction,
Orange County, 2019-2024
983
Orange County 123 25-29 Regional AFH
The fair housing challenges facing individuals with a disability were described during the stakeholder consultations and community meetings. Participants in these meetings reported the following barriers that deny individuals with disabilities access to opportunity and community assets:
• Individuals with disabilities often seek affordable housing in older buildings that may not meet accessibility standards, creating additional barriers. • Affordable housing options are concentrated in areas of Santa Ana and Anaheim, with fewer options in higher opportunity areas of the County. • Individuals with disabilities often face barriers in accessing necessary modifications in housing. Tenants must provide a doctor's letter to request modifications, yet landlords are often resistant to approving accommodation requests. In many cases, tenants are responsible for covering modification costs, unless the property is government-owned. Additionally, low-income individuals with disabilities struggle to afford the necessary modifications.

7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following analysis identifies and discusses any overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors, including how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation, integration, and R/ECAPs. The analysis also identifies areas that experience: (a) high access; and (b) low access across multiple indicators.

In Orange County, there is a general pattern of disparities in access to opportunity between the cities in the central part of the County, and the cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the southern and northeastern parts of the County. Cities in central Orange County tend to have higher poverty areas, lower educational scores, lower economic scores, and worse environmental health factors. These cities are also comprised of many areas of high POC segregation, with predominantly Hispanic populations. Except for Garden Grove and Westminster, which have neighborhoods with predominantly AAPI populations. Conversely, the cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the south and northeast experience lower poverty rates, higher educational scores, higher economic scores, and better environmental health factors. These areas correspond to areas of high White segregation and predominantly White populations.

In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
• The following racial/ethnic groups experience disparities in access across multiple indicators:
o Hispanic residents, and particularly those living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods in close proximity to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. 984
Orange County 124 25-29 Regional AFH
• The following areas experience low access across multiple indicators:
o Southwest Placentia neighborhoods have low access to environmental health, high poverty, low economic scores, and are not located in a highquality transit area. This part of the city is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
o Stanton residents experience low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods and high exposure to poverty on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the east side of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue. o In San Juan Capistrano, the neighborhoods surrounding the I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74) interchange experience poor environmental health and have low economic scores. This is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• Apart from the areas above, the rest of the Urban County jurisdictions experience high environmental quality and have relatively low poverty. In addition, the following areas have access to educational and economic opportunities, as reflected in high education and economic scores on the maps analyzed above:
o Brea, Cypress, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Los Alamitos, North Tustin, Orange Park Acres, Villa Park, Yorba Linda, and the unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda
In Aliso Viejo, residents have high access across multiple opportunities, including high education scores, high economic scores, high environmental quality, and low exposure to poverty. However, residents generally do not have good access to transit and neighborhoods with low transportation costs.

In Anaheim, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods near the downtown have low environmental health, low education scores, low economic scores; but good access to HQTAs. Conversely, Anaheim Hills, which is a predominantly White area, has the best access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods with low poverty rates, high education scores, and high economic scores.

In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with low poverty rates and high performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods in the center of the city, between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), have poor environmental health, lower educational scores, and lower economic scores.

In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods downtown and west of downtown are less environmentally healthy and have lower education and economic 985
Orange County 125 25-29 Regional AFH
scores. These are also predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Conversely, neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are predominantly White, have higher education and economic scores, are more environmentally healthy, and have lower poverty rates.

In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have relatively high economic and educational scores, and relatively low poverty rates. White or AAPI residents comprise the predominant population in all neighborhoods.

In Fullerton, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods in southeast Fullerton (which are predominantly Hispanic), have relatively low economic and education scores, poor environmental quality, and relatively high poverty rates. Conversely, neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, which are predominantly White or AAPI, have higher education and economic scores, better environmental health, and lower poverty.

In Garden Grove, Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.

Additionally, Hispanic residents also have the least access to neighborhoods with high performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods with access to the most opportunities are in West Garden Grove, where education and economic scores are high, environmental quality is high, and poverty is low. West Garden Grove is a predominantly White area.

In Huntington Beach, Hispanic residents have relatively low access to neighborhoods with good environmental health, low poverty, high education scores, and high economic scores.

Overall, access to opportunities in the city is high compared to the region.

In Irvine, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities.

Geographically, the neighborhoods surrounding UC Irvine have relatively low economic scores and relatively high poverty rates, but this is most likely due to the concentration of college students in this area.

In La Habra, neighborhoods in the city’s center and southeast of the center have poor environmental quality, low education scores, and low economic scores. These neighborhoods are also predominantly Hispanic.

In Laguna Niguel, residents have high access across multiple opportunities, including high education scores, high economic scores, high environmental quality, and low exposure to poverty. However, residents generally do not have good access to transit and neighborhoods with low transportation costs.
986
Orange County 126 25-29 Regional AFH
In Lake Forest, residents overall have relatively good access to opportunities, compared to the region. However, residents living below the FPL in the city generally have less access to opportunities than the rest of the population.

In Mission Viejo, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities (apart from transit and low-cost transportation). Most of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White, except in the south.

In Newport Beach, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities. All of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White.

In Orange, Hispanic, and Black residents (especially Black residents living below the FPL) have relatively low access to neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods west of Glassel Street (which are predominantly Hispanic), have lower education and economic scores, and worse environmental quality. Conversely, neighborhoods to the north and east of Villa Park (predominantly White), have high education and economic scores, and good environmental quality.

In Rancho Santa Margarita, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities. All of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White.

In San Clemente, residents have relatively high access to opportunities compared to the region. Geographically, compared to the rest of the city, neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park have lower environmental quality, lower economic scores, and slightly higher poverty rates.

In Santa Ana, Hispanic residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods downtown, west of downtown, and southeast of downtown have low economic scores, low education scores, high poverty rates, and poor environmental quality. Neighborhoods in the north and south of the city have better economic and education scores.

In Tustin, Hispanic residents (especially those below FPL) are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital; and are more likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods.

In Westminster, AAPI residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs. Native American residents living below the FPL are also less likely to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs. 987
Orange County 127 25-29 Regional AFH
This section describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

Broadly speaking, disparities in access to opportunities between and within jurisdictions in Orange County are due, in part, to:
• Lack of affordable (market or publicly subsidized) housing in high opportunity areas, due to market factors, governmental constraints, and community opposition to high density zoning.
• Lack of public and private investment in low-opportunity neighborhoods. • Displacement of residents is due to rising housing costs.

Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that disparities in access to opportunities in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity areas). • Many seniors are on fixed incomes and cannot keep up with the rising cost of housing.
• The high cost of land, which makes it hard to build new affordable housing in high opportunity areas.
• The California Coastal Act, which limits development in high opportunity areas along the coast.
• Lack of accessible housing for individuals with disabilities.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to disparities in access to opportunities in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV. 988
Orange County 128 25-29 Regional AFH
E. Disproportionate Housing Needs
The following analysis describes which groups experience higher rates of housing cost burden, severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared to other groups.

Housing Problems
Table 10 – Disproportionate Housing Problems, shows 2017-2021 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data on the percentage of households experiencing at least one of the following four housing problems, organized by race/ethnicity:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household lacks a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household lacks hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower.
• Overcrowding: A household is considered overcrowded if there are more than 1.01 individuals per room.
• Cost burden: A household is considered cost burdened if the household spends more than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant, plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.

A disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group in a certain income range experience housing problems at a rate that is least 10 percentage points higher than the rate experienced by all households within that income level. Table 10 reports the following:
• American Indian or Alaska Native households, and Pacific Islander households have disproportionate housing needs within the 80%-100% AMI range. • It is also worth noting that Hispanic households in the 30% AMI and below range experience housing needs at a much higher rate than the overall population in that income range, though the rate is slightly less than 10 percentage points. 989
Orange County 129 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 10 - Disproportionate Housing Problems, Orange County Percent of households experiencing at least one
housing burden, by income range
Race/Ethnicity Less than
30% AMI
30%-50%
AMI
50%-80%
AMI
80%-100%
AMI
Orange County as a whole 79.8% 78.9% 63.3% 42.6%
White 77.4% 72.4% 61.6% 43.8%
Black/African American 81.5% 85.9% 70.9% 37.5%
Asian 72.5% 78.5% 61.7% 44.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 59.7% 60.7% 56.5% 54.2% Pacific Islander 78.1% 76.5% 71.7% 55.1%
Hispanic 89.5% 86.0% 65.4% 39.3%
Source: CHAS 2017-2021
Severe Housing Problems
Table 11 – Disproportionate Severe Housing Problems, shows 2017-2021 CHAS data on the percentage of households experiencing at least one of the following four severe housing problems, organized by race/ethnicity:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household does not have a stove/oven and refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household does not have running water or modern toilets.
• Severe overcrowding: A household is considered severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 individuals per room.
• Severe cost burden: A household is considered severely cost burdened if the household spends more than 50% of its total income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant, plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.

According to Table 11, the following groups experience disproportionate need as defined above:
• Hispanic households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 0%- 30% AMI range.
• American Indian or Alaska Native households, and Pacific Islander households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 50%-80% AMI range. • American Indian or Alaska Native households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 80%-100% AMI range.
990
Orange County 130 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 11 - Disproportionate Severe Housing Problems, Orange County Percent of households experiencing at least one
severe housing burden, by income range
Race/Ethnicity Less than
30% AMI
30%-50%
AMI
50%-80%
AMI
80%-100%
AMI
Orange County as a whole 71.2% 55.5% 28.0% 14.8%
White 68.7% 52.5% 22.9% 10.5%
Black/African American 72.9% 55.5% 25.2% 4.3%
Asian 62.4% 52.5% 27.7% 15.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 59.7% 17.0% 44.4% 30.6% Pacific Islander 58.1% 59.3% 40.7% 19.2%
Hispanic 82.2% 60.3% 34.6% 23.0%
Source: CHAS 2017-2021
The following analysis identifies which areas experience the greatest housing burdens and describes which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs, and the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas.

Map 12 – Housing Problems, is a series of maps illustrating concentrations of households experiencing housing burdens in Orange County. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates16F
17 . On these maps, areas with darker
shading have a higher percentage of households experiencing a particular housing problem (i.e., cost burden, overcrowding, incomplete plumbing, and incomplete kitchen facilities.

The maps show that the areas experiencing the greatest housing burdens are the following:
• Overcrowding is an issue that is generally only experienced by the residents of cities in the central and northern parts of the County. Overcrowding is not a significant concern in the coastal areas, the areas south and east of Irvine, or the northeastern region, including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated areas to the east Conversely, more than 20% of all units are overcrowded in the following areas:
o In Santa Ana, in most of the city, which are also areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic.
o In Garden Grove, in the eastern and southeastern neighborhoods, which are areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic in the east. 17 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing 991
Orange County 131 25-29 Regional AFH
o In Anaheim, in the neighborhoods north and south of downtown, and around Disneyland. These are also areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic.
o In Fullerton, in the neighborhoods south of downtown, which are predominantly Hispanic.
• Overpayment by renters is an issue everywhere in the County. In most neighborhoods in the County, over 40% of renter households are struggling with overpayment.
• Overpayment by owners is less of an issue than overpayment by renters but is also widespread throughout the County. In many neighborhoods, 20-40% of homeowner households struggle with overpayment. There are only a few areas where more than 60% or fewer than 20% of homeowner households struggle with overpayment. • Incomplete plumbing is not a significant concern in the County, as fewer than 2% of homes experience this issue. However, one exception is Fountain Valley, where 5- 10% of housing units are affected. This area includes the neighborhood surrounding Fountain Valley High School and north to Warner Avenue, which is an area of high POC segregation.
• Incomplete kitchen facilities are also not a significant concern in the County. In most of the County less than 10% of homes experience this issue. The areas where more than 10% of homes experience this issue are:
o In Anaheim, in the western neighborhoods, which are racially integrated and predominantly Hispanic, except for one Census Tract that is predominantly AAPI.
o In Orange, in the predominantly Hispanic area west of Glassel Street and north of Walnut Avenue.
o In La Habra, in one Census Tract in the north central part of the city. o In Irvine, near UC Irvine (which may reflect a concentration of student housing).
992
Orange County 132 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overcrowding
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overpayment by Renters
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
993
Orange County 133 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overpayment by Owners
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Lacking Complete Plumbing
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
994
Orange County 134 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Lacking Complete Kitchen
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the differences in rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity.

Table 12 – Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity, shows the percentages of households that are renters and homeowners by race/ethnicity, based on data from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. The table shows that,
• Countywide, the homeownership rate is 56.5%, which is higher than the homeownership rate in the region.There are large disparities in homeownership by race/ethnicity. Black households have the lowest homeownership rate (32.4%). Less than 40% of Hispanic households own their home, and approximately 42% of Native households own their home. White and AAPI households have the highest homeownership rates.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, homeownership rates are higher overall and for each group compared to the County. The same disparities in homeownership by race/ethnicity exist as in the County. • In Aliso Viejo, homeownership rates for AAPI, Black, and Hispanic households are higher than in the County overall, and homeownership rates for White households are lower.
• In Anaheim, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist.
995
Orange County 135 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Buena Park, homeownership rates and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County overall; however, the disparities are even larger due to a higher homeownership rate for White households compared to the County, and a lower rate for Black households compared to the County.
• In Costa Mesa, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist.
• In Fountain Valley, homeownership rates are higher compared to the County for all groups, except Black households. However, it is important to note that the small sample size for Black households may affect the accuracy of the data is not accurate. • In Fullerton, homeownership rates are lower for all groups than the County overall, except for AAPI households. Racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Native American households the least likely to own their home, and AAPI households most likely. • In Garden Grove, the Black and Hispanic homeownership rate is half the White homeownership rate. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than the AAPI homeownership countywide.
• In Huntington Beach, homeownership rates are lower for White, Black, and Hispanic households compared to the County overall, and higher for AAPI and Native American households. Similar racial/ethnic disparities exist in the city as in the County.
• In Irvine, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County overall, and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County, with Black and Hispanic households experiencing the lowest homeownership rates (15.7% and 18% respectively)
• In La Habra, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist as in the County. • In Laguna Niguel, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County, and racial/ethnic disparities exist—the Hispanic homeownership rate is the lowest, followed by the Black homeownership rate. The AAPI homeownership rate is the highest, followed by the White homeownership rate. • In Lake Forest, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County, except Native American households. Racial/Ethnic disparities exist, with AAPI and White homeownership higher than Black and Hispanic homeownership rates.
• In Mission Viejo, homeownership rates across all groups are much higher than in the County overall, though racial/ethnic disparities still exist. The Black homeownership rate is the lowest in the city, though it is above 60%. • In Newport Beach, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County overall, except for AAPI households, who have slightly higher homeownership rate in the city. The Black and Native American homeownership 996
Orange County 136 25-29 Regional AFH
rates are very low in the city. However, due to the small sample sizes for these groups, the data may not be entirely accurate.
• In Orange, homeownership rates are comparable to the County overall, and similar disparities exist. However, the disparities are slightly larger in the city than in the County, as White, AAPI, and Hispanic homeownership rates are higher than in the County overall, while the Black homeownership rate is lower. • In Rancho Santa Margarita, homeownership rates are higher for all groups when compared to the County. However, there are still racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic households have the lowest homeownership rate, and it is 20 percentage points lower than the AAPI homeownership rate, which is the highest rate in the city. • In San Clemente, homeownership rates are higher for White, AAPI, and Hispanic households compared to the County overall, while rates are lower for Black and Native American households. Due to the small sample size for Black and Native American households, the data may not be accurate. This causes the racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership rates to be larger than at the County level. • In Santa Ana, racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership rates are similar to the County overall, but less pronounced. This is because homeownership rates in the city are lower for White and AAPI households, and higher for Black, Hispanic, and Native American households compared to the County overall. • In Tustin, homeownership rates are very low for Black and Hispanic households, equaling less than half of the homeownership rate for AAPI and White households.

The AAPI homeownership rate is higher in the city than in the County overall, and the White homeownership rate is lower in the city than in the County overall. • In Westminster, there are large racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Black, Hispanic, and Native American households have the lowest rates (30%), and these rates are less than half the homeownership rate for White households, which is the highest in the city. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than in the County overall and is nearly 20 percentage points lower than the White homeownership rate in the city.
997
Orange County 137 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity 998
Orange County 138 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity (continued) 999
Orange County 139 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity (continued) 1000
Orange County 140 25-29 Regional AFH
Charts 1 and 2, below, show denial rates for home purchase loans by race/ethnicity in Orange County and California between 2010-2021. In both Orange County and California, denial rates are highest for Black loan applicants, followed by Hispanic then Asian applicants. White applicants have the lowest denial rates. Denial rates are lower in Orange County for all groups compared to the state, except for Hispanic applicants who have the same denial rate in both geographies. Since the Great Recession, denial rates have fallen for all groups.

Chart 1: Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Orange County Source: Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Cleveland.
1001
Orange County 141 25-29 Regional AFH
Chart 2: Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, California Source: Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Cleveland.

This section describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns described above.

Broadly speaking, disproportionate housing needs across and within jurisdictions in Orange County are influenced by several factors, including:
• The age of housing stock in some neighborhoods, and the high cost of home repairs/rehabilitation relative to incomes.
• Insufficient number of Housing Choice Vouchers or other types of publicly subsidized housing
• Land use and zoning laws that have led to the dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing.

Through stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that disproportionate housing needs in the County are due to:
• Eviction notices have a particularly adverse impact on tenants, especially on families who are fleeing or those with a history of domestic violence. While the judicial system is making efforts to address these issues, barriers such as language and understanding legal terminology continue to pose challenges. 1002
Orange County 142 25-29 Regional AFH
• Lack of adequate shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly for the most vulnerable groups such as trans women.
• Insufficient homebuyer education for minority homebuyers. • Lack of resources for organizations providing education and services to protected class groups.
• Language and digital literacy barriers that make it hard for LEP populations to locate and access housing resources.

Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to disproportionate housing needs in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.

F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing The following analysis describes how local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices impede or promote fair housing (including how they impede or promote the siting or location of affordable housing in well-resourced neighborhoods, and equitable access to homeownership and other asset building and economic opportunities).

In general, land use and zoning laws across Orange County have led to the dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing and has contributed in various ways to reinforcing longstanding patterns of segregation, concentration of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities. Through the Housing Element process mandated by the State of California, each jurisdiction has identified various public and/or private policies and practices that have contributed to the fair housing issues identified in this AFH, as well as efforts they are making to promote fair housing.

These items are detailed in Section IV.

This section describes any state or local fair housing laws and the characteristics protected under each law.

In the State of California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibit discrimination in housing based on the following characteristics:
• Race
• Color
• National origin (including language use restrictions) • Religion
• Sex
• Familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians; pregnant women and people securing custody of children under 18) • Handicap (disability)
• Age
• Ancestry
1003
Orange County 143 25-29 Regional AFH
• Citizenship
• Gender Identity and Gender Expression
• Genetic Information
• Immigration Status
• Marital Status
• Primary Language
• Sexual Orientation
• Source of Income
• Military or veteran status
This section describes efforts to increase fair housing compliance and enforcement capacity, and to ensure compliance with existing fair housing and civil rights laws and regulations.

Orange County jurisdictions rely on the state and local nonprofit fair housing providers to ensure fair housing compliance and enforcement, including the following organizations:

California Civil Rights Department
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), is responsible for enforcing state fair housing laws that make it illegal to discriminate against or harass someone because of a protected characteristic, that require reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and that prohibit retaliation against someone for exercising their rights. The CRD receives and investigates complaints and provides mediation and conflict resolution services throughout the state.

Fair Housing Council of Orange County
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) is a nonprofit with a mission of ensuring access to housing and preserving human rights. FHCOC provides a variety of services in multiple languages, including community outreach and education, homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. In addition to these client services, FHCOC investigates claims of housing discrimination and assists with referrals to the state. FHCOC currently works in Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Rancho Santa Margarita, the City of Orange, and Orange County.

Fair Housing Foundation
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) serves parts of Los Angeles County and several cities in Orange County, including Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente, Tustin, and Westminster. FHF provides landlord-tenant counseling and mediation, rental housing counseling, and community outreach and education. In addition, the FHF screens 1004
Orange County 144 25-29 Regional AFH
fair housing complaints, investigates through testing, and either engages in conciliation or mediation efforts or refers the complaints to the appropriate administrative agencies.

This section describes the status of any unresolved findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments in which the program participant has been a party related to fair housing or other civil rights laws in the jurisdiction.

There are no unresolved findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments in which the program participants have been a party related to fair housing or other civil rights laws in the jurisdictions.
1005
Orange County 145 25-29 Regional AFH
IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan
For each participating jurisdiction, this section outlines (1) the issues identified in the preceding analysis; (2) the factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of each fair housing issue; and (3) the actions each jurisdiction has taken or will take to address those contributing factors in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

The actions listed below are included in the most recently approved and adopted Housing Element for each jurisdiction, and include actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing since the adoption of the Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in 2020.

A. Orange County Urban County
Across the Urban County jurisdictions, the preceding analysis identified the following fair housing issues:
• Disparities in Access to Opportunities: Hispanic residents, and particularly those living below the FPL, have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods in close proximity to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs: Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in the Urban County jurisdictions. Additionally, there are racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Specifically, Black, Latino, and Native American households have low homeownership rates compared to White and AAPI households. The Black homeownership rate, the lowest among all groups, is approximately half the White homeownership rate, which is the highest.

Within the jurisdictions that make up the Urban County, the following additional fair housing issues were identified:
• Unincorporated Orange County
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Santa Margarita, in North Tustin, in Orange Park Acres, and in Rossmoor.
• Brea
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Cypress
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation (which are predominantly AAPI neighborhoods), and there is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, 1006
Orange County 146 25-29 Regional AFH
and areas of high POC segregation in the neighborhood near King Elementary School, in the north of the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Dana Point
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• La Palma
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the city, which are predominantly AAPI neighborhoods.
• Laguna Beach
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Laguna Hills
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Laguna Woods
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Placentia
o Segregation and R/ECAPs:There are areas of high White segregation in the north of the city, and high POC segregation areas in the southwest corner of the city. The high POC segregation area also has several publicly supported housing units, including a high rate of voucher use. Additionally, in this part of the city, the neighborhoods south of Orangethorpe Avenue are a R/ECAP.

The R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods to the west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. Geographically, southwestern Placentia neighborhoods have low access to environmental health, high poverty, low 1007
Orange County 147 25-29 Regional AFH
economic scores, and are not located in a high-quality transit area. As noted above, this part of the city is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
• San Juan Capistrano
o Segregation: There is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic. There is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and the areas of high POC segregation in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74).
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. Geographically, the neighborhoods around the I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74) interchange experience poor environmental health and have low economic scores. This is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• Seal Beach
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
• Stanton
o Segregation:There are areas of high POC segregation in the city, which are predominantly Hispanic or AAPI neighborhoods. There are overlaps between the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and areas of high POC segregation throughout the city. o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. Additionally, all Stanton residents experience low access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and residents in the neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the eastside of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue also experience high exposure to poverty.
• Villa Park
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city. • Yorba Linda
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the northern area of the city, which is predominantly AAPI, and areas of high White segregation elsewhere
The contributing factors to each of the fair housing issues listed above, along with each jurisdictions’ fair housing goals and actions, are outlined as follows:
1008
Orange County 148 25-29 Regional AFH

1. Unincorporated Orange County
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of investment in certain neighborhoods, including lack of community revitalization strategies, lack of private investment, and lack of public investment, including in services and amenities.

2. Limited quantity of affordable housing due to community opposition, land use and zoning laws, and occupancy codes and restrictions.

3. Private discrimination, including source of income discrimination.

4. Limited knowledge of fair housing laws due to: limited resources to pay for outreach; increasingly fewer people rely on newspapers to receive information, and public notices or printed flyers are costly and ineffective means to reach the community at large; unknown language barriers and resource barriers to accessing information.

Actions: Timeframe:

Facilitate Affordable Housing Development through the following actions:

1. Create a Housing Opportunities Overlay Map and webpage providing information about the Housing Opportunities Overlay and identify areas where higher density projects would be permitted with expedited processing, and which may be eligible for density bonuses.

Within 18-months of
adoption/certification of
the Housing Element.

2. Develop informational materials on the County’s website regarding the County’s lot consolidation incentives and density bonus program.

Within 18-months of
adoption/certification of
the Housing Element.

3. Update the “Orange County Housing Opportunities Manual” and will also create and distribute promotional materials explaining the County’s expedited permit processing and incentives for affordable housing to be provided to developers in the region.

Within one year of
adoption and certification
of the Housing Element.

4. Publish and review the Affordable Housing Rental List. Annually

5. Review the County Housing Authority’s participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and pursue additional vouchers/funding when available.

Annually

6. Work with applicants who propose for-rent residential projects to encourage four-bedroom units for large families as part of the proposed developments.

As proposals are received
(ongoing)

7. Meet with Developers and DPRC to identify potential constraints to the development of affordable housing and housing for those with special needs in the County’s zoning regulations.

Within one year of
adoption. Address within
six months.

Coordination with Affordable Housing Stakeholders through the following actions:

8. Provide letters of support to affordable housing developers’ applications to local, State, and federal agencies for funding, Initiate by January 2025
1009
Orange County 149 25-29 Regional AFH
provided the proposed projects are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

9. Work with cities and LAFCO to ensure that new planned communities in sphere of influence areas provide adequate sites at appropriate densities for affordable housing.

Annually

10. Conduct meetings with stakeholders, including the development community and property owners to facilitate housing
development.

Annually

11. Attend and promote development incentives at the monthly Housing Opportunities Committee meeting and the bi-monthly OC Housing Finance Trust meetings.

Twice annually

12. Meet with owners of the religious properties identified in the inventory of sites and provide information on regulatory changes, development standards and affordability requirements and incentives and/or assistance available through the County for development of housing on religious institution properties.

By January 2025

13. Meet with nonprofit developers and housing organizations to evaluate projects for acquisition and rehabilitation/new construction of new shelters, and long-term affordable housing, including senior housing.

Annually
Increase knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws through the following actions:

14. Implement Restrictive Covenant Modification Plan (RCM) including Phase III, examination of remaining handwritten documents for unlawful languages and process.

By July 2027

15. Continue to work under contract with the FHCOC and/or other qualified fair housing service providers to provide fair housing services for all segments of the community. Evaluate and adjust the scope of services to ensure the County addresses any emerging trends in fair housing.

Annually

16. Provide federal/state/local information regarding discrimination to residents, including applicable Fair Housing Information and Discrimination Complaint Forms.

Annually

17. Maintain bilingual staff to assist non-English speaking families and ensure handicap accessible offices.

Annually

18. Work with the fair housing agencies to provide information regarding housing discrimination and intervention to resolve complaints.

Annually

19. Use non-traditional media (e.g., social media, County website) in outreach and education efforts in addition to print media and notices.

Annually
1010
Orange County 150 25-29 Regional AFH

20. Update the Affordable Housing Rental List (translated in multiple languages) on the County website.

Annually

21. Inform community members of the existence of the Orange County Fair Housing Council (FHCOC) and its oversight of fair housing practices by posting on the County’s website and at the Planning counter.

By December 2025

22. The County shall work with local resource agencies to implement an outreach program informing families within the County of housing and services available for individuals with
developmental disabilities.

Annually
Amend the zoning code and other local ordinances to facilitate new housing opportunities and increase housing mobility, including:

23. Allow emergency shelters without a Use Permit or other discretionary permit in the commercial and industrial portions of the Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone.

By October 2024

24. Remove the Site Development Permit requirement for
multifamily developments of one to four units and any
developments with 20% affordable units and allow by-right.

Amend the Site Development Permit requirements for objective findings for developments of units or more.

By October 2024

25. Adopt Objective Design Standards (ODS). By October 2024 Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Contributing Factors:

1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes.

2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.

3. Lack of private and public investment in specific neighborhoods.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase accessible and affordable housing opportunities for persons with disabilities through the following actions:

1. Review Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit. To promote flexibility to accommodate residents with different living conditions, the County will review and adopt revisions as appropriate to its zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household
situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.

By December 2026.

2. The County will review and revise its group home and zoning ordinances as needed to ensure ongoing compliance with state and federal fair housing laws. For example, the ordinance will be reviewed to ensure that a group home that operates as a single By December 31, 2025.
1011
Orange County 151 25-29 Regional AFH
housekeeping unit is permitted in any zoning district in the same manner as other residential uses in that zone (e.g., multifamily, single family). The definition of single housekeeping unit as to group homes will be revised to eliminate (1) the reference to residential activities that do not occur on a nonprofit basis and, (2) the requirement that the residents share lease agreements or ownership. In addition, the standards for group homes shall be objective and not unnecessarily constrain approval of group homes in that zoning district.

3. Seek State and Federal monies, as funding becomes available, for permanent supportive housing construction and
rehabilitation targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities.

Annually.

4. Develop a program /ordinance to provide regulatory incentives, such as expedited permit processing and fee waiver, to projects targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities.

Within 2 years of adoption
of the Housing Element.

5. On an ongoing basis, enforce building code provisions requiring accessible design.

Annually.

6. On an ongoing basis, implement reasonable accommodation ordinance.

Ongoing.

7. On an ongoing basis, ensure the permitting requirements for group homes and care facilities for seven or more persons are consistent with State law and fair housing requirements.

Ongoing.

Increase affordable housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the following actions:

8. Sites Rezoning – Amend the HOO to accommodate a higher density of development, establish a minimum density for R2, R3, R4, RP, and MX zones, rezone C1, C2, CC, CH, CN, RP to MX, and expand the HOO.

Adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on June 25,
2024.

9. No Net Loss – Identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate the share of housing need by income level.

By end of 2024, if required.

10. Review incentives for density bonuses, expedited permit processing procedures, development standards, tax-exempt conduit financing, infrastructure financing assistance, and direct financial assistance.

Every two years.
1012
Orange County 152 25-29 Regional AFH

11. Review with DPRC members the existing and proposed codes, procedures, and fees to ensure that they do not unreasonably hinder housing production.

Within 1 FY of approval.

12. Review funding opportunities and aggressively pursue, as the County has been, all state and federal housing grant funds for which the County is eligible
Bimonthly.

13. Approve affordable housing projects in Rancho Mission Viejo administratively.

Ongoing.

14. Coordinate with the City of Newport Beach for development and shared RHNA credit of the identified parcels on the Countyowned Coyote Canyon site.

By November 2024.

15. Implement an informational program to disseminate information about developing ADUs.

By end of 2025; annually
thereafter.

16. Prepare pre-approved ADU plans. July 2024.

17. Implement the Affordable ADU Loan Program Policy Manual. Within 2 years of adoption.

18. Initiate consideration of an Inclusionary Housing Program/Policy. By December 2026.

19. Leverage available funding sources, such as Homekey funds, to purchase or rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, and other buildings and convert them into interim or permanent, long-term housing.

Annually.
1013
Orange County 153 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:

1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes.

2. Shortage of subsidized housing units.

3. Cost of repairs and rehabilitation.

4. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily.

Actions: Timeframe:

Rehabilitate and Preserve Existing Residential Units through the following actions:

1. Use available housing funding to finance housing rehabilitation, focusing in Central and North County.

Annually.

2. Implement and review the County’s code enforcement and graffiti removal programs.

Ongoing.

3. Provide infrastructure maintenance in existing residential neighborhoods, including through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), focusing in Central and North County.

Annually.

4. Participate in the CDBG, HOME and related programs as a means of providing passthrough funding to affordable housing projects and efforts to rehabilitate existing affordable units or projects, focusing in Central and North County.

Annually.

5. Site Replacement – Comply with site replacement requirement pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3). Replace sites identified in the inventory that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and:
a. Were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very lowincome; or b. Subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or
c. Occupied by low or very low-income households for the purpose of this program “previous five years” is based on the date the application for development was submitted.

As
necessary
(ongoing).

6. Monitor projects with expiring affordability covenants and take appropriate action to preserve these affordable units whenever possible. Promote funding and other opportunities to owners considering conversion of units through existing outreach programs and the County’s website.

Annually.

7. Enforce the provisions of the County’s condominium and mobile home park conversion ordinance.

Annually.

Make neighborhood improvements in low opportunity areas in Central and North County, including the following:
1014
Orange County 154 25-29 Regional AFH

8. Implement the County CIP plan including ADA, roadway, and infrastructure improvements in the Unincorporated County. Improvements may include:
a. Curb ramp, sidewalk, and driveway upgrades and improvements to satisfy current ADA standards and requirements.
b. Parkway, sidewalk, and intersection improvements.

Annually.

9. Facilitate the development or improvement of parks and open space under the County’s CIP plan or other implementation plan benefiting residents of Unincorporated communities, particularly communities with reduced access to environmental opportunities. Projects may include:
a. Development of Mile Square Regional Park in Fountain Valley b. Santa Ana River Trail
c. Ted Craig Regional Park improvements
d. Yorba Regional Park improvements
By 2029.

Increase housing opportunities, with a focus in Central County, for persons experiencing homelessness through the following actions:

10. Facilitate the development of one interim or permanent, long-term housing project using available funding sources, such as Homekey funds (provided it is made available through the State), during the planning period which is anticipated to assist 50 persons experiencing homelessness annually.

Annually.
1015
Orange County 155 25-29 Regional AFH

2. Brea
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of community revitalization strategies.

2. Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services and amenities.

3. High cost of housing rehabilitation and repairs.

4. High levels of overpayment create displacement risk.

5. Limited availability of affordable housing in all areas of the city, including those where rents and sales prices have become exclusive.

6. Community concern about housing densities.

7. Lack of knowledge of fair housing laws.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase knowledge of fair housing laws through the following actions:

1. By the end of 2022, post additional fair housing information at the Family Resource and Senior Centers and on their digital platforms.

Starting in 2022, conduct an informational workshop at these locations once every two years.

By the end of 2022

2. In 2023, conduct a fair housing information session for the City Council.

Invite local nonprofits (including the Orange County Human Relations Commission, the Kennedy Commission, and People for Housing O.C.) to attend.

By the end of 2023

3. Publish Fair Housing information, including any community meetings in Brea Line (city newsletter), as well as non- traditional media, such as Instagram and Facebook, and conduct targeted outreach to tenants, mobile home park residents, and other lower-income populations.

Annually

4. Increase the distribution of fair housing materials by at least 25 percent to increase awareness of fair housing options among residents, including special needs groups and low-income residents. Seek to increase the number of Brea residents counseled through the Fair Housing Council of Orange County from an average of 70 to 75 annually.

Annually, between
2021-2029
Increase quality of affordable housing and access to opportunities in low opportunity areas through the following actions:

5. Include information about rehabilitation resources in City newsletters and on the City website, including the availability of funds for accessibility improvements. Include translated information when feasible. Seek to assist 12-15 households annually. Starting in 2023, conduct targeted outreach in identified Low and Moderate Resource Annually
1016
Orange County 156 25-29 Regional AFH
Census Tracts, utilizing the Housing Conditions Survey and Code Enforcement information to further target assistance.

6. Identify apartments in need of rehabilitation and cooperate with nonprofit providers to acquire and rehabilitate units and provide as long-term affordable housing. Seek to complete at least two projects, including the 47-unit Walnut Village in partnership with Jamboree Housing.

Between 2021-2029

7. Continue to improve access to individuals with disabilities through ADA improvements to streets, sidewalks, and public facilities. Dedicate or seek funding, including annual CDBG allocations, to prioritize infrastructure and accessibility improvements in Low and Moderate Resource opportunity areas.

Ongoing

8. Increased public and private investment in Low and Moderate Resource Census Tracts, including $2,000,000 allocated for a variety of ADA, park facilities, transportation, water, and sewer line improvements in these Census Tracts during 2021-2029.
2021-2029
Increase housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the following actions:

9. Starting in 2023, work with the FHCOC to contact landlords of affordable multifamily complexes every two years and provide fair housing information and assistance. This outreach will focus on promoting the Section 8 voucher program to landlords who have not previously participated in the program and should include multi-lingual materials.

Through landlord outreach in coordination with the FHCOC and housing mobility programs through the Orange County Housing Authority, the City's goal will be to increase Housing Choice Vouchers by 10%, from 114 to 125 vouchers, including a 10% increase in high resource neighborhoods.

Every two years;
2021-2029

10. Rezone sufficient parcels to provide geographically dispersed sites for over 1,100 lower-income units, fostering a more inclusive community. 2022

11. Provide significant new housing opportunities in Highest Resource eastern Brea through development of a diverse mix of 1,100 new units in the Brea 265 project, including an estimated 76 deed restricted affordable units as required through the City’s inclusionary ordinance.

Pursue the introduction of workforce housing on Amazon’s 31-acre warehouse site in eastern Brea.
2021-2029

12. Update Brea’s Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2022 to integrate lowand moderate-income units in market rate projects throughout the community
2022
1017
Orange County 157 25-29 Regional AFH

13. Coordinate with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) in 2023 to utilize the mobility counseling program. This OCHA program informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic support to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.
2023-2029

14. Initiate a marketing program for homeowners on the benefits of ADUs and the availability of funds to support development through the City's Newsletter and posting of the ADU application checklist on the City website, thereby expanding housing opportunities in areas traditionally limited to single-family ownership. Promote and support the development of ADUs and seek to issue permits for 16 units annually throughout Brea.

Annually, starting
in 2022

15. Adopt an Ordinance by 2022 to expand the housing supply in High Resource single-family zones by allowing for lot splits and duplexes under the parameters of SB 9. In coordination with research being conducted at the State level, pursue opportunities to incentivize and provide funding assistance for homeowners to provide affordable units under SB 9.
2022-2025

16. Require affordable developers receiving public funds to prepare an affirmative marketing plan and encourage private developers with affordable units in their projects to prepare an affirmative marketing plan. The affirmative marketing plan shall ensure marketing materials for new developments are designed to attract renters and buyers of diverse demographics, including individuals of any race, ethnicity, sex, handicap, and familial status.

Ongoing
Prevent displacement through the following actions:

17. Continue anti-displacement programs including limits on rent increases and prohibiting evictions without just cause for tenants that have resided in their units for more than 12 months; relocation assistance where public funds are utilized; and replacement requirements when affordable units are removed.

Ongoing

18. Assist mobile home park resident organizations interested in purchasing their parks to access funds through the state HCD Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP). Provide available local funds for leverage and assist with the subdivision map waiver process consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.

Ongoing
1018
Orange County 158 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Cypress
Issue: Segregation and Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of City-specific data on fair housing inquiries/complaints.

2. Lack of effective outreach strategies.

3. Concentration of lower- and moderate-income households.

4. Limited understanding of regulations surrounding acceptance of HCV tenants.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Advocate to receive reports from the Orange County Fair Housing Council that include data specific to the City of Cypress to allow the City to better assess fair housing issues within the community.

Ongoing

2. Create an updated webpage on the City’s website with information on fair housing rights and resources by 2023.
2023

3. Publish information about fair housing resources in the City’s quarterly newsletter.

Ongoing

4. Implement requirements for developers to submit an Affirmative Action Marketing Plan for density bonus projects by 2023.
2023, ongoing
thereafter

5. Expand outreach and education of Source of Income Protection laws (SB 329 and SB 222), which include HCVs and other public assistance as legitimate sources of income for housing.

Ongoing

6. Provide information on Source of Income Protection laws in ADU informational packets.

Ongoing

7. Increase affordable housing stock in high opportunities through the following actions:
a. Promote key lower income housing opportunity sites for affordable housing development as a means to bring new housing opportunities to high resource areas.

Ongoing
b. Conduct a feasibility study on the implementation of an inclusionary housing ordinance by 2024.
2024
c. Support funding applications by nonprofit developers for affordable housing in high resource areas.

Ongoing
1019
Orange County 159 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:

1. Presence of a higher proportion of older multi-family rental units.

2. Limited income available for home repairs/maintenance.

3. Older single family housing stock.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Implementation of a Neighborhood Preservation Pilot Program to identify and address code violations and needed right of way improvements.

Ongoing

2. Expand outreach and education efforts to neighborhood residents on resources available to address code violations and property maintenance issues.

Ongoing
1020
Orange County 160 25-29 Regional AFH

4. Dana Point
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Low rates of HCV use. Despite high rates of overpayment for rental households, the use of housing vouchers is low. This may be due to stigma associated with the use of Housing Vouchers, both by property owners and tenants.

2. School performance. Disadvantaged students at schools serving Dana Point residents may be falling behind other students in the school and compared to those across the state. Both elementary schools in Dana Point are ranked much lower compared to other elementary schools that serve Dana Point residents.

3. Income and Diversity. The City lacks a substantial number of suitable housing sites in moderate / high / highest opportunity areas; many of these areas are largely built out with single-family homes. The majority of available housing sites are in Census Tracts that already have a higher concentration of low-income residents.

4. Lack of regional coordination and lack of public/private investment. Dana Point and surrounding cities generally address the need and solutions for affordable housing and homeless shelters in an independent manner, which causes them to compete against one another for funds and eliminates opportunities to pool resources.

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

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws through the following actions:

1. Educate the community about fair-housing and equal housing opportunities, providing housing counseling services and family resource information and referral. Topics include, but are not limited to tenant rights, legal resources, rehabilitation grants and loans, first-time homebuyer programs, and Section 8 programs.

Distribute materials in English and Spanish through City Hall, City libraries, City websites, and the Fair Housing Council website.

Ongoing

2. Track fair housing issues and identify patterns in the City, including meeting annually to check on the status of active cases.

Annually

3. Promote fair housing opportunities through various financial assistance initiatives and affordable housing/neighborhood revitalization programs.

Ongoing
1021
Orange County 161 25-29 Regional AFH

4. Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods in low resource areas to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies.

Ongoing

5. As part of the City’s Housing Element Annual Report, continue to annually monitor zoning regulations to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.

Ongoing
Increase use of Housing Choice Vouchers through the following actions:

6. Coordinate with OCHA to generate a detailed understanding of where overpayment rates and displacement risks are highest in the city (as of latest available Census data), where vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants could potentially qualify at each multifamily property in target areas.
2022

7. Coordinate with Orange County United Way on the
WelcomeHomeOC program to identify opportunities to assist Dana Point residents.
2022

8. Apply affirmative advertising policy to income-restricted units to be built in the Victoria Apartments development in the Doheny Village area. Apply the policy to all future income-restricted projects, as permitted by state and/or federal funding programs. 2022

9. Coordinate with OCHA to develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant rights regarding just cause evictions, limitations on rent increases, and replacement housing requirements if any existing residential units would be removed, based on state law.
2023

10. Complete study of options to augment/adjust current in-lieu fee program for possible application of funds for those overpaying and/or at risk of displacement; evaluate how the City can prioritize or facilitate mixed- income housing through potential use of in-lieu fees or other resources (e.g., determine which federal and state grant or loan programs are structured to score mixed-income projects as more competitive compared to 100 percent lower income developments).
2024

11. Distribute outreach materials through means that reach target populations (e.g., those receiving subsidized school lunches).

Conduct direct outreach to 10 properties (tenants and owners) in Census Tracts illustrating high rates of rental overpayment and conduct mailer outreach to all renter occupied units and rental 2024
1022
Orange County 162 25-29 Regional AFH
property owners in the Town Center and Doheny Village Census Tracts.

12. Bring forth appropriate in-lieu fee provisions for adoption. 2024

13. Establish strategies to use City resources (technical support and/or in-lieu fees as appropriate) to encourage mixed-income housing developments.
2024
Improve educational outcomes for lower income and underserved students at schools in or serving Dana Point, through the following actions:

14. Continue annual assessment of effectiveness of Sparkpoint OC with Orange County United Way.

Annually

15. Negotiate with the Victoria Apartments property owner to dedicate substantial funds toward schools in Dana Point, specifically Dana Hills High School (which serves residents in the low resource areas).
2024

16. Coordinate with United Way to continue and or expand Sparkpoint effort on annual basis, with modifications to provide better or more effective assistance and/or to reach more families.

Annually

17. Coordinate with United Way to expand Sparkpoint effort to Palisades Elementary School.
2025
Increase affordable housing opportunities through the city, and especially in moderate, high, and highest resource areas, through the following actions:

18. Adopt a pre-approval review process for ADUs. 2023

19. Initiate a general plan update with an explicit objective to identify additional housing opportunities in moderate, high, and highest resource areas, with additional emphasis on Census Tracts that can help improve patterns of greater diversity, promote a broader distribution of households with a range of incomes, and lowers displacement risk.
2023

20. Coordinate with the OCHA to inform Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in moderate, high, and highest resource areas.

Annually

21. In coordination with research being conducted at the state level, pursue opportunities to incentivize and provide funding assistance Ongoing
1023
Orange County 163 25-29 Regional AFH
for homeowners to provide affordable units under SB 9 provisions (adopted by ordinance in February 2022).

22. Coordinate through the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT) on the use of funding sources (e.g., REAP) and potential to apply for additional funding.

Ongoing

23. Coordinate through OCHFT on year two notice of funding availability (NOFA), and subsequent NOFAs for years three, four, and five; advocate for the use of funds in Dana Point as appropriate and in surrounding jurisdictions when such location would yield better benefits (more units, deeper level of subsidy, more target populations, etc.).

Ongoing

24. Assist in the update of the OCHFT five-year strategic plan. 2024 1024
Orange County 164 25-29 Regional AFH

5. La Palma
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Some residents who are in need of fair housing resources, including low-income households, individuals with disabilities, racial/ethnic minorities and other protected classes, may be unaware of the fair housing resources that are available. Although information about fair housing services is posted on the City website and in public offices, more could be done to make this information available.

2. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs is a significant contributing factor to fair housing throughout the region. All areas of La Palma are classified as high opportunity.

Increasing housing availability in areas with good opportunity make it easier for lower-income households to access the types of services and amenities that further economic and social mobility.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Expand fair housing outreach through the following actions:
a. Continue directing fair housing inquiries to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County.

Ongoing
b. Post and update information annually regarding fair housing and request FHCOC to conduct a presentation every two years about services available.

Every two years
c. Contact all apartment complexes annually to provide
education and materials about the Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher program including multi-lingual materials.

Coordinate to develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant rights
regarding just cause evictions, limitations on rent increases, and replacement housing requirements. Conduct direct
outreach to 30 properties (tenants and owners) in Census Tracts with LMI concentrations by December 2026.

Annually
d. Publish and update links to fair housing information on the City website and via social media annually.

Annually

2. Improve Access to Opportunity and Mobility through the following actions:
a. Conduct fee study annually and adopt City planning fee reductions for new deed-restricted low-income housing
projects and fee waivers for lot consolidation by June 2025 Annually, fee
reductions adopted
by June 2025
b. Update Municipal Code for large residential care facilities and remove any unreasonable conditions of approval or other By December 2024
1025
Orange County 165 25-29 Regional AFH
requirements by establishing objective development
standards to eliminate subjective components of the
discretionary CUP process and ensure barrier free housing choices for individuals with disabilities by December 2024. c. Continue to support the provision of housing for individuals with disabilities through updates to zoning regulations in compliance with fair housing law by December 2023.

December 2023
d. Encourage and facilitate housing development commensurate with the City’s identified housing need in the RHNA allocation on a continuous basis.

Ongoing
e. Apply for CDBG funding through the County of Orange Urban County program and seek third-party grant writing assistance for City’s Meals on Wheels senior program and ADA
improvements for streets and sidewalks by October 2025.

October 2025
f. Establish Economic Development/Land Use Committee by February 2024 to implement the following programs:
i. Review City-owned properties annually and identify
any surplus land that could be made available for
affordable housing development by June 2024.
ii. Explore options to allow and incentivize missing
middle and special needs residential uses in the R-3 as part of the development standards amendments for
increased story count, parking, and lot coverage by
December 2024.
iii. Pursue strategies to facilitate housing development of at least 10 housing units on religious, institutional, and quasi-institutional lands, and adaptive reuse of
underutilized properties for affordable housing by
December 2024. Include potential residential
development and conduct targeted outreach to
interested parties for City-owned parcel on 5062 La
Palma Avenue and conduct outreach to the three large
churches within La Palma. Evaluate opportunities for
adaptive reuse as part of outreach to Centerpointe
property owners by December 2024.
iv. Report back to City Council on findings,
recommendations and provide update on program
implementation by December 2024. By 2027,
implement short term and midterm programs
identified in the Strategic Plan.

Report to Council by
December 2024.

Implement short and
midterm programs in
Plan by 2027.
1026
Orange County 166 25-29 Regional AFH
g. Work cooperatively with the County of Orange and cities to create a regional housing bond program to help fund
affordable housing and permanent supportive housing.

Ongoing
h. Work with Orange County Housing & Community
Development to conserve existing affordable housing units atrisk of converting to market rate. Contact owners of the City’s low-income apartment complexes (Camden Place, Seasons at La Palma, and Casa La Palma) and offer funding from the City’s affordable housing asset fund toward rental rehabilitation of at least 20 units during the planning period.
2021-2029
i. Work with the Fair Housing Council to expand knowledge of first-time homebuyer programs, and promote available
programs on the City’s website, newsletters and through social media.

Ongoing
j. Affirmative Marketing and Regional Registries: Require, provide incentives, and utilize other strategies to promote affirmative marketing plans in all new housing developments.

The affirmative marketing plans will consider regional housing registries and ensure marketing materials for new
developments are designed to attract renters and buyers of diverse demographics, including individuals of any race, ethnicity, income, disability, and familial status.

Ongoing
k. In collaboration with OCHA, expand the use of housing choice vouchers in high resource areas through the following actions:
i. Develop an outreach plan and materials with targeted outreach to Census Blocks of LMI concentrations to
communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant
rights regarding just cause evictions, limitations on
rent increases, and replacement housing
requirements if any existing residential units would be removed, based on state law.
ii. Gain a better understanding of where overpayment
and overcrowding rates are highest in the city, where
vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants
could potentially qualify at each multifamily property
in target areas in order to develop strategies to expand use of vouchers with the goal of increasing voucher
use (63 vouchers in 2023) by at least two per year in La Palma.
iii. Inform voucher holders about their residential options in high-resource areas by developing a Housing
Ongoing
1027
Orange County 167 25-29 Regional AFH
Resources Directory available on the City’s website and updated annually.
l. Expand production of accessory dwelling units in highresource single family neighborhoods and address potential overcrowding by promoting the City’s ADU ordinance,
application, look-up tool, preapproved plans, and educational resources through the Housing SoCal page by June 2024.

Target direct outreach to areas of LMI concentration and Census Tracts south of La Palma Avenue with promotional materials annually. Increase ADU production by two units per year for a total of at least 30 units during the planning period. 2021-2029
m. Enhance City’s existing proactive code enforcement program by targeting areas of concentrated owner rehabilitation needs, resulting in repairs to minimize displacement and relocation impacts. Re-initiate volunteer home painting/repair program with local churches and home improvement stores, which was successful in the last planning period. Provide owner
rehabilitation assistance to at least a total of 16 residential units rehabilitated within areas of LMI concentration during the planning period.
2021-2029
n. Distribute direct mailers and applications to apartment complexes for La Palma Citizens’ Academy to recruit residents from areas of concentrated lower income and renters to serve on boards, committees, and other local government decisionmaking bodies annually.

Annually
o. Initiate joint use agreement between City and Centralia Elementary School District to create a public playground at Miller Elementary School and Edison Right-of-Way to benefit the LMI concentration in the eastern portion of the City. Seek grant funding opportunities by December 2026.

December 2026
p. Continue place-based strategies toward community
revitalization including:
i. Invest and prioritize City beautification projects,
including 3.85 miles of street medians, trees, and
drought-tolerant landscaping, along corridors of areas
with LMI concentrations (La Palma Avenue, Moody
Street, and Walker Avenue) by June 2025.
ii. Complete water infrastructure projects related to four (4) water main interconnections to provide emergency
and contingency water supply to 4,270 units; and
2024-2025
1028
Orange County 168 25-29 Regional AFH
replacement of large water meters for 36 residential
units by June 2024.
iii. Seek grant funding for the La Palma Avenue Slurry
Seal Project, which includes sidewalk ADA
improvements from west to east City limits, centralized in area of higher percentage (10-20%) of population
with a disability by December 2024.
q. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide community education regarding transport services for individuals with disabilities. Partner with OCTA, OC Health Care Agency, and local school districts to
implement OC Safe Routes to Schools Program in its
Countywide initiatives through participation in Next STEP (ATP and REAP 2.0 funding) by December 2027.

December 2027
1029
Orange County 169 25-29 Regional AFH

6. Laguna Beach
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws due to the following:
a. Insufficient fair housing monitoring and limited outreach capacity. b. Lack of a variety of media inputs.
c. Lack of marketing community meetings.
d. Lack of regional coordination.

2. Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas due to the following:
a. Historical land use development patterns and zoning, and lack of vacant land limit opportunities for larger and higher density project types. b. Past national, state, and regional racial/ethnic discriminatory practices. c. Current high cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.
d. Lack of affordable housing and need for greater access to opportunities. e. Regional coordination affects transit services, funding sources, and allocation of housing resources including vouchers.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the following actions:
a. Ensure that all laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with state law. As the General Plan and Zoning Code are updated or amended, review and revise policies and code provisions to promote an inclusive community.

Ongoing
b. When considering specific plan or rezoning proposals, evaluate whether the change in zoning will help achieve fair housing goals.

Ongoing
c. Include fair housing information on the City’s website, including up-to-date fair housing laws, FHCOC services, and information on filing discrimination complaints. Proactive announcement of fair housing resources on Community Newsletter (weekly text
messaging system).

Provide link to
services on City
website by 2023
and make service
announcements at
least annually.
d. Continue to publish a Housing Assistance Guide informing community members of the Orange County Fair Housing Council (FHCOC) and its oversight of fair housing practices, for availability on the City's website and at the Planning counter.

Update annually
1030
Orange County 170 25-29 Regional AFH
e. Develop interest list for update on fair housing and affordable housing projects.

By the end of 2022
and updated
annually.
f. Update the City website with affordable housing projects. Update website semi- annually.
g. Utilize non-traditional media (i.e., social media, City website, Community Newsletter) in outreach and education efforts in addition to print media and notices.

Beginning in 2023;
ongoing
thereafter
h. As a participating City in the County of Orange Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, continue to support the annual contribution of CDBG funds to the Orange County Fair Housing Council (FHCOC).

Annually
i. Participate in regional efforts to address fair housing issues and monitor emerging trends/issues in the housing market. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee meetings.

Quarterly
j. Petition to Orange County, administrator of the City’s CDBG program, for the fair housing provider (FHCOC) to expand landlord education on source of income discrimination and voucher programs.

Beginning in 2023.
k. Expand outreach and education on recent state laws (SB 329 and SB 222) supporting source of income protection for publicly assisted low-income households (HCVs).

Begin in 2023

2. Increase affordable housing in high opportunity areas through the following actions:
a. Establish a new Housing Program Coordinator planner position to oversee and expedite Housing Element program
implementation.

Beginning in 2023.
b. Create a comprehensive ADU Handbook with tools to facilitate ADU production.
12/1/2022.
c. Require that 25% of the total number of units or lots, whichever is greater, in new subdivisions of two or more residential units or lots and 25% of new development of three or more units on existing building sites be affordable to extremely-low-, very-low- , low- or moderate-income households or individuals.

Initiate
inclusionary
housing policy
update in 2023
with a market
feasible study.
d. Update inclusionary housing policy to enhance feasibility and production of affordable housing.
1031
Orange County 171 25-29 Regional AFH
e. Amend the Zoning Code to provide more flexible development standards and the built form for affordable housing and facilitate development of densities at or above 30 units per acre.

Complete
amendments by
2024.
f. Conduct outreach to religious institutions to provide information and technical assistance on state law regarding developing housing units on religious-use parking spaces.

In 2023.
g. Monitor financial assistance programs administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and apply for funding that the City is eligible for and can competitively vie for.

Annually explore
funding options
available.
h. Amend the Zoning Code to create a new zone where emergency shelters all allowed by right, then apply the zone to the Friendship Shelter site.

Zoning Code
revision adopted
by the City
Council on
December 13,
2022.
i. Amend Zoning Code to address Low Barrier Navigation Center, transitional housing, and supportive housing, SRO, and
reasonable accommodation.

By June 2023.
j. Review Zoning Code to accommodate large group homes (7+ individuals) as a residential use to be conditionally permitted in residential zones and to establish conditions for approval that are objective and provide for certainty in outcomes.

By June 2023.
k. Establish an Affirmative Marketing Plan, to include advertising and community outreach designed to reach underrepresented households to be implemented when affordable units become available.

Establish plan by
the end of 2023.
l. Initiate an update to the Laguna Canyon Specific Plan to evaluate suitability for expansion of sites, through code amendments or rezoning, to where live-work, residential, or mixed-use development is permitted.

Complete plan by
2023.
m. Continue to evaluate potential for mixed-use and work/live spaces along the Coast Highway Corridor and on vacant or underutilized commercial properties.

Establish strategy
by 2024.
n. With adoption of Phase 2 of the DSP, include incentives such as:
increased densities, increased height limits, higher lot coverage, lower parking requirements, allowances for off-site parking, allowances for lot assemblage and, and removal of upper story Adoption of Phase
2 in 2025.
1032
Orange County 172 25-29 Regional AFH
residential use limitations to assist in the development of housing

3. Make neighborhood improvements to increase access to opportunity, and preserve housing affordability, through the following actions:
a. Pursue the development of an amnesty program for unpermitted residential units.

By 2023
b. Laguna Canyon Road (SR-133) Improvements: place overhead utilities underground; active transportation improvements; reconstruct drainage channel; add dam to control storm flows.

By end of 2025
c. Coast Highway ADA South Improvements (Moss Street to Fifth Avenue): add new sidewalks; widen existing sidewalk;
reconstruct existing curb ramps and driveways to meet current ADA standards; add audible pedestrian crossing systems; repair, resurface, and restripe roadway.

By end of 2025
d. Laguna Canyon Road Median Landscaping: Replant the
landscaped median along Laguna Canyon Road between Forest Avenue and east of Canyon Acres Drive.
2023-2024
e. Continue to provide Senior Housing Repair program. Ongoing f. Monitor implementation of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance.

Restrictions to short-term lodging are intended to help preserve rental housing stock by limiting their use for vacation rental purposes.

Annually
g. Continue to support aging in place through amortization and abatement agreements which allow residents to remain on the property under specified conditions to improve the property.

Ongoing
h. Where safety concerns can be addressed, allow residents to remain in unpermitted spaces while they are adapted to meet work/live code If funding is available, develop incentives and funding programs to assist building owners and tenants to make the building modifications necessary to conform with work/live ordinances.

By 2023
1033
Orange County 173 25-29 Regional AFH

7. Laguna Hills
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Concentration of more affordable housing (e.g., multifamily, mobile home park) in north Laguna Hills and the Via Lomas neighborhood.

2. Neighborhoods in south Laguna Hills are more desirable, therefore more costly, than neighborhoods in central and north Laguna Hills.

3. Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes.

4. Cost of rehabilitation or repair.

5. Availability of rentals that accept Housing Choice Vouchers.

6. Linguistic isolation of non-English speaking households.

7. Availability of high-ranked elementary schools to serve north Laguna Hills and the Via Lomas neighborhood.

8. Housing shortages regionally in Orange County.

9. Unaffordable rents and home prices.

10. Lack of partnerships with affordable housing developers

11. Concentrated areas of poverty in low-resource areas.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Coordinate local housing efforts with federal, state, regional, and local government and/or agencies and cooperate in implementation of intergovernmental housing programs; including the following actions:

Ongoing
a. Submit CDBG applications to assist in preserving existing affordable housing stock;
Annually
b. Continue to publicize programs, such as energy-efficiency programs and state and federal funding programs;
Ongoing
c. Encourage local housing advocates to make presentations to local builders and developers, Chamber of Commerce, civic groups, and the local community re: affordable and
multifamily/higher density development.

Biannually

2. Encourage the development of ADUs throughout the City to expand housing opportunities for all income levels within existing neighborhoods, particularly for lower-income seniors, single individuals, individuals with disabilities, and small households; through the following actions:

Ongoing
a. Update the City’s current ADU Ordinance 2023
b. Promote development of ADUs through City website
c. and informational material
2023
1034
Orange County 174 25-29 Regional AFH
d. Identify and implement potential incentives to encourage production of affordable ADUs.

Ongoing
e. Monitor the production and affordability of ADUs annually to ensure the City will meet the assumption of 18 ADUs during the planning period.

Annually
f. Explore funding options to create an ADU forgivable Loan Program.
2024

3. Increase affordable housing in high opportunity areas through the following actions:
a. Establish objective design standards for residential development and analyze opportunities to permit multifamily residential in an existing commercial center.

By August 2024
b. Analyze opportunities to permit multifamily residential in an existing commercial center in north Laguna Hills.
2024
c. Mitigate regulatory constraints on the production of housing through the following actions.
i. Consider adaptive reuse ordinance by June 2024 and
implement, if appropriate, by June 2025.
2024-2025
ii. Consider inclusionary housing ordinance and present findings to City Council by June 2024 and implement,
if appropriate, by June 2025.
2024-2025
iii. Consider congregational overlay by June 2024 and
implement, if appropriate, by June 2025.
2024-2025
iv. Conduct initial review of development standards and permitting requirements by June 2025 and update
Zoning Ordinance as needed.
2025
v. Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code, as needed,
to provide adequate sites for 413 lower-income units.
2024
d. Provide incentives (e.g., expedited processing, fee waivers, and density bonuses) to facilitate set-asides for planned lowincome units, and for mixed-use development.

Ongoing
e. Promote lower-income housing development incentives on the City website.

Ongoing
f. Enact new measures that will raise local funding for construction of affordable and other needed housing types.

June 2025
1035
Orange County 175 25-29 Regional AFH
g. Develop and implement strategies to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation and phasing of residential and mixed-use developments on large sites.

Ongoing
h. Explore the potential to partner with a nonprofit organization to offer a program based on the Community Land Trust
model.
2025
i. Work with stakeholders to identify nongovernmental
constraints that may impede the construction of housing.

Ongoing
j. Increase participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program through the following actions:
i. Provide referral services and information to City
residents on HCV program.

Ongoing
ii. Study the feasibility of a landlord incentive program for landlords that choose to accept voucher holding
tenants.
2024

4. Increase housing opportunities for special needs populations through the following actions:
a. Pursue homeless assistance grants through the Continuum of Care.

Annually
b. Assist public and private nonprofit housing developers in preparation of funding applications for special-needs
populations.

Annually
c. Conduct outreach to service providers to discuss ways the City can assist in the development of housing for lower income households.

Annually
d. Work with local organizations that provide assistance to individuals with disabilities to implement an outreach
program that informs individuals with disabilities and their families about housing and available services.

Ongoing
e. Prepare and distribute informational material on the reasonable accommodation ordinance, that will direct people to service information on the City website.
2024
f. Encourage developers to provide universal design features in housing developments.

Ongoing
1036
Orange County 176 25-29 Regional AFH
g. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowners associations on why denial of
reasonable modifications/ accommodations is unlawful.

Ongoing

5. Promote development opportunities in the Urban Village Specific Plan (UVSP) area, encouraging affordable housing development, through the following actions:
a. Add promotional material re: UVSP housing opportunities on the City’s website.
2023
b. Meet with prospective developers to encourage
incorporating housing for multiple income levels.

Annual
c. Consider amending UVSP to incorporate inclusionary
housing requirements.
2024
d. Provide regulatory incentives on a case-by-case basis consistent with Chapter 9-72 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ongoing

6. Preserve existing affordable housing through the following actions:
a. Cooperate with owners of existing affordable units to secure appropriate federal funding necessary to maintain existing affordability.

Annually
b. Enforce the Municipal Code and address matters related to property maintenance that pose threat to public health, safety, or welfare.

Ongoing
c. Develop informational materials to help educate property owners on available funding programs to assist with
rehabilitation.
2023
d. Notify the State Franchise Tax Board if substandard rental housing is identified.

Ongoing
e. Work with Orange County Housing and Community Services Department to receive rehabilitation loans and grants for low and moderate-income homeowners and rental property
owners; Use CDBG funds as funding becomes available and pursue other funding sources;
Ongoing
f. Prepare and distribute informational material advertising the rehabilitation program
2024
g. Continue to pursue the extension of affordability controls for 51 units that are set to expire in 2032; prepare a “Risk Annually
1037
Orange County 177 25-29 Regional AFH
Assessment” report provided by the California Housing
Partnership Corporation
h. Provide technical assistance to preserve at-risk units; Ongoing i. Apply for state or federal funding on behalf of interested nonprofit entities, if necessary, to protect the affordability of rental units
Ongoing
j. Provide foreclosure information on City website 2023, update annually
k. Refer residents to external agencies to assist in reducing incidents of foreclosures
Ongoing
l. Require replacement housing units subject to the
requirements of SB 330 on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lowerincome households at any time during the previous five years;
Ongoing
m. Prevent tenant displacement by considering the feasibility of a local Just Cause Eviction ordinance, a Local Rent
Stabilization ordinance, and a multi-lingual Right to Counsel program;
2024

7. Increase services to special needs populations through the following actions:
a. Allocate CDBG funds to nonprofits providing shelter for the homeless
Annually
b. Contract with Mercy House or other housing services
providers to help residents experiencing homelessness
obtain services.

Annually
1038
Orange County 178 25-29 Regional AFH

8. Laguna Woods
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing. The availability and price of land represents a significant market constraint to housing production in Laguna Woods, where there is very little residentially designated vacant land.

2. Displacement risk for existing lower-income residents due to economic pressures/motivators on property owners/managers

3. Limited access to opportunities for individuals with disabilities and other special needs due to underimproved housing stock potentially resultant of financial or physical challenges.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Conduct a market study and then amend the existing inclusionary housing ordinance to modify the minimum percentages of new housing units that must be deed-restricted for extremely low, very low, and low-income households, as feasible and advantageous to promote the development of affordable housing.

2. Investigate potential incentives for property owners to extend and/or expand existing affordability covenants beyond the planned expiration date and/or current number of housing units, with an emphasis on incentivizing (i) affordability covenants for extremely low and very low-income housing units, and (ii) affordability covenants that apply to housing units in a range of sizes.

If feasible and economical, adopt such incentives.

3. Adopt an ordinance waiving or reducing City building permit fees for improvements to the home of a person at least 60 years of age with a qualifying disability that are made to accommodate that disability, as provided for by California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.7. Consider including provisions allowing for similar building permit fee waivers or reductions for improvements to the home of a person with a qualifying disability that are made to accommodate that disability, regardless of age.

Prepare and maintain a flyer with related information. Conduct annual outreach to nonprofit organizations known to provide medical or social services to residents with disabilities. Conduct biennial outreach to residents residing in Census Tracts 626.22 and 626.48 due to their comparatively lower economic domain scores from the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.

4. Provide opportunities for reimbursements, grants, or other forms of financial assistance to support home improvements that increase accessibility or functionality for individuals with special needs. Conduct annual outreach to nonprofit organizations known to provide medical or social services to residents with special needs. Conduct biennial outreach to residents residing 1039
Orange County 179 25-29 Regional AFH
in Census Tracts 626.22 and 626.48 due to their comparatively lower economic domain scores from the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.

5. Formalize a proactive code enforcement program that focuses on housingrelated rehabilitation needs, results in repairs, and seeks to mitigate potential cost, displacement, and relocation impacts on residents.

6. Improve pedestrian accessibility on sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other public property connecting housing with transit stops, public buildings, businesses, and educational institutions. Prioritize improvements based on factors including:
a. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (“CalEnviroScreen”) scores for individual Census Tracts, with an emphasis on undertaking improvements in and around Census Tract 626.47 due to its comparatively higher CalEnviroScreen score, as feasible and economical; and
b. Education domain scores from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“TCAC”)/HCD Opportunity Map, with an emphasis on undertaking improvements in and around Census Tract 626.22 due to its comparatively lower scores, as feasible and economical.

7. Pursue partnerships and seek funding to provide Laguna Woods-based housing mobility counseling services. If feasible and economical, implement such services.

8. Adopt an ordinance waiving or reducing City building permit fees, or providing other incentives, for housing projects that prepare and implement an affirmative marketing plan designed to attract renters or buyers of diverse demographics, including individuals of any race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Prioritize incentives based on factors including racial concentrations from U.S. Census Bureau data products, with an emphasis on avoiding the creation of geographically discernable patterns of segregation or racially concentrated areas of poverty.

9. Prepare and maintain a webpage with information on housing mediation, foreclosure assistance, tenant legal counseling services, and vocational counseling services. Train City staff to make referrals using the webpage.

10. Pursue partnerships and seek funding to provide Laguna Woods-based housing mediation, foreclosure assistance, and multilingual tenant legal counseling services. If feasible and economical, implement such services.

11. Investigate potential hazard mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of residential displacement as a result of future disasters. If feasible and economical, implement such hazard mitigation measures. Prioritize improvements based on factors including economic 1040
Orange County 180 25-29 Regional AFH
domain scores from the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map for individual Census Tracts, with an emphasis on undertaking improvements in and around Census Tracts 626.22 and 626.48 due to their comparatively lower scores, as feasible and economical.

12. Investigate potential incentives for property owners of apartment and cooperative housing units for which tenants pay usage-based energy costs to make energy efficiency improvements that exceed the minimum requirements set forth in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

If feasible and economical, implement such incentives. Prioritize incentives for residents residing in Census Tracts 626.46 and 626.47 due to those areas being identified in this Housing Element as susceptible to displacement and having the highest renter vulnerability indices, as feasible and economical.

13. Investigate opportunities to provide rental relief for residents at risk of homelessness. If feasible and economical, implement such opportunities.

Prioritize rental relief for residents residing in Census Tracts 626.46 and 626.47 due to those areas being identified as susceptible to displacement and having the highest renter vulnerability indices, as feasible and economical. 1041
Orange County 181 25-29 Regional AFH

9. Los Alamitos
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of housing for special needs population.

2. Lack of knowledge of fair housing laws.

3. Local land use and zoning laws.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Encourage development of housing for special needs populations through the following actions:
a. The City shall encourage and facilitate development of housing for families and large households, the elderly, farmworkers, individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals with disabilities, including physical and developmental disabilities. b. The City will assist developers in identifying outside funding sources and support efforts to pursue those opportunities— either as group homes or in single family homes, when
appropriate and feasible.
c. The City will develop a menu to offer incentives such as density bonuses, regulatory concessions, and expedited processing. d. The City will develop and disseminate informational materials annually to developers regarding the incentive program and identified funding sources to potentially assist 5 special needs residents annually through the planning period.

Establish incentive
program and
publish on City
website by June
30, 2023.

2. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the following actions:
a. The City shall continue to provide referrals to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County for fair housing services including counseling services for tenant-landlord disputes and cases of alleged discrimination.
b. The City shall continue to publicize fair housing and complaint referral information at local community centers and in the Recreation & Community Services Schedule of Classes. The City will also provide information at City Hall and on the City’s website.
c. The City shall work with government agencies (e.g., Fair Housing Council of Orange County) and nonprofit groups (e.g., Habitat for Humanity) on anti-discrimination during housing processes for residents in protected classes, such as those with disabilities and families with children. Advertise workshops and events held by these organizations on anti-discrimination on the City’s email newsletter and Housing Element webpage.

Ongoing
1042
Orange County 182 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Collaborate and coordinate with government agencies and nonprofit groups such as the Fair Housing Council of Orange County to support outreach and expansion of lending programs for homeownership among minority populations.

Annually

4. The City currently requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for a residential care facility for seven or more individuals in the R-3 zone.

To remove any potential constraint to housing for individuals with disabilities, the City shall remove the CUP requirement for the R-3 Zone or allow residential care facility for seven or more individuals by right in another zone as appropriate.

By December 2022

5. The City will annually review its policies and zoning laws relating to fair housing and reach out to the community through surveys and workshops as appropriate. The outreach efforts will be advertised via multiple channels, such as City email newsletter, posting at City website, print material at City Hall, local community centers, and social media.

Annually
1043
Orange County 183 25-29 Regional AFH

10. Placentia
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing limits housing mobility

2. Limited participation in Housing Choice Voucher Program

3. Land use and development practices

4. Lack of fair housing knowledge and enforcement
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Disseminate information on the City’s website and conduct community outreach meeting with local stakeholders and
affordable housing developers to promote affordable housing development throughout the city and discuss other Cityincentives to create affordable housing.

Annually beginning in
August 2024.

2. Conduct marketing to increase participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Ongoing

3. Collaborate with developers to develop a mechanism to develop affordable housing in highest-opportunity areas.

Annually

4. Annually review existing policies and programs for potential restrictive practices that would limit diversity within racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs). If restrictive practices are identified, address prior to adoption of the new policies and programs or within six months for existing policies and programs.

Annually

5. Establish incentives for affordable developments (including ADUs and JADUs) in RCAA and high opportunity areas.

By March 31, 2025

6. Establish specific incentives for the development of affordable units the RCAAs and high opportunity areas.

By June 2025

7. Conduct Affirmative marketing to increase diversity within RCAAs. This may include, but is not limited to, noticing of affordable units/projects through direct mail targeted outreach to lower income Census Tracts, publishing advertising materials in multiple language, informing service agencies, outreach to community organizations or places of worship.

Every 2 years, beginning in
August 2024.

8. Facilitate the development and/or legalization of over 84 ADUs during the planning period by a variety of methods, including but not limited to:
2021-2029
1044
Orange County 184 25-29 Regional AFH
a. Annually pursuing funding to adopt permit-ready ADU
plans to minimize design costs, expedite permit
processing, and provide development certainty.
b. Developing an ADU Manual guiding applicants through
the construction of an ADU by December 2024.
c. Developing an ADU webpage informing the community
on ADU related codes, processes, and incentives
December 2024.
d. Developing and implementing a public awareness
campaign for construction of ADUs and the City’s
incentives utilizing all forms of media and outreach
distribution December 2024.
e. Establishing incentives for ADUs, with an emphasis on affordable ADUs by December 2024.

9. Research and establish home sharing program(s) and/or policies.
2025

10. Coordinate with local organizations to assist with matching tenants with existing homeowners. The City will assist with outreach, facilitate annual presentations, and conduct outreach to eligible and potential homeowners.

Annually

11. Facilitate the development of at least 30 units on publiclyowned properties, with an emphasis on areas with relatively higher opportunity, higher median income and RCAAs.
2021-2029

12. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the following actions:
a. In partnership the city's fair housing provider, conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants,
landlords, property owners, realtors, and property
management companies. Methods of outreach should
include workshops, informational booths, presentations
to civic leaders and community groups, staff training,
and distribution of multi- lingual fair housing literature.

Ongoing
b. Provide general counseling and referrals to address
tenant-landlord issues and provide periodic tenantlandlord walk-in clinics at City Halls and other community locations.

Ongoing
c. Include testing/audits within the scope of work for each city's fair housing provider.

Annually
1045
Orange County 185 25-29 Regional AFH
d. Support enforcement activity and publicize outcomes of fair housing litigation.

Ongoing
e. Provide and maintain multi-lingual informational
materials on tenant legal counseling and resources.

Develop by August 2024;
disseminate annually;
update as needed.
f. Work collaboratively with local housing authorities to ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and deconcentration policies are implemented.

Ongoing
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. High cost of housing in high opportunity areas

2. Limited accessible housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities

3. High cost of housing repairs/rehabilitation

4. Displacement of residents due to economic factors

5. Lack of public investment in lower opportunity areas Actions: Timeframe:

1. The City will seek to improve access to opportunity for lower-income households and other protected classes
through the following actions:
a. Providing adequate sites for affordable housing
development
Update candidate sites list
annually
b. Reduce governmental constraints to encourage
the production of ADUs
Review ADU procedures
annually and revise as needed to
reduce cost and time and comply
with state law.
c. Facilitating the production of housing for
individuals with special needs by providing
technical assistance to developers proposing
affordable housing.

Ongoing
d. Work with federal, state, and local agencies to try
to identify and secure funding for homeowners
who are interested in building an ADU and are
willing to offer it as an affordable rental.

Annually

2. Increase community integration for individuals with
disabilities.

Ongoing
1046
Orange County 186 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Continue to help develop housing projects for special needs households by providing technical assistance with tax credit applications, tax-exempt bond financing and
other public funds, including ESG, CDBG, and HOME.

Ongoing

4. Review reasonable accommodation standards and
procedures annually and update within 6 months of
annual review if not compliant with state or federal law. If not compliant, the City will process reasonable
accommodations in compliance with state or federal law
in the interim.

Annually

5. Enhance the proactive code enforcement program that
targets areas of concentrated rehabilitation needs,
resulting in repairs and mitigating potential costs,
displacement and relocation impacts on residents.

Review and revise annually

6. The City shall develop a program to collaborate with nonprofit housing providers and develop a preservation strategy. The preservation strategy will allow the City to act quickly if, and when, it receives notice of conversion. As part of the strategy, the City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements; conduct tenant education and
pursue funding to preserve the units.

Develop strategy by 2024, apply
for funding annually thereafter.

7. Explore anti-gentrification policies and regulations to combat displacement, which especially affects lowincome residents and communities of color. These may include, but are not limited to foreclosure assistance, community land trusts, and housing trust funds.

Report to Council by October
2025.

8. Provide housing mobility counseling either directly or through referrals. This counseling may include, but is not limited to, information on opportunity areas, housing
search skills and tools, workshops, search assistance,
referrals, structured support for a time after a move to the City, landlord-tenant mediation, and retention counseling.

Ongoing

9. Engage community health workers to conduct ground
level site visits and meetings within areas of lower income to better understand resident and business barriers,
resources, and needs.

Ongoing

10. Seek funding and will review Capital Improvement
Program in order to prioritize projects in areas of lower income, to improve living environments and reduce the
risk of displacement. Examples of projects include street Annually
1047
Orange County 187 25-29 Regional AFH
improvements, multi- modal investments, safe routes to
school, parks, community facilities and amenities,
infrastructure, and other investment toward community
revitalization.

11. The City will continue to encourage and emphasize public art in areas of lower income and diversity.

Ongoing
1048
Orange County 188 25-29 Regional AFH

11. San Juan Capistrano
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Limited local private fair housing outreach and enforcement

2. Overcrowding in Capistrano Villas

3. Limited affordable and accessible low-income housing

4. Inability to afford and take advantage of local educational, recreational activities

5. Private discrimination against protected classes (in violation of federal Housing Law) directly limits housing choice and mobility.

6. Zoning standards that limit the ability to achieve the maximum permitted density.

7. Lower and moderate households may face displacement pressures as rents rise due to high overall housing costs.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Contract directly with a fair housing services provider to provide specific services for San Juan Capistrano residents
Annually

2. Continue increased bilingual translation and interpretation services as well as alternative events and workshops times, locations, and formats to enable and facilitate meaningful participation from the Community of Focus Ongoing

3. Provide tenant/landlord training about fair housing laws, requirements, services, and resources.

Annually

4. Pursue development of a program to increase maintenance and necessary repairs and safety of overcrowded rental units through voluntary owner certifications and randomized inspections in a manner that does not rely on tenant complaints or lead to increased threat of retribution or displacement.

Ongoing

5. Update Density Bonus Ordinance Ongoing

6. Continue to coordinate and support community-based organizations that support after school programs, self-help training, food-assistance and counseling and access to other resources.

Annually

7. As part of the Capital Improvement Plan, coordinate with Public Works to prioritize Environmental Justice / Community of Focus areas for actions and capital improvements.

Annually

8. Rezoning to permit high density residential development in higher resource areas,
Ongoing

9. Increase housing choices through removal of regulatory and procedural barriers to higher density housing; increased incentives and requirements for construction of affordable housing,
Ongoing
1049
Orange County 189 25-29 Regional AFH

10. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the minimum percentage of lower-income affordable housing units (or in-lieu fees) to the extent feasible based on current economic analysis.
2023 and
ongoing

11. Review Architectural Control process to ensure objective design standards. 2024

12. Continue Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program. Ongoing

13. Continue to implement the mobile home park rent increase limits ordinance and the senior mobile home park overlay,
Ongoing

14. Consider new forms of rent stabilization and price control for older multifamily units to ensure existing residents are not priced out of their homes.
2024

15. Ensure compliance with and education regarding the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482), including maximum annual rent increases, just cause evictions, and financial compensation requirements to stabilize residents living in areas at risk of displacement.

Ongoing
1050
Orange County 190 25-29 Regional AFH

12. Seal Beach
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas due to local land use and zoning laws.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. The City will process zoning and General Plan
amendments for sufficient sites with appropriate densities as identified in the City’s Housing Element, to fully
accommodate the City’s remaining housing need.
2025

2. Create a mixed-use zone that meets state requirements for RHNA site designation, specifically to facilitate housing for lower income households. The zoning code update
process will accommodate all relevant state requirements regarding density and affordability and will engage with all relevant stakeholders to ensure the development
standards can result in the development of the maximum
number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units.
2025

3. Make information on available incentives and concessions available and evaluate their efficacy regularly.

Ongoing

4. Provide a streamlined and understandable process for the development of ADUs and JADUs, supported by
incentives and resources as they may be available. Adopt pre-approved plans. Permit 10 ADUs during the planning
period.

Revise ordinance by
September 2024 and adopt
pre-approved plans by June
2025.

5. Reduce barriers to housing development by streamlining permit processing consistent with SB 35.

By January 2024

6. Implement SB 9 requirements - Reduce barriers to housing development through simplified processing and creating
incentives to make units created affordable.

Process 2 SB 9 projects
between 2021-2029.

7. Amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing
consistent with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and
17021.6.

August 2025

8. Allow housing at select locations in the Main Street Specific Plan. Permit two residential units in the Main Street Specific Plan during the planning period.

By October 2025
1051
Orange County 191 25-29 Regional AFH

9. Reduce minimum unit size constraints to housing
development, especially to promote affordable housing.

By August 2025

10. Allow SROs as uses allowed by-right in the RHD Zone. By December 2026

11. Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units.

By December 2026
1052
Orange County 192 25-29 Regional AFH

13. Stanton
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations.

2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.

3. Location and type of affordable housing, including availability of affordable units in a range of sizes.

4. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs.

5. Quality of affordable housing information programs.

6. Access to transportation for individuals with disabilities.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Support fair housing services provider and efforts to minimize discriminatory housing practices.

Ongoing

2. Maintain and monitor the residential sites inventory to ensure sufficient sites remain to accommodate the RHNA allocation throughout the planning period. Receive and process development applications for residential projects.
2021-2029

3. Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations at all income levels throughout the planning period. Report as required through the HCD annual report process.
2021-2029

4. Collaborate with the development community annually, including affordable housing developers, to evaluate the viability of developing city-owned land as affordable housing.

Annually

5. For all project applications, identify the need for replacement of affordable housing units and ensure replacement, if required, occurs.

Ongoing

6. Monitor the City’s existing affordable housing stock and support affordable housing developers in their efforts to develop new affordable units in Stanton. Monitor the City’s options for special needs housing and likewise support special needs housing developers.
2021-2029

7. Understand the potential for market-force economic displacement and consider programs to address the issue, if necessary.
2021-2029

8. Ensure that the City’s parking standards for residential uses are adequate while not unduly constraining housing development.
2021-2029
1053
Orange County 193 25-29 Regional AFH

14. Villa Park
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although Orange County is served by two highquality private, nonprofit fair housing organizations, they are underfunded and understaffed in comparison to the total need for their services. Victims of discrimination would be more able to exercise their rights, thus deterring future discrimination, if the capacity of existing organizations grew to meet the scale of the problem.

2. Lack of local public fair housing outreach and enforcement may also be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. There are no local public entities that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement, with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and HUD constituting the only public enforcement bodies that operate in Orange County. Advocates across Orange County and the state of California have reported issues with the timeline of the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s investigations and the standards that it applies in making probable cause determinations. A local public enforcement agency, if created, would have the potential to be more responsive to victims of discrimination in Orange County than either the state or HUD.

3. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs may be a significant contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Increasing housing affordability would make it easier for low-income households to access the types of services and amenities that further social mobility.

4. General lack of a range of affordable housing opportunities, including limited affordable housing options for families

5. Limited opportunity for residential development in sites accommodating multiple family development.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. The City will continue to disseminate information regarding fair housing in a variety of locations including City Hall, the City website and the library, and conduct ongoing, proactive outreach to engage members of all socio-economic groups and recruit members of underrepresented groups to participate in City meetings. The City will continue to seek funding to support the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC), which provides community education, individual counseling, mediation, and low-cost advocacy with the expressed goal of eliminating housing discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all people to freely choose the housing for which they qualify in the area they desire. The City will invite FHCOC to conduct annual fair housing outreach targeted to Villa Park residents and landlords.

Ongoing

2. The City will seek to improve access to opportunity for lower-income households and other protected classes by providing adequate sites for affordable housing development, encouraging the production of ADUs, 1054
Orange County 194 25-29 Regional AFH
and facilitating the production of housing for individuals with special needs.

3. Recruit at least five landlords to become a participating voucher property during three-year period.

4. Coordinate with the County to assist with improving voucher mobility at local level by:
2021-2024
a. Identifying local staff to commit to 25% administrative function to support voucher mobility programs.

June 2024
b. Establishing a customer service framework including dedicated phone number, email and contact information.

June 2024
c. Establishing an annual monitoring program to evaluate the success of voucher mobility program. Provide for annual program amendments, as necessary.

By June 2024,
annually thereafter

5. Annually review the Sites Inventory and the location of new, affordable housing development to ensure equal and fair housing development practices throughout the whole City.

Annually

6. Annual meetings with developers to explore affordable housing and non-traditional single-family housing opportunities.

Annually
1055
Orange County 195 25-29 Regional AFH

15. Yorba Linda
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of effective fair housing outreach to seniors due to digital divide

2. Private discrimination

3. Lack of knowledge of existing resources among the public

4. Low number of HCVs in the City compared to the County overall

5. Lack of affordable housing opportunities throughout the city, including in areas where rent and sale prices have become exclusive, and for special needs groups such as persons with disabilities and female-headed households

6. Need for more public investment in infrastructure and accessibility improvements in moderate resource opportunity areas

7. Challenges for housing/property upkeep due to financial/physical constraints and age of housing stock.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Increase the distribution of fair housing materials and increase awareness of fair housing options among residents, including special needs groups and low-income residents, through the following actions:
a. By the end of 2022 have additional fair housing information posted at the Yorba Linda Senior Center site and on their digital platforms.

Hold an informational workshop in 2023 and 2025
2022-2025
b. By December 2022, conduct a fair housing information session for the City Council. Invite local nonprofits (including the Orange County Human Relations Commission, the Kennedy Commission, Making Housing Happen and People for Housing O.C.) to attend
2022
c. Publish Fair Housing information, including any community meetings, on non-traditional media such as Facebook or Instagram, and conduct targeted outreach to tenants, mobile home park residents and other lower income populations.

Annually

2. Increase public and private investment in areas of Yorba Linda that have been identified as moderate resource areas and portions of the City with higher percentages of special needs groups, through the following actions:
a. Starting in 2022, work with the FHCOC to contact landlords of affordable multifamily complexes every two years and provide fair housing information and assistance. This outreach will focus on promoting the Section 8 voucher program to landlords who have not previously participated in the program and should include multilingual materials.

Every 2 years
1056
Orange County 196 25-29 Regional AFH
b. Adopt an ordinance to expand the housing supply in High Resource single-family zones by allowing for lot splits and duplexes under the parameters of SB 9. In coordination with research being conducted at the State level, evaluate opportunities to incentivize and provide funding assistance for homeowners to provide affordable units under SB 9.

Completed in
2023
c. Continue to improve access to persons with disabilities through ADA improvement to streets, sidewalks and public facilities. Dedicate or seek funding, including annual CDBG allocations, to prioritize infrastructure and accessibility improvements in the moderate resource opportunity areas
Annually
d. Coordinate with the Orange County Housing Authority in 2023 about utilizing the mobility counseling program in Yorba Linda. This OCHA program informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic support to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.
2023

3. Increase affordable housing options throughout the city through the following actions:
a. Adopt the Affordable Housing Overlay, Commercial Mixed-Use Overlay and Congregational Land Overlay, providing geographically dispersed sites for over 600 lower income units which foster a more inclusive community. Initiate rezoning and the Measure B election in 2024 and pay for all costs associated with the ballot measure.

Completed in
2024
b. Increase the allocation of units in Savi Ranch from 200 to 790 high density units, creating a better geographic distribution of development between the eastern and western areas of the community.

Completed in
2024
c. Promote and support the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), including pursuing funding for rent-restricted ADUs, and seek to issue permits for over 50 units annually throughout Yorba Linda
Ongoing
d. Expand information available on affordable housing in Yorba Linda, including any community meetings on non-traditional media such as Facebook and Instagram.

Ongoing
e. Require affordable developers receiving public funds to prepare an affirmative marketing plan and encourage private developers with affordable units in their projects to prepare an affirmative marketing plan. The affirmative marketing plan shall ensure marketing materials Ongoing
1057
Orange County 197 25-29 Regional AFH
for new developments are designed to attract renters and buyers of diverse demographics, including persons of any race, ethnicity, sex, handicap, and familial status.
f. During the public hearing processes for the Affordable Housing Overlay, Mixed-Use Housing Overlay, and Congregational Land Overlay, as well as the outreach process for the Measure B election (in November 2024), utilize tools such as the “Myths and Facts About Affordable & High-Density Housing” currently on the City’s website to show what affordable housing means and who it benefits. Contact Kennedy Commission, Making Housing Happen and People for Housing O.C. for potential input. Conduct at least five educational events for the public in locations throughout the community.

Completed in
2024
g. By the end of 2022, research the development of a program that would provide low interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restrictions on their property. This research should also explore outside funds. If funding is available, establish a pilot program by December 2023 with a goal of achieving at least two deed-restricted ADUs annually; evaluate the program by the end of 2025.
2022-2025

4. Preserve the existing housing stock through the following actions:
a. Include information about rehab and maintenance resources (including the Residential Rehabilitation Program and Community Preservation Program) in City newsletters and on the website.

Include translated information when feasible. Seek to assist 10 households annually. Starting in 2022, conduct targeted outreach through annual mailings to Census Tracts 218.20 and 218.26. about available rehabilitation assistance.

Annually
1058
Orange County 198 25-29 Regional AFH
B. Aliso Viejo
Issue: Concentration
Most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northern and eastern parts of the city. Since 1990, levels of concentration have been increasing but remain low.

Contributing Factors:

1. Location and type of affordable housing.

2. Limited access to opportunity due to high housing costs.

3. Insufficient fair housing outreach and enforcement.

4. Availability of affordable housing.

5. Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes.

6. Insufficient Housing Choice Vouchers.

7. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.

Actions:

Expand access to opportunity for all protected classes
through the following actions:

1. Identify sites in high opportunity areas for new hous ing development.

2. Review policies and programs that increase the sup
ply.

3. Conduct a landlord/tenant education campaign on
fair housing laws.

4. Encourage development of a range of affordable
housing types.

5. Encourage the development of ADUs.

6. Promote Housing Choice Vouchers.

7. Educate renters about their rights.

Timeframe:

Annually and ongoing.

Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities may disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of outreach and education regarding supportive services for individuals with disabilities.

2. Lack of education regarding resources available in the City and County, such as schools, transportation, and other in-home or community resources, for individuals with disabilities and single female-headed households.

Actions:

Bring existing resources to protected classes through
the following actions:

Timeframe:
1059
Orange County 199 25-29 Regional AFH

1. Review and amend (if necessary) Reasonable
Accommodation regulations and procedures.

Review and amend regulations and
procedures by the end of FY 25/26.

2. Provide information on supportive services for
individuals with disabilities, single female-headed
households, and homeless individuals via the OC
Social Services Agency.

Conduct annually by Dec. 31st of each
year.

3. Partner with OCTA and publish public transit
program info (OC Flex, OC ACCESS Service, and
youth rider free pass).

Conduct bi-annually by Dec. 31st of each
year.

Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identified substandard housing conditions for low-income households as an issue facing low-income residents in the city. Additionally, housing cost burden is an issue for renters throughout Orange County.

Contributing Factors:

Substandard housing conditions due to:

1. Insufficient affordable and healthy homes for very-low incomes.

2. Lack of insufficient outreach and education on code enforcement.

3. Insufficient funding for repairs or rehabilitation.

4. Via Iglesia neighborhood has homes in need of repairs Actions:

Reduce existence of substandard housing
conditions through the following actions:

Timeframe:

1. Add information about the City's Code
Enforcement service on the City's website
for renters and owners.

Information added on City’s website to be
completed by the end of FY 25/26. Annually,
conduct one informational campaign on Code
Enforcement services with the goal of reaching at
least 10 renters and 10 owners.

2. Create educational materials about
healthy homes, and post information on
the City's website.

Educational materials to be completed by the end
of FY 25/26 and posted to the
City’s website annually.
1060
Orange County 200 25-29 Regional AFH
C. Anaheim
Issue: Segregation, including R/ECAPs; and Disproportionate Housing Needs.

While segregation levels overall in Anaheim are low, the city has neighborhoods considered to be areas of high POC segregation north of downtown and along SR-91, and south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The neighborhoods north and south of downtown also have a higher percentage of overcrowded units than other neighborhoods in the city, and the areas north of downtown are home to multiple publicly supported housing developments. Additionally, housing cost burden is an issue for renters throughout Orange County. Anaheim also has one R/ECAP to the northeast of Disneyland, along Ball Rd and I-5. This Census Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, Anaheim Hills is considered an area of high White segregation.

Contributing Factors:

Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation have created many of the residential patterns that still exist today. Additionally, the high cost of land and existing housing in Anaheim (and throughout Orange County) are significant constraints to the development of new affordable housing and access for families to existing housing.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase the supply of affordable housing in high
Opportunity areas through the following actions:

1. Disseminate on the City’s website,
information material to promote and facilitate
implementation of state and City regulations
and incentives to create affordable housing.

2. Develop and maintain a database of
affordable housing developers working in
California; and hold an annual workshop to
engage and collaborate with affordable
housing developers on these topics.

Develop webpage, including housing element
candidate site list, and developer database
and hold first annual workshop by October
2024.

Update housing element candidate site list
annually in conjunction with Housing
Element Annual Progress Report.

Review by October 2025, and revisions, if
necessary, by October 2026.

3. Disseminate on the City’s website,
information material to promote and facilitate
AMC 18.38.215 Residential Uses of Motels,
Commercial, and Office Structures.

4. Develop and maintain a database of existing
motels, commercial, and office structures for
which conversion could be feasible.

Develop information and database and
participate in annual affordable housing
workshop by October 2025.

5. Encourage the production of ADUs.

6. Continue to seek opportunities to defray costs
associated with construction to homeowners.

Continue to refine existing review process for
ADUs not using pre-approved plans.
1061
Orange County 201 25-29 Regional AFH

7. Develop, subject to funding availability, a
program to facilitate the construction of deedrestricted ADUs.

Continue to refine existing review process for
ADUs using pre-approved plans and expand
pre-approved plan catalog.

Continue to support and promote programs
such as the Orange County Housing Finance
Trust’s Affordable ADU Loan Program, when
offered.

Continue to seek potential local, state, and/or
federal funds to establish an Anaheim
Housing Authority affordable ADU grant/loan
program.

In conjunction with Annual Progress Report,
identify and track ADU construction in high
and highest resource areas/Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs).

Conduct review by October 2025, and if ADU
construction is disproportional to the number
of units, develop targeted outreach with a
goal of improving the ADU/overall dwelling
unit metric for the areas relative to other
residential areas in the City.

8. Continue to regularly monitor deedrestricted, affordable housing units that exist citywide.

9. Collaborate with nonprofit housing providers
and develop a preservation strategy to meet
the City’s Quantified Objective for preserving
60 At-Risk Units (30 Very Low- and 30 LowIncome).

Continue monitoring all deed-restricted
affordable housing units annually and add
new properties as applicable.

Develop preservation strategy for 60 units
converting in 2027 – 2031.

Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods near the downtown have low environmental health, low education scores, low economic scores; but good access to HQTAs. Conversely, Anaheim Hills, which is a predominantly White area, has the best access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods with low poverty rates, high education scores, and high economic scores.

Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing. 1062
Orange County 202 25-29 Regional AFH
Contributing Factors:

A lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas (due to the factors discussed above) contributes to the disparities in access to opportunities. Additionally, specific groups in the city face the unique housing challenges that impact access to opportunity, including:
• Seniors:
o Having limited and fixed incomes.
o Disproportionately higher healthcare costs, adding monthly living costs. o Require customized housing features due to mobility and self-care limitations. o Transit dependency.
o Limited in-home support, due to living alone.
• Individuals with physical and developmental disabilities:
o Need for specialized housing to accommodate disabilities. o Higher incidence of dependent living needs.
o High incidence of unemployment and having fixed income. o Need for supportive services.
• Large person households:
o Lack of affordable housing with sufficient bedroom counts. o Options for larger bedroom counts in rental units.
o Higher monthly cost burden.
o Affordable options for large family households.
o Childcare needs for working families.
• Single parent households
o Affordable housing options.
o Rental and for sale housing options.
o Higher monthly cost burdens with single-income families. o Childcare needs for working families.
• Farmworker households
o Affordable housing options.
o Higher incidents of cost burden for housing.
o Rental and for sale housing options.
• Extremely Low-Income households:
o Need for increased affordable housing options.
o Markedly higher incidents of cost burden for housing. o Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s.
o Rental assistance.
o Higher incidents of homelessness.
o Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing. • Residents experiencing homelessness:
o Need for increased affordable housing options.
o Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s.
o Rental assistance.
o Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing. o Need for emergency shelters.
o Need for stable health care.
1063
Orange County 203 25-29 Regional AFH
Actions: Timeframe:

The city will ensure equal access to housing, expand access to opportunity for all protected class groups, and increase community integration for individuals with disabilities through the following actions:

1. Continue to provide an estimated 6,500 Section 8 Rental Assistance Vouchers annually, subject to federal funding availability, to qualified tenants.

2. Develop and maintain a database of existing housing in high and highest resource areas/Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) which has the potential to provide
voucher-based unit(s), including ADUs.

3. Develop a targeted outreach program to recruit potential additional landlords in these areas.

Continue to award all funded
Section 8 Rental Assistance
Vouchers annually.

Develop database and conduct
first annual outreach program
by October 2025.

Target and increase the portion
of Section 8 Rental Assistance
Vouchers leased in high and
highest resource areas/Racially
Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAAs) in planning
period.

4. In partnership with the Fair Housing Council of OC,
disseminate and display for public viewing information
regarding fair housing law applicable to landlords, tenants, sellers, buyers, real estate professionals and others in the housing industry at City Community Centers / Family
Resource Centers/ Youth Centers.

Include in Scope of Services for
Fair Housing Council of OC no
later than October 2026.

5. Continue to implement the Homelessness Action Plan,
including the four overarching principles:
• Housing First: The City of Anaheim commits to following nationally recognized best practices in addressing
homelessness including Housing First practices and the
belief that housing and housing support services are the solutions to homelessness.
• Person-Centered: All programs funded by the City strive to be person- centered, including prioritizing traumainformed care and acknowledging that people experiencing homelessness understand best what
services and supports are needed to help them gain and
keep housing that will resolve their homelessness.
• Equity: The City commits to incorporating equity into service delivery systems and using data to evaluate gaps in service and identify areas of improvement so that
every household in City- funded programs receives
Ongoing with update to the
Homeless Action Plan for July
2024 – June 2028.

The Homeless Action Plan has
the following metrics:

Decrease unsheltered
homelessness by 70% and
overall homelessness by 50%.
1064
Orange County 204 25-29 Regional AFH
relevant and affirming support from the City’s network of providers.
• Data-Driven Solutions: The City commits to the
utilization of data to drive funding decisions and
solutions to homelessness. This includes evaluating the efficacy of programs and continual monitoring of the
City’s portfolio of interventions to ensure collective
efforts are meeting the needs of the community while
making gains against agreed upon community goals.

The Plan identifies Unsheltered Households, Chronically Homeless Individual Households, Families, Veterans,
Transition-Aged Youth, and Seniors as unique
populations experiencing homelessness within the City.

6. Increase community integration for individuals with
disabilities by continuing to assist in the development of housing projects for special needs households by providing technical assistance with tax credit applications, tax-exempt bond financing and other public funds, including, ESG,
CDBG, and HOME.

On-going, with annual review
and adjustments, if
adjustments are required and
applicable.

7. The City shall continue to monitor to ensure the
effectiveness of reasonable accommodation standards and procedures and maintain compliance with federal and state housing laws.

On-going, with annual review
and adjustments, if
adjustments are required and
applicable.

8. In partnership with the Fair Housing Council of OC, provide and maintain multi-lingual informational materials on
tenant legal counseling and resources with the goal of
eliminating housing discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all people irrespective of race religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, age, family size or disability to freely choose the housing for which they qualify in the area they desire.

9. Continue to participate in City of Anaheim Neighborhood Services Mobile Family Resource Centers as well as
agencies and associations who specialize in supporting
disabled tenants including those with hearing, vision,
cognitive, ambulatory, self- care, and independent living difficulties consistent with data from Anaheim residents reporting a disability.

Continue to provide estimated
annual allocation of $100,000,
based on program funding
availability.

Annually evaluate program
effectiveness and adjust Scope
of Services as appropriate and
based on available funding.

Target an increase in the
number of households served
per funding dollar.
1065
Orange County 205 25-29 Regional AFH
D. Buena Park
Issue: Segregation
Segregation levels in the city have increased since 1990 but remain low overall. However, the following areas in the city are considered to have high POC segregation: the northeast corner of the city, which is predominantly AAPI; and the neighborhood between I-5, Artesia Blvd, Beach Blvd, and the LA County line, which is predominantly Hispanic.

Contributing Factors:

1. Concentration of Hispanics/Latinos of any race and non-Hispanic Asian groups experiencing limitation to housing opportunities.

2. Barriers to mobility.

3. Lack of opportunities for residents to obtain housing in higher opportunity areas.

4. Housing Choice Vouchers.

Actions: Timeframe
The city will increase affordable housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the following actions:

1. Amend the city's Zoning Ordinance to establish provisions for Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) consistent with state law.

By the end
of 2023

2. Continue to annually monitor and facilitate the preservation of at-risk affordable housing units throughout the community. Facilitate new housing developments accessible to the elderly and disabled individuals throughout the community.

Through these steps, the city's goal will be to preserve 130 units considered to be "at-risk" of market-rate conversion.

3. Facilitate new housing developments accessible to the elderly and disabled individuals throughout the community, with efforts targeting Census Tracts 086801, 086803, 110201, 110202, 110302, and 110500. Through this step, the city's goal will be to increase the supply of accessible units by at least 25 percent.

4. Continue to administer city-operated programs to assist households with disabilities with architectural modifications to their homes and continue to implement the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

5. Provide information in public places regarding the city's reasonable accommodation ordinance and make information available on this program more widely available.

6. Continue to facilitate/process Reasonable Accommodation requests to ensure equal housing opportunities. Through this step, the city's goal is to ensure approval of 100 percent of the reasonable accommodation applications submitted.

7. Support Infill, Site Recycling and ADU construction throughout the community.

Through this step, the city's goal will be to reach its RHNA obligation to meet the community's needs.

Ongoing
1066
Orange County 206 25-29 Regional AFH

8. Continue to provide outreach and education to housing providers and potentially qualified residents regarding Housing Choice Voucher program, with efforts targeting Census Tracts 086801, 110110, 110116, 110201, 110202, 110303, 110401, 110402, 110500, 110603, and 110606. Through these steps, the City's goal will be increasing participation in the voucher program by 20 percent.

Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities, including Homeownership.

Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with low poverty rates and high performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods in the center of the city, between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), have poor environmental health, lower educational scores, and lower economic scores.

Large disparities in homeownership rates exist between White households, who have the highest rate, and Black households, who are least likely to own their own home. Additionally, housing cost burden is an issue for renters throughout Orange County.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing in a range of sizes.

2. Land use and zoning laws.

Actions: Timeframe:

The city will increase affordable housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the following actions:

1. Amend the zoning code to enable and promote residential development through use of the mixed-use overlay zones, religious congregation and fraternal site overlay zones, and housing opportunity overlay zones, among other planning tools. These initiatives provide new opportunities for a variety of residential development types and prices and includes areas where residential development was previously not allowed.

By end of
2024

2. Prepare educational material, develop pre- approved site/floor plans, and establish a monitoring program to ensure city is on track to meeting ADU construction goals. Through these steps, they will be to facilitate construction of at least 16 ADUs throughout the community.

By early
2025

3. Provide technical and financial (subject to availability) assistance for singlefamily residential additions to eliminate overcrowding conditions, with efforts targeting Census Tracts 110402, 110603, and 110606. Through these steps, it will be the city's goal to provide residential rehabilitation assistance to approximately 160 units.

4. Continue to promote use of the state Density Bonus Law through website materials and counter assistance.

5. Promote, increase, maintain homeownership for LMI households, as well as residential rehabilitation assistance for senior and down payment assistance Ongoing
1067
Orange County 207 25-29 Regional AFH
programs for young families with assistance throughout the community, with efforts targeting Census Tracts 086803, 110201, 110202, 110302, 110401, 110402, 110500, 110603, 110607). Through these steps, the city's goal will be to increase assistance to eligible residents by 25 percent.

6. Continue to enforce city codes to eliminate and prevent unsightly or hazardous conditions in residential areas throughout the community, with efforts targeting Census Tracts 110603, 110500, 110301, 110302, and 110401 located adjacent to limited access freeways. Through these steps, the city's goal will be to reduce blighted conditions by 20 percent.

7. Continue to participate in Orange County assessments and programs as a participating city in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.

8. Continue to promote fair housing among all income categories throughout the community.
1068
Orange County 208 25-29 Regional AFH
E. Costa Mesa
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents in the city, though these levels declined slightly between 2000-2010. Geographically, the neighborhoods between downtown and the Costa Mesa Country Club are areas of high POC segregation, with a predominantly Hispanic population. The largest number of publicly supported housing units and the highest concentration of vouchers in the city is in this area. The city’s one R/ECAP is also located here, in the neighborhood between Newport Avenue and Placentia Avenue, south of 19th Street. The neighborhoods in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive) are all areas of high White segregation, as are the neighborhoods north of the Country Club and the neighborhoods between Estancia High School and Canyon Park.

Contributing Factors:

1. Housing discrimination.

2. Lack of affordable housing due to governmental and market constraints.

Actions: Timeframe:

The City will take the following meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, to overcome patterns of segregation based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law:

1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation or other fair housing service provider and provide information regarding the Public Law Center to address Housing Discrimination and unfair lending, including promoting mediation services, foreclosure assistance and/or multilingual tenant legal counseling services. Promote available services on the City’s webpage.

Ongoing

2. Continue to enforce the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which was approved on August 6, 2024, and became effective on September 6, 2024.

Ongoing

3. Support the development of affordable housing through the following efforts:
• Continue to evaluate programs and incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing.
• Make materials available to applicants regarding the City’s affordable housing ordinance.
• Develop additional incentives and materials as state
legislation provides additional incentives.
• Continue to pursue funding and partnerships with affordable housing builders.

Ongoing
1069
Orange County 209 25-29 Regional AFH

4. Amend the City’s Zoning Code to meet requirement set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, which requires the City to permit farmworker housing by‐right, without a conditional use permit, in single‐family zones for six or fewer individuals and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. Until the zoning code is updated, the City will process any proposed farmworker housing by-right in single-family zones pursuant to State Law.

Revise Zoning Code in
2025

5. Review and update the Zoning Code to comply with the State Density Bonus Law as part of the City’s rezone program. In the meantime, continue to process State Density Bonus Law
requests and project in compliance with state law.

Revise Zoning Code in
2025

6. Review planning application fees to avoid creating a constraint to the development of affordable housing, as part of the City’s rezone program.

Revise Zoning Code in
2025

7. Reduce barriers to construction of housing for extremely low and lower-income households through the following actions:
• Subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower, as funding is available.
• Annually promote the benefits of this program to the
development community by posting information on its
webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications regarding development
opportunities and incentives.
• Proactively reach out to developers at least once annually to identify and promote development opportunities.
• Adopt priority processing and streamlined review for
developments with units affordable to lower income
households.
• Support funding development applications throughout the planning period for projects proposing units affordable to lower income households.

Ongoing

8. Review and revise the Zoning Code’s requirements for residential off‐street parking for multi‐family projects to facilitate the development of multi‐family housing, and specifically affordable housing.

Revise Zoning Code in
2025

9. Promote the development of ADUs through the following actions:

Complete the update to
ADU regulations in
municipal code by April
1070
Orange County 210 25-29 Regional AFH
• Review and revise the City’s ADU ordinance as necessary to comply with state law.
• Maintain a dedicated web page that promotes ADU
development.
2025. Maintain web page
on ongoing basis.

Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, the neighborhoods downtown and west of downtown are less environmentally healthy and have lower education and economic scores. These are also predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Conversely, neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are predominantly White, have higher education and economic scores, are more environmentally healthy, and have lower poverty rates. Additionally, Black, Hispanic, and Native American residents are less likely to own their home than White and AAPI residents.

Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Contributing Factors:

1. Unfair lending practices

2. Approximately 86 percent of housing units were built prior to 1989 before the Fair Housing Act and state laws regarding accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities were adopted.

Actions: Timeframe:

The City will take the following meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, to foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law:

1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation or other fair housing service provider and provide
information regarding the Public Law Center to address
Housing Discrimination and unfair lending, including
promoting mediation services, foreclosure assistance
and/or multilingual tenant legal counseling services.

Promote available services on the City’s webpage.

Ongoing

2. Continue operating the Owner-Occupied Housing
Rehabilitation Program, which may be used to assist
qualified property owners in improving single-family
residential properties, including health and safety
repairs such as mechanical plumbing, electrical,
roofing, security, medical emergency requirements,
On an annual basis, provide
informational materials on the
Owner‐Occupied Housing
Rehabilitation program; encourage
the participation of seniors,
veterans, and disabled residents in
1071
Orange County 211 25-29 Regional AFH
and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or elderly.
this program; and evaluate the
effectiveness of this program and,
if necessary, modify program
characteristics.

3. Increase the availability of accessible housing for
individuals with disabilities through the following
actions:
• Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation
procedure to promote access to housing for
individuals with disabilities, address potential
constraints and establish potential objective
standards, and provide guidance and amend as
necessary to promote greater certainty on how
approval findings will be implemented.
• Meet with local organizations and developers to
promote access to housing for individuals with
disabilities and address potential constraints.

The City is currently in the process
of reviewing its Reasonable
Accommodation procedures and
anticipates bringing any
recommendations to Planning
Commission and City Council in
2025. Other efforts are ongoing.

4. Increase the availability of transitional and supportive housing through the following actions:
• Amend the Zoning Code to include transitional and
permanent supportive housing within the City’s
land use matrix in compliance with Senate Bill 2 and
Government Code Section 65651.
• Monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to
accommodate transitional and supportive housing.
• Proactively engage relevant organizations to meet
the needs of individuals experiencing
homelessness and extremely low‐income
residents, including the Costa Mesa Network for
Homeless Solutions, which aims to provide a
comprehensive system programs and services for
residents experiencing homelessness and those at
risk of homelessness.

Revise Zoning Code in 2025. Other
efforts are ongoing.

5. Review and revise the City’s Zoning Code and
application procedures applicable to group homes to
promote objectivity and greater approval certainty
similar to other residential uses.

The City is currently in the process
of reviewing its Group Homes
procedures and anticipates
bringing any recommendations to
Planning Commission and City
Council in 2025.
1072
Orange County 212 25-29 Regional AFH
F. Fountain Valley
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters throughout Orange County, including Fountain Valley.

Contributing Factors:

1. Stigma associated with Housing Vouchers: A large percentage of rental households in Fountain Valley spend more than 30 and 50 percent of household income on monthly rent and utilities. While this may be due in part to residents being willing to pay more for access to high performing school districts, there may also be a stigma associated with the use of Housing Vouchers, both by property owners and tenants.

2. Lack of additional housing options. The City’s housing supply has not increased at a rate commensurate with regional demand, driving costs higher and limit housing choices for existing residents looking to remain in Fountain Valley (adult children eager to move out of their parent’s house and older adults looking to downsize) and potential new residents looking for more affordable options in Fountain Valley.

Actions: Timeframe:

Expand voucher use by 50 tenants by 2028, and extend affordability term of 70 units in the Guadalupe Manor an additional 20-30 years by 2029, through the following actions:

1. Coordinate with OCHA to generate a detailed understanding of where overpayment rates are highest in the city (as of latest available Census data), where vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants could potentially qualify at each multifamily property in target areas.

By 2028

2. Update Development Code consistent with state law and produce residential project flow-chart and/or informational sheets, consistent with SB 35 and SB 330.

By 2026

3. Coordinate with OCHA and FHCOC to develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits of vouchers.

By 2026

4. Complete study of options to augment/adjust affordable housing preservation program for possible application of funds for those overpaying.

By 2026

5. Distribute outreach materials through means that reach target populations (e.g., those receiving subsidized school lunches). Conduct direct outreach to five properties (tenants and owners) in Census Tracts illustrating high rates of rental overpayment.

By 2026

6. Secure extended affordability for Guadalupe Manor through at least 2058. By 2029 1073
Orange County 213 25-29 Regional AFH
Increase supply of affordable housing through the following efforts:

1. Evaluate options to apply affirmative advertising requirements to incomerestricted units in the Slater Avenue project.By 2026

2. Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. By 2024

3. Establish procedures and requirements that will ensure affirmative advertising requirements are applied to and conducted for all future income-restricted housing developments.

By 2026

4. Adopt 2045 General Plan. By 2024

5. Adopt appropriate pre-vetted ADU site plans, with the goal of permitting 100 ADUs affordable to lower income households in high and highest resources areas by 2026 (as measured from June 30, 2021).

By 2026
1074
Orange County 214 25-29 Regional AFH
G. Fullerton
Issue: Segregation
Areas of the city considered to have high POC segregation include most of the neighborhoods west of Harbor Blvd and north of Malvern Ave, which have predominantly AAPI populations.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies to conduct more rigorous testing and audits, outreach, training, public education campaigns.

2. Lack of language access.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Provide informational seminars to area residential real estate agents and brokers on fair housing laws and regulations.

Provide training to at least
15 real estate agents and
brokers annually.

2. Work with tenants, tenant advocates to identify violations of fair housing federal and state fair housing laws and support prospective and existing tenants who are experiencing
discrimination.

Annually

3. Provide trainings for property owners/managers on the requirements of federal and state fair housing laws to prevent discrimination.

Provide training to at least
15 property owners and
managers annually.

4. With the Fair Housing Foundation, support an annual Fair Housing Audit Report that assesses typical or timely marketbased suspected areas of discrimination.

Review methodology for a
Fair Housing Audit by
January 2025

5. Affordable Rental Housing Counseling Services: Provide funding for information and referral services that direct families and individuals with financial resources for housing rental or purchase, locating suitable housing, and obtaining housing with special needs facilities such as disabled-accessible units.

Hold at least four
informational events
between 2025-2029; assist
at least 50 residents and
landlords annually.

6. Create a Language Access Plan based on HUD guidelines and publish on the City’s website: The goal of the Language Access Plan is to survey, maintain and publish a list of multi-lingual staff capacity at City Hall so that staff may respond to the needs of Limited English Proficiency households.

Create a Language Access
Plan by January 2025.

Maintain multilingual staff
capacity at City Hall on an
ongoing basis.

7. Ensure that local housing programs respond to the needs of a culturally diverse community that includes multi-generational families, a variety of living arrangements, and Limited English Proficiency households. Collaborate with community groups, including faith-based and nonprofit organizations, to provide Review the existing fair
housing marketing plan
every two years to ensure
compliance with current
City policy to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing and
1075
Orange County 215 25-29 Regional AFH
outreach on housing resources to all types of households and those households with Limited English Proficiency.
make necessary changes
within six months.

8. Add information on fair housing laws and resources on the City’s website regarding housing programs in several
languages.

By January 2025

9. Seek opportunities to expand outreach and public education strategies on available tenant protection, fair housing services, and homeownership education to reach vulnerable households by offering information in multiple languages, targeted social media efforts, combining information with other assistance programs, distributing resources through local schools and colleges, and partnering with community-based organizations. 2021-2029
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods in southeast Fullerton (which are predominantly Hispanic), have relatively low economic and education scores, poor environmental quality, and relatively high poverty rates. Conversely, neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, which are predominantly White or AAPI, have higher education and economic scores, better environmental health, and lower poverty. Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Contributing Factors:

1. Location, type, and supply of affordable housing.

2. Land use and zoning laws.

3. The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation.

4. Location of environmental health hazards

5. Lack of investment in community-based infrastructure and services

6. Lack of access to housing mobility
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Implement changes to the in-lieu fee
structure and the desire and ability of
developers to contribute to an affordable
housing trust fund. Adopt incentives such as
increased densities, increased height limits,
reduced parking standards, and ministerial
review for projects that incorporate increased
affordable units or deeper levels of
affordability.

Complete a feasibility study on in-lieu
payments to a Housing Trust Fund by
January 2026. If feasible, amend the
municipal code to allow for an in-lieu fee
structure by December 2027 and implement
an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by
December 2029.
1076
Orange County 216 25-29 Regional AFH

2. Facilitate the development of housing for
individuals with disabilities (including
developmental disabilities) through
incentives for affordable housing
development with services, resources, and
assistance.

Develop 25 housing units for special needs
households between 2021-2029.

3. Provide financial support to organizations
that provide supportive housing for
emancipated foster youth (ages 18-21) who
are homeless or at immediate risk of
becoming homeless.

Assist at least 10 foster youth with
supportive housing between 2021-2029.

4. In compliance with recent updates to the
Surplus Land Act (AB 1255, 2019-Rivas; AB
1486, 2019-Ting), identify City-owned land for
the development of affordable housing. If
surplus properties are identified, pursue
development via a competitive Request for
Proposals or other processes.

Annually, assess the list of surplus sites and
solicit development via a competitive RFP
process or other forms of partnership such
as land lease agreements.

5. Acquire funds from local, state, and federal
grant opportunities, including the HCD Infill
Infrastructure Grant Program, to support the
development of affordable housing, housing
for special needs, and support service
projects. When a critical mass of state
(various HCD programs) and/or federal
(CDBG, HOME) funding is available, the City
will issue a competitive Notice of Funding
Availability with objective criteria to
transparently identify the best non-profit
affordable housing developer to partner with
on new affordable housing developments in
the city.

Partner with at least one nonprofit housing
developer biennially throughout the planning
period and support the entitlement of at least
400 subsidized housing units affordable to
extremely low-, very low-, and low-income
households in the city during the planning
period.

6. Partner with Orange County Housing Finance
Trust to secure funding for affordable
housing in Fullerton.

Conduct feasibility study for an affordable
housing trust fund by January 2027.

7. Develop a web-based Housing Development
Toolkit that outlines a step-by-step process
for residential development, including
identifying steps in the entitlement and
building permit process, detailed information
on development incentives, and funding
Publish Housing Development Toolkit on
City’s website by December 2026.
1077
Orange County 217 25-29 Regional AFH
programs and resources for affordable
housing development.

8. Review the General Plan, applicable Specific
Plans, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map to
evaluate opportunities for removing barriers
to housing production such as adding
housing capacity and accommodating a
greater mix of dwelling types and sizes in
High and Highest Resource areas identified
by the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC), focusing efforts in
northeastern and northwestern Fullerton.

Recommend amendments, as necessary, to
accommodate added housing capacity in
these areas. Additionally, review the Zoning
Code to identify opportunities to increase and
encourage a greater mix of dwelling types
and sizes, specifically housing types that may
accommodate moderate-income households
(e.g., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
townhouses, courtyard buildings), in lowerdensity residential areas and mixed-use zones citywide and amend the Zoning Code
as needed (i.e., implementation of LTD).

Review the General Plan, applicable Specific
Plan, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map by
June 2025 and implement any changes by
January 2026. Following adoption of zoning
code changes, monitor at least 1,801
moderate-income units and 2,238 lowerincome units to be constructed annually in High and Highest Resource areas as
designated by TCAC. Permit the
development of at least 150 moderateincome dwelling types in the neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig
Park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway
Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park
(Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence) by
the end of 2029.

9. Identify and advertise housing opportunity
sites within one-quarter mile of public transit
stops in northern Fullerton. Educate
developers on the Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Housing Program,
and/or pursue funding to increase transit
infrastructure in northern Fullerton.

On an ongoing basis, consult with interested
developers on the TOD Housing Program.

Conduct a study with OCTA to identify capital
projects to increase transit infrastructure by
2026. Apply for TOD Housing Program funds
as NOFA becomes available.

10. Monitor lot splits and two-unit developments
under SB 9, provide technical assistance to
homeowners, and develop or adjust
development standards as needed. Provide
easily accessible information and resources
about SB 9 on the City website. Conduct
outreach to homeowners’ associations in the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park, and the neighborhoods in
Beginning in 2025, meet with at least one
homeowners’ association annually in the
areas of northwest Fullerton and the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park to provide education on
SB 9 implementation. Amend the Zoning
Code to comply with SB 9 by December
2025.
1078
Orange County 218 25-29 Regional AFH
northwest Fullerton, and provide information
on SB 9.

11. Conduct outreach to religious institutions and
provide technical assistance for interested
parties to develop affordable housing on sites
zoned religious institution.

Starting in 2025, annually mail or email
resources on developing affordable housing
to all religious institutions in the city with
underutilized land. Conduct follow up calls
with institutions with sites that hold the most
potential based on location and size,
prioritizing potential sites in the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park since they are Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence. By
December 2026, present information during
at least one meeting with the board and/or
members of OC United. By the end of 2027,
provide technical assistance for the potential
development of at least one affordable
housing development on a religious
institution site.

12. Conduct outreach to people experiencing
homelessness with the Illumination
Foundation and the OC Health Care Agency,
focusing efforts in areas where there is a high
concentration of homeless individuals in the
neighborhoods of Independence Park, Santa
Fe District/SoCo, and Gilbert Park, and along
arterial boulevards and commercial centers.

Provide resources to connect individuals with
shelter space in Fullerton and as needed, to
services in surrounding cities.

Annually allocate funding and City resources
to support outreach efforts in coordination
with the Illumination Foundation and the OC
Health Care Agency to provide information
and resources to those experiencing
homelessness. Annually fund the Fullerton
Police Department’s Homeless Liaison
Officer Unit, and as funding is available and
based on need, increase the number of
officers to provide services for residents
experiencing homelessness.

13. Adopt an ordinance for new development
standards to allow additional ADUs that meet
basic setbacks and square footage
requirements on properties exceeding one
acre in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. The
ordinance shall allow at least two ADUs on
qualifying properties if such properties can
safely accommodate two ADUs (e.g., that the
properties have adequate sewer/septic and
water capacity, can construct the ADUs in
Adopt the ordinance by July 2025.
1079
Orange County 219 25-29 Regional AFH
compliance with all building code and fire
prevention requirements, and can meet
parking requirements).

14. Reduce minimum unit sizes and update the
Zoning Code, as necessary, to accommodate
alternative housing types such as housing cooperatives, Single-Room Occupancy (SROs), dormitories, tiny homes, and collective home
ownership models in more areas of the city,
including religious sites and publicly owned
land. Stakeholder outreach shall include
discussions with for-profit and non-profit
housing developers.

Amend the Zoning Code by July 2025.

Conduct stakeholder outreach with
developers and community groups and
service providers on alternative housing at
least once by January 2026, with the goal of
achieving 30 units of alternative housing
types by the end of 2029, with at least half of
those units in the neighborhoods of E Las
Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig park,
Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr,
Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park since they are
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence.

15. Encourage the development of both smaller
rental and owner units (studio and onebedroom) and larger rental units (3 to 4- bedroom units) in residential and mixed-use
development. In consultation with
developers, identify and provide incentives
and reduction of constraints to encourage the
construction of these housing types and
develop a work plan to implement any
proposed changes to development
standards, City programs, and so forth.

Develop incentives and mitigations to
constraints by July 2025. Starting in 2025,
hold an annual workshop with developers
and provide education about technical
assistance and incentives for larger and
smaller rental units, with a goal of
supporting the development of 50 large (3-4-
bedroom) units and 100 studio/1-bedroom
units by December 2029. At least 50 percent
of large and small rental units should be in
neighborhoods of greater degrees of
overcrowding, including Woodcrest Park,
Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W
Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, E Wilshire Ave/N
Raymond Ave, Rancho La Paz.

16. Prioritize public health, education, economic,
and safety programs in lower resource areas
as defined by TCAC in coordination with area
public health entities, school districts,
workforce development groups, and the
police department. Identify addresses and
compile mailing list and email addresses to
focus outreach to neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of low-income and minority
residents to prioritize services in these areas.

Increase participation in the City’s first-time
homebuyer seminars and owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation grant program 5
percent annually from lower income and
minority concentration areas between 2021-
2029 (data collection via surveys conducted
at the seminars).
1080
Orange County 220 25-29 Regional AFH

17. Assess potential preference policy for
affordable housing opportunities, land use,
transportation, urban design, public facilities
and services, and economic development
strategies. The City will seek involvement
from community organizations and
advocates, business councils, and residents
to further refine the program scope.

Establish a community working group that
meets annually to prioritize funding for
community investments.

18. Apply for funding and coordinate with the
OCTA Safe Routes to School program to
establish at least one partnership in the city
for active transportation projects and/or
safety education campaign, prioritizing
school routes within and from the
neighborhood of E Imperial Highway and N
Harbor Boulevard.

Establish partnership for Safe Routes to
School and apply for grant funding by the
end of 2025. Initiate at least one project or
campaign by the end of the planning period.

Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Fullerton. More than 20% of all units are overcrowded in the neighborhoods south of downtown, which are predominantly Hispanic.

Contributing Factors:

1. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.

2. Location, type, and supply of affordable housing

3. Land use and zoning laws
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Develop an outreach strategy in multiple
languages for property owners who own
fewer than 10 residential units (either in
single-family or multi-family rental housing)
to assess needs and connect them with
resources, such as housing unit rehabilitation
and financing programs. The intent of this
program is to preserve Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing (i.e., not currently
regulated with affordability restrictions),
particularly in the neighborhoods of
Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. The
program will seek to prioritize communities
vulnerable to displacement, generally in the
Develop an outreach strategy for “mom and
pop” property owners by January 2026.

After the strategy is adopted, conduct
outreach to at least 15 property owners with
less than 10 units and assist at least 5
property owners with a combined total of 20
units or more by December 2029.
1081
Orange County 221 25-29 Regional AFH
southern areas of the city, a focus on
neighborhoods with lower median income.

2. Review the City’s Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance program with input from tenants
and property owners/managers, ensuring
representation across the economic
spectrum, and update as appropriate.

Outreach to be conducted to all vulnerable
communities during the update process and
after final adoption in 2027. Fill any gaps
between Section 8 assistance and rent, or to
aid those who may not qualify for Section 8
but need one-time emergency assistance, to
provide relief to tenants to avoid the
displacement in vulnerable communities.

Update the City’s Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance program by January 2027.

Prepare and present a report on
recommendations for programs that would
provide relief to tenants and landlords to
avoid the displacement in vulnerable
communities by December 2026. If a rental
assistance program is approved and
implemented as a result, the program will
assist at least 10 lower income renter
households annually.

3. In consultation with fair housing service
providers and community-based
organizations, evaluate existing state and
federal “just cause for eviction” (AB 1482;
2019-Chiu) and other similar legislation with
provisions to determine if additional
protections through a local ordinance is
warranted.

Assess if additional protections are needed
by January 2026. If warranted, recommend
adoption of a local tenant protection
ordinance to City Council by December 2026.

4. Partner with Cal state Fullerton to develop a
plan to address the need for off-campus
affordable housing for students.

Develop a city-wide student housing plan by
December 2029.

Increase participation in the City’s first-time
homebuyer seminars and owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation grant program percent
annually from lower income and minority
concentration areas between 2021-2029
(data collection via surveys conducted at the
seminars).
1082
Orange County 222 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Homeownership
Homeownership rates are lower for all groups than the County overall, except for AAPI households. Racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Native American households the least likely to own their home, and AAPI households most likely.

Contributing Factors:

1. Racial discrepancies in loan origination.

2. Lack of funding for consumer rights and responsibility education on Fair Lending practices and identification of predatory lending practices.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Work to promote fair lending practices throughout the city, including:
a. Ensure that low-income and minority residents
have fair access to capital resources needed to
acquire and maintain housing.
b. Prevent predatory lending through information
and referrals to the Fair Housing Foundation.

Annually conduct and publish
third party review of City or
regional HMDA data to identify
areas of need regarding fair
access to lending.

2. Add information on fair housing laws and resources on the City’s website regarding housing programs in several languages.

By January 2025

3. Seek opportunities to expand outreach and public
education strategies on available tenant protection, fair housing services, and homeownership education to reach
vulnerable households by offering information in multiple languages, targeted social media efforts, combining
information with other assistance programs, distributing resources through local schools and colleges, and
partnering with community-based organizations.
2021-2029

4. Partner with the County and/or community-based
organizations to increase participation in homeownership education and assistance programs for historically
underrepresented residents in the homeownership
market. Organizations may include teachers’ associations, school districts, and community-based service providers to increase awareness of, and access to, housing
resources and financial planning services.

Facilitate homeownership
workshops, counseling, and/or
education campaigns by January
2025. By October 31, 2029,
connect at least 30 residents to
education on homeownershiprelated topics.

5. Prioritize public health, education, economic, and safety programs in lower resource areas as defined by TCAC in
coordination with area public health entities, school
districts, workforce development groups, and the police department. Identify addresses and compile mailing list Increase participation in the
City’s first-time homebuyer
seminars and owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation grant
program 5 percent annually from
1083
Orange County 223 25-29 Regional AFH
and email addresses to focus outreach to neighborhoods
with higher concentrations of low-income and minority
residents to prioritize services in these areas.
lower income and minority
concentration areas between
2021-2029 (data collection via
surveys conducted at the
seminars).
1084
Orange County 224 25-29 Regional AFH
H. Garden Grove
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunities, and Disparities in Access to Homeownership
The majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation except for West Garden Grove. In West Garden Grove, the residential neighborhoods west of Knott St are considered areas of high White segregation. In the high POC segregation areas, AAPI residents are the predominant group west of 9th St and Hispanic residents are the predominant group east of there.

Additionally, there are lots of publicly supported housing units in the center of city along Garden Grove Boulevard, which is a high POC segregation area. There are no publicly supported housing units in West Garden Grove, which is an area of high White segregation.

There is a R/ECAP in the northern part of the city to between Brookhurst St and Gilbert St, north of Chapman Ave. The R/ECAP tract is predominantly Hispanic and is surrounded by Census Tracts that are predominantly AAPI.

Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Additionally, Hispanic residents also have the least access to neighborhoods with high performing schools.

Geographically, the neighborhoods with access to the most opportunities are in West Garden Grove, where education and economic scores are high, environmental quality is high, and poverty is low. West Garden Grove is a predominantly White area.

The Black and Hispanic homeownership rate in the city is half the White homeownership rate.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.

2. Inadequate supply/production of affordable housing.

3. Displacement of residents due to regional economic pressures.

4. Housing discrimination.

5. High land and development costs in the region.

6. Public opposition to new development and land use and zoning laws.

7. Access to financial services.

8. Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency.

9. Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation to promote public awareness of federal, state, and local regulations regarding fair housing.

Provide information to the public about local, state, and federal housing programs and fair housing law. Maintain referral information on the City’s website, social media, newspaper ads, and at a variety of other locations such as community and senior centers, local social service offices, in City utility bills, and at other public locations including City Hall and the library. Add or translate Ongoing
1085
Orange County 225 25-29 Regional AFH
resources and information in Vietnamese, Korean, and Spanish and make available to the public through communications materials and online.

2. Direct homebuyers and property owners with property deeds, covenants, and other real estate property documents that contain restrictions intended to limit where certain people could live or buy property, based on race, religion, or other characteristics, to the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s Office to have such discriminatory language removed at no charge.

Ongoing

3. Continue to target dissemination of Fair Housing Outreach information and notices of available services and workshops in neighborhoods identified with disproportionate housing needs and displacement risks. Fair Housing Foundation holds regular workshops and 1-on-1 counseling sessions at the City’s Senior Center and Family Resource Centers.

Ongoing

4. Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance with all entitlement requirements.

Ongoing

5. Pursue funding and target neighborhoods of concentrated poverty for investment in rehabilitation, parks, transit, active transportation, and other needs identified in the City’s Environmental Justice Element. To the extent possible, ensure funding plans reflect the needs of lower-opportunity neighborhoods.

Annually

6. Continue to implement the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and HUD Consolidated Plan.

Annually

7. Annually monitor building and home sales activities in historically undermarket neighborhoods to identify any adverse trends.Annually

8. Investigate ways to incentivize housing developers to increase the number three-bedroom units in their developments.

Ongoing

9. Code Enforcement staff will take a proactive approach in advising homeowners of existing Neighborhood Improvement programs—such as the Home Repair Program and the Re-roof Program—which assist with addressing code violations, correcting substandard conditions, and completing necessary health and safety improvements. These programs help mitigate costs to homeowners and reduce the risk of displacement or relocation.

Ongoing

10. Annually monitor development progress towards housing creation that increases housing choices and affordability in High Opportunity Areas. Should monitoring reveal a shortfall in development progress towards housing creation of increased housing choices and affordability, the City will consider developing additional actions, as necessary.

Ongoing
1086
Orange County 226 25-29 Regional AFH
I. Huntington Beach
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities and Disproportionate Housing Needs In Huntington Beach, Hispanic residents have relatively low access to neighborhoods with good environmental health, low poverty, high education scores, and high economic scores. Overall, access to opportunities in the city is high compared to the region.

Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Huntington Beach.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of knowledge of fair housing and associated laws.

2. High cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.

Actions: Timeframe:

Promote fair housing practices through the following actions:

1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing services, including fair housing and discrimination investigations, tenant and landlord counseling, education and outreach activities, and affirmatively further fair housing activities.

Ongoing
Preserve quality and affordability of existing housing through the following actions:

1. Provide financial assistance to low-income households for home repairs through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program.

2. Provide rental assistance to extremely low (ELI) and very low income (VLI) households through the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program.

Ongoing
1087
Orange County 227 25-29 Regional AFH
J. Irvine
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunities, and Disproportionate Housing Needs There are several Census Tracts considered to be areas of high POC segregation, including the neighborhoods between I-405 and UC Irvine, the Westpark community north of I-405, the neighborhoods between Como Channel and I-5, and the Northwood community north of I-5.

There are also areas of high White segregation in Irvine, including the neighborhood bounded by Turtle Rock Dr, the area surrounding the Strawberry Farms Golf Club, the Woodbridge community north of I-405, and the neighborhood west of the Oak Creek Golf Club.

Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Irvine.

Homeownership rates are lower for all racial/ethnic groups compared to the County overall, and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County, with Black and Hispanic households having the lowest homeownership rates (15.7% and 18% respectively).

Contributing Factors:

1. Shortage of affordable rental and homeownership options due to market and governmental constraints

2. Underutilized properties (i.e., retail centers and hotels) could provide new affordable housing opportunities for Irvine residents, but current land use and zoning laws inhibit this development

3. Lack of supportive housing in community-based settings

4. Lack of renter protections and economic uncertainty from pandemic increased risk of displacement for lower income households
Actions: Timeframe:

1. The City will continue to pursue alternative options for meeting the RHNA through preservation, legislative changes, and regional cooperation. The City will apply for all available funding to pursue acquisition/rehabilitation of affordable housing projects and preservation of at-risk housing.

Annually

2. The City will incorporate changes in State law (particularly affordable housing, employee housing, emergency shelters, and
transitional/supportive housing, ADUs) into the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance. This will involve allowing for increased densities or FAR in both residential and non- residential areas to adhere to RHNA requirements. Other General Plan elements will be updated to ensure consistency with the updated Housing and Land Use Elements, as well as the Zoning Ordinance
Completed

3. The City will establish zoning overlays to allow for multifamily residential in nonresidential areas (which may include properties By October 2024
1088
Orange County 228 25-29 Regional AFH
designated for religious institutions and schools) to provide flexibility in land use and development standards, including mixeduse developments. These flexible standards shall be directed toward meeting the physical, social, and economic needs of the community.

The City will adhere to the requirements of California Government Code, Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), as part of the rezoning program, including applicable by-right provisions, and the residential overlay zones in nonresidential areas will allow for densities of 30 units/acre, allow for 100 percent residential use, and will require residential use to occupy 50 percent of floor area on mixed use projects.

4. The City will encourage the subdivision of sites that are 10 acres or more to provide more opportunities for development of affordable housing, which the HCD has determined is more feasible on sites between 0.5 and 10 acres in size.

City will conduct a
review every 2 years

5. The City will work with UCI to draft an agreement regarding approving, permitting, certifying occupancy, and/or reporting new units to the California State Department of Finance (DOF). The agreement will involve documentation from UCI on planned housing that has been approved to be built as well as information on the timing of the project construction and unit affordability by household income category.

By January 2022, and
ongoing

6. The City will seek to amend the fee collection process for land divisions and lot line adjustments resulting in parcel sizes that facilitate multifamily developments affordable to households with lower incomes (including extremely low income and farmworkers) in light of State, Federal, and local financing programs (i.e., 2–10 acres).

Within 12 months of
Housing Element
certification

7. The City will also identify potential property owners and nonprofit developers by the end of FY 2022-23 and work with them on an annual basis to target and market the availability of sites with the best potential for development. In addition, the City will offer incentives for the development of affordable housing.

Within 12 months of
Housing Element
certification

8. The City will expedite development of housing projects for seniors, people with disabilities, and lower-income people and/or households As projects are
proposed

9. The City will review the current Development Standards and update as appropriate to encourage residential, mixed-use, and transitoriented developments By October 2022
1089
Orange County 229 25-29 Regional AFH

10. To expedite the process of finding resources and incentives, the City will gather information on the available incentives/concessions for developers within a year of the City’s Housing Element Update certification. The City will then develop and post an overview of the available incentives/concessions for developers on the City’s website and updates will be performed on an annual basis. The goal of this program is either expedite the time it takes to obtain development approvals and/or incentives that provide cost savings on housing projects, thereby improving and increasing the financial feasibility of affordable housing projects
Within one (1) year of
Housing Element
certification

11. To decrease the entitlement and construction process, following the adoption of the Housing Element the City will designate a dedicated planner, plan checker, and building inspector(s) to provide expedited processing for affordable housing projects, with an emphasis on projects that include extremely low-income units. The goal of this program is to expedite the affordable housing development process to accelerate the availability of affordable housing units in the community, which also has the effect of reducing development costs By October 2022

12. Hold one (1) outreach meeting or survey with affordable housing developers and providers each year after the state budget funding for the next fiscal year are made public (by October of each year) to discuss available funding sources (City, state and federal), sites identified in the Housing Element sites inventory that are available, developer needs and opportunities for affordable housing projects.

Provide technical assistance to developers regarding City’s lower income sites, funding opportunities, as well as mixed use zoning and density bonus incentives
October of each
program year

13. The City will establish streamlined, ministerial review procedures and processes for qualifying multi-family residential projects consistent with SB 35
By May 2023

14. The City will update the current Zoning Ordinance to establish higher density in areas with underdeveloped/underutilized property, such as Planning Areas 32 (adjacent to the Irvine Station served by Amtrak/Metrolink passenger rail services and Orange County Transportation Authority bus services), 33, and 36 (a.k.a., Irvine Business Complex or “IBC” near John Wayne Airport). This update will maximize land utilization for residential development to accommodate RHNA requirements, including allowing residential overlays in commercial areas to allow for residential to be added to commercial areas or to allow existing underutilized commercial uses to be converted to residential (i.e., hotels)
By October 2024
1090
Orange County 230 25-29 Regional AFH

15. Multiple State laws have been passed since 2019 establishing statewide standards for local regulations governing ADU development. State law requires that ADUs be allowed in residential and mixed-use areas despite local ordinances or homeowner’s association rules and requirements. Additionally, State law requires jurisdictions to develop a plan to encourage and incentivize ADUs in an effort to address the current California housing crisis.

By January 2023

16. Assembly Bill (AB) 671 requires local agencies’ Housing Elements to include a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for households with very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households. As part of the ADU ordinance update (including public outreach), the City will research feasible options to facilitate affordable housing options for ADUs
By October 2024

17. Housing Elements to include a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for households with very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households. As part of the ADU ordinance update (including public outreach), the City will research feasible options to facilitate affordable housing options for ADUs
By the end of 2022
and begin providing
incentives by January
2023

18. The City will provide financial and other available assistance to affordable housing property owners to preserve units. The committed assistance may consist of both financial and nonfinancial, in-kind services to incentivize the preservation of affordable units. The total number of units to be preserved are seven extremely low, 517 very low and 299 low-income units
By June 30, 2025

19. The City will continue to monitor and preserve the affordability of all publicly assisted housing units, and support applications by nonprofits
Ongoing

20. The Sites Inventory includes four non- vacant sites with existing residential uses. The sites are currently combined and house an 880- unit apartment building. In considering a demolition and new construction of residential development at the site (that increases the total number of units), the City is proposing the incorporation of 465 deed- restricted units affordable to very low- and low-income households on this site, generating replacement units for any units that may be inhabited by very low- and low-income families.

As development
projects are proposed
(timing dependent on
development
community)

21. In addition to providing funding opportunities related to HUD programs on the City’s website, funding opportunities will be disseminated via targeted email notifications and may also be posted Ongoing
1091
Orange County 231 25-29 Regional AFH
on all City social media accounts and include information on vacant land currently owned by the City.

22. The City will access information from HCD and other State agencies to identify grant application opportunities for affordable housing.

When grant opportunities are known, the City will reach out to affordable developer stakeholders to identify projects and/or opportunities to include on grant applications. The City will apply or support a minimum of three (3) grant application each year. The goal of this program would be to increase the amount of funding available for affordable housing projects, which require public subsidies to be built.

Timing dependent on
State HCD and other
departments

23. The City will retain a consultant to conduct a feasibility study on increasing the inclusionary housing requirement from 15 percent (5 percent very low, 5 percent low, and 5 percent moderate) to 20 percent (9 percent very low, 6 percent low, and 5 percent moderate).

The policy changes proposed to Planning Commission and City Council, if deemed feasible in the study, will include increasing the inclusionary requirement to 20 percent with corresponding updated in-lieu fee
By October 2024

24. The City will identify and analyze local funding options for affordable housing and monitor new funding and financing resources each year.

This program will also include using State and Federal funding received by the City to partner with nonprofit organizations (such as the ICLT), as the commitment of City funding can enhance the scoring of 100 percent affordable projects to secure important funding sources, such as low- income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) that have become highly competitive.

Annually

25. The City will identify and utilize State programs and/or potential public/private partnerships with major employers to acquire existing market rate housing units or develop new housing units to create moderate or workforce housing (available to households with incomes at 80 percent to 120 percent of AMI)
Ongoing

26. The City will follow all requirements of the Surplus Land Act, Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, including holding a public hearing designating the properties as “surplus properties” under California Law. The City will also conduct an analysis to determine, based on market conditions, if selling or leasing the properties would maximize the development of affordable units. The City will then send a Notice of Availability to all required parties regarding the availability of County-owned land available for purchase or lease. It is the City’s intent to facilitate the Surplus Land Act
activities to be
completed by October
2024 and Notice of
Availability by
December 2025
1092
Orange County 232 25-29 Regional AFH
development of 100 percent affordable housing projects on vacant or underutilized City- owned sites. The City will also coordinate with the public entities that own a site (or sites) to ensure that the legally mandated surplus property process is followed

27. The City seeks to continue to strengthen its relationship with the ICLT to collaborate and partner on efficiently and effectively maximizing affordable housing opportunities.

As opportunities arise
for acquisition,
development, and
legislative initiatives
the City will work with
ICLT. Additionally,
City will meet at least
quarterly with ICLT
starting in November
2021 to coordinate
efforts. City will
document progress
on these items in its
Annual Progress
Report.

28. The City will coordinate with public agencies to facilitate the development of affordable housing projects on vacant and underutilized sites, including sites owned by the County of Orange, the State, and the Irvine Ranch Water District. Activities could include collaboration with public agencies on master-planning and disposition efforts for large vacant and underutilized sites.

Coordination with
County of Orange, the
State, and the Irvine
Ranch Water District
and any other
relevant public
agencies in
connection with the
Land Use Element
Update and Zoning
Ordinance
amendment from
2022
through October 2024

29. The City’s Land Use Element allows for the entitlement of affordable housing units beyond the maximum unit counts established in the Zoning Ordinance, thus considered additive to the General Plan intensity thresholds, which allows additional units to be developed under the City’s established land use designations.

As development
projects are proposed
(timing dependent on
development
community).

30. The City will amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance By October 2024

31. Encourage and incentivize ADUs through various programs By January 2023 1093
Orange County 233 25-29 Regional AFH

32. Encourage innovative design prototypes and/or construction, such as smaller units with increased energy efficiency (i.e., sustainable designs and operations), modular units or other innovative building types
On an ongoing basis

33. Streamline permitting to encourage a diverse housing stock On an ongoing basis

34. The City will make appropriate zoning changes as part of the General Plan - Land Use Element Update and Zoning Ordinance Amendment to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance in compliance with State law changes related to parking, by right uses, and other requirements.

By October 2024.

35. The City will work with UCI to draft agreement regarding approving, permitting, certifying occupancy, and/or reporting new units to the California State Department of Finance (DOF).

By January 2022 and
ongoing tracking.

36. The Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to extremely low and very low-income households, including families, seniors, farmworkers, and the disabled.

Ongoing

37. The City will study the benefits associated with creating an Irvine Housing Authority with the ability to allocate Federal Housing Choice Vouchers
By January 2023

38. The City will analyze incentives to encourage affordable housing developers to consider extending the terms of affordability in perpetuity
By January 2023

39. The City will monitor legislative changes to ensure that City policies and regulations comply with State and Federal laws
Annually

40. The goal of this program is to ensure that fees (both the dollar amount and timing), incentives, development standards/review processes do not constrain the development of housing units or render housing development infeasible
Annually

41. The City will develop and establish specific written procedures for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation for housing for persons with disabilities.
6/30/2023

42. The City will update the Zoning Ordinance and related policies pertaining to emergency shelters, Low- Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNCs), transitional and supportive housing, and group care facilities to conform to State requirements, as established by AB 139, AB 2162, and Senate Bill 48. Generally, this update would allow these land uses in all of the City’s residential zones and with fewer conditions.

Completed by
October 2024
1094
Orange County 234 25-29 Regional AFH

43. Any funding sources have specific eligibility criteria or other requirements that may not always align with potential projects in Irvine. The City will pursue relevant State and Federal funding sources to provide additional options for developers of lower-income housing that serve veterans, individual, and families at-risk of and currently experiencing homelessness in the City. The City will ensure that such housing options will include reasonable accommodations and transitional and supportive services for people with disabilities.

Ongoing as funding is
released and
available.

44. The City will explore the feasibility of joining the Orange County Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT), a joint power authority composed of many Orange County cities.

Explore by October
2023

45. The City will ensure that housing options will include reasonable accommodations and supportive services for people with
disabilities.

Explore by October
2023

46. The City will continue to make information about services for people experiencing homelessness available on the City’s website and at City facilities.

Ongoing

47. The City will continue to provide resources for non-profits that provide transitional housing, motel vouchers, food pantry, emergency rent and utility payment assistance, life-skills counseling and clothing.

Ongoing

48. The City will continue to provide CDBG grant funding to non-profits such as Families Forward, South County Outreach, Human Options, and Stand Up for Kids that provide these services. Information on these resources is included in the City’s Affordable Housing Guide and the City’s website.

Ongoing

49. The City will explore establishing a crisis response protocol for local service providers to render rapid crisis support, including after-hour services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

By October 2022

50. The City will reach out to other California cities currently implementing shared housing programs that help match individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness and seniors for a mutually beneficial living situation. Individuals in need of housing can provide needed physical assistance around the home for seniors.

Explore by October
2024

51. Compile a list of local organizations and reach out to inquire about possible collaborations. This will help the City cooperate with community-based organizations that provide services or information about services to any special needs or linguistically isolated groups.

Ongoing
1095
Orange County 235 25-29 Regional AFH

52. The City’s primary (and very effective) effort in displacement prevention is facilitating the development of affordable housing in the community, as referenced in the AFFH section of this HEU.

Displacement prevention activities will also include connecting residents to resources to minimize the displacement of households with lower incomes and special needs whenever possible and where necessary to ensure that displacement is carried out in an equitable manner.

Ongoing

53. The City will participate in the Orange County United Way’s Eviction Task Force and associated study. This work includes identifying and coordinating community resources to support households facing eviction.

Ongoing

54. The City will provide a link on its website to landlord/tenant meditation services and landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities, which may include information from service providers such as the Fair Housing Foundation. The City will also add information on the City’s website and provide resources on non-profits such as Community Legal Aid SoCal and the Legal Aid Society of OC.

Annual

55. The City will encourage homeownership through education, sharing information, and links to existing nonprofit, County, State, and Federal resources on the City’s website
Ongoing basis and
updated annually for
accuracy

56. This existing program provides financial assistance to lower-income Irvine homeowners for critical home improvement projects.

Ongoing basis and
updated annually for
accuracy

57. The City will update its Land Use Element and amend the Zoning Ordinance
Ordinance by October
2024

58. The City will continue implementation of its One Irvine program to revitalize individual neighborhoods through a work program uniquely developed with community input for each neighborhood.

By January 2023.

59. The City will reach out to community organizations and collaborate with them on outreach to different communities
By January 2023.

60. The City will provide links to Fair Housing Foundation (a nonprofit the City currently contracts with) to provide Irvine residents with information regarding fair housing law, tenant and landlord rights (including information on mediation services)
Within six months of
Housing Element
certification.

61. Compile a list of local organizations and set up an annual meeting or meetings to discuss community housing needs and potential solutions. Cooperate with community-based organizations that Within six months of
Housing Element
certification.
1096
Orange County 236 25-29 Regional AFH
provide services or information about services to any special needs and linguistically isolated groups.

Meet annually with
identified
organizations starting
in fiscal year 2022- 23
(meetings will be
conducted by June 30
of each year).

62. The City will connect developers of projects with affordable density bonus units and local non-profits/community organizations to coordinate efforts and determine if the units could be set aside, where feasible, for special groups including but not limited to veterans and special need adults.

Within three months
of a density bonus
project application.

63. The City will provide translations or interpretation in all applicable languages to ensure access to programs, services, and materials Ongoing

64. The City will conduct an internal audit at a minimum of every other year to evaluate that we are addressing all language needs for the City.

Annually or as
needed

65. The City is in the process and has taken several steps to identify climate impacts, reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and prepare for a climate resilient future
Completed by
December 31, 2022

66. Continuing to require added greenery throughout the City to reduce exposure to environmental pollution such as vehicle emissions through the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Section 3-15-4)
Annually

67. Irvine Cool City Challenge will reduce climate emissions and utility bills while building resiliency and local emergency preparedness against climate disasters such as extreme heat, floods, wildfires, and extreme storm events.

The Cool Block
Challenge was
initiated in January
2022 and will be 2
years in length. There
will be a new team
established roughly
every 4.5-5 months. In
year 3 of the Cool City
Challenge, the City
will present a game
plan to the
Empowerment
Institute. After that,
the City will work to
implement the carbon
1097
Orange County 237 25-29 Regional AFH
neutrality plan.

68. Provide adequate parks and open space to all parts of the community, the City will prepare a comprehensive design strategy to include passive urban park setting for every project and include other placemaking strategies. This program, as implemented, will reduce unsustainable energy use, reduce pollutants, improve air quality, reduce extreme heat events and improve the health outcomes of residents, employees and others in the community.

By December 2024.

69. The City will contact the Irvine Unified School District to inquire about expanding access to enrollment in the district’s schools for residents that may not be within the district’s boundaries
Within six months of
Housing Element
certification.

70. The City will conduct a bi-annual survey of homeowners to obtain input on existing programs and to identify additional ways to support the City’s homeowners and their unique needs
At least one survey
every two years

71. The City shall strengthen its relationship with the local fair housing provider and explore ways to expand services and mutually pursue additional funding resources for that expansion.

Ongoing with check in
meeting one time per
year
1098
Orange County 238 25-29 Regional AFH
K. La Habra
Issue: Segregation
There are various neighborhoods considered to have high POC segregation, including neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho St to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. Publicly supported housing units are in the city’s center and north neighborhoods, which are all lowmedium or high POC segregation areas.

Contributing Factors:

1. Zoning Code regulations and land use controls that constrain/ restrict housing opportunities.

2. Historic limited available land for new development of multiple- family housing.

3. General lack of affordable housing for low-and moderate-income residents.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase production of affordable housing through the following actions:

1. Adopt streamlined ministerial approval process to expedite the development of housing.

2. Revise density bonus ordinance and remove CUP requirement to facilitate higher density housing.

3. Remove 1-acre minimum for mixed use projects and 20% standard for multiple-family on a block.

4. Adopt objective design standards to facilitate multi-family and mixed-use production.

5. Remove the CUP neighborhood compatibility finding in the design review process.

6. Adjust story height and parking requirement to facilitate multiple-family housing production.

7. Allow transitional, supportive housing, and low barrier navigation centers in accordance with state law.

8. Allow residential care facilities req. by state law and remove filing fee for reasonable acc. request.

Adopt 8 ordinances by
2024. By 2025, approval of
at least 2 multiple-family
residential projects and
permitting of at least 2 care
facilities.
1099
Orange County 239 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Neighborhoods in the city’s center and southeast of the center have poor environmental quality, low education scores, and low economic scores. These neighborhoods are also predominantly Hispanic.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lower ranking schools compared to wealthier districts in the County.

2. Lower graduation rate among Hispanics and other groups compared to County results.

3. Lower incomes due to either under- employment and or unemployment.

4. Need to continue investments in the children and youth of La Habra.

Actions: Timeframe:

Improve access to opportunities in low resource areas through the following actions:

1. Operate the Child Development Division programs and assist up to 600 La Habra children from lower-income families
Ongoing

2. Administer City workforce training and employment programs for 600 participants in the County; increase staff fourfold
Ongoing

3. Continue to support La Habra Boys and Girls Club, serving 3,000 La Habra residents each year
Ongoing

4. Continue to work with housing, employment, and community service partners, as needed, evaluate, and expand partnerships and resources Quarterly or as
needed

5. Retrofit two parks or recreation facilities (e.g., El-Centro-Lions, Vista) in low-mod resource areas in central La Habra
By end of 2025

6. Remediate landfill hazards with vapor devices underneath the Vista Grande Park
Ongoing

7. Continue to support the children’s museum, accommodating nearly 95,000 visits each year
Ongoing

8. Update safety element to address climate change, EJ, and resiliency; implement programs to address hazards
By June 2023

9. Operate the Hillcrest Health and Wellness Center to serve residents in need, including Central La Habra
Ongoing

10. Ensure 25% Love La Habra projects in Central La Habra Complete NTMP projects in K, M, F Neighborhoods
Annually

11. Expend $2.5 million to install East Bishop storm drain By end of 2024

12. Apply for SR2S grants citywide for all schools; if received, develop plan, make improvements during planning period
By 2029

13. Market services to eligible lower income residents through affirmative marketing at Hillcrest Center
By end of 2023
1100
Orange County 240 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in La Habra. More than 10% of homes have incomplete kitchen facilities in one Census Tract in the north central part of the city.

Contributing Factors:

1. High levels of overcrowding and overpayment; mismatch with housing needs.

2. Rising prices and rents for housing far exceed recent increases in incomes.

3. Several affordable housing projects remain at risk of conversion.

4. Age of housing stock; most homes were built more than 50 years ago.

5. Housing rehabilitation and repairs are expensive, especially for retirees.

6. Limited staff for building/ code compliance make it difficult to address needs.

Actions: Timeframe:

Reduce housing instability through the following
actions:

1. Encourage ADUs, including 20% in higher
resource areas through annual publication
citywide.

Permit 30 ADUs; 20% in high resource
areas by the end of 2022

2. Support and advertise HCV program to increase
participants.

Ongoing

3. Assist up to 200 lower-income households over
the planning period with ARPA-funded bill
assistance.

Assist 200 households by the end of
2023.

4. Retain affordability and condition of mobile home
parks and deed-restricted apartments affordable to
lower income households.

Preserve affordability of 50% of units in
the two city-owned mobile home parks
between 2021-2029.

5. Require replacement units per Gov’t Code 65915
for lower income units demolished.

Ongoing, as projects are proposed

6. Implement inclusionary housing ordinance and
prioritize funding (fees) for affordable housing.

Develop all 100 inclusionary units, 25%
of which are in highest income tracts,
between 2021-2029.

7. Target affirmative marketing in low resource areas
at the Hillcrest Center, Boys & Girls Club, and
others.

Prepare and distribute fliers on City
programs by 2023.

Improve quality of existing housing through the
following actions:

8. Hold regular Love La Habra events to assist
income- qualified residents with home repairs
Annually in September
1101
Orange County 241 25-29 Regional AFH

9. Hire additional code enforcement staff to address
backlog and provide capacity for proactive work
By end of 2023

10. Purchase Land Management System (LMS) to
track code compliance, building and planning
permits
By end of 2023

11. Issue housing rehabilitation grants/loans for 25
households over the planning period
Make 3 grants per year

12. Evaluate feasibility of rental housing inspection
program and, if feasible, develop program
By end of 2023

13. Seek collaborative partnership which can assist in
addressing local housing rehabilitation needs
Annually

14. Target affirmative marketing in low resource areas
at the Hillcrest Center, Boys & Girls Club, and
others
By end of 2023
1102
Orange County 242 25-29 Regional AFH
L. Laguna Niguel
Issue: Concentration
Most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northeastern and eastern parts of the city.

Contributing Factors:

1. Historical land use development patterns and zoning, environmental constraints, and lack of vacant land limit opportunities for larger and higher density project types.

2. Current high cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.

3. Lack of affordable housing and need for greater access to opportunities.

4. Regional coordination affects transit services, funding sources, and allocation of housing resources including vouchers.

5. Community resistance to development.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase fair housing knowledge through the following actions:

1. Promote Fair Housing Council programs and expand knowledge of first-time homebuyer programs on the City’s website, newsletters, and through social media.

By December 2025,
review annually
thereafter

2. Promote affirmative marketing plans in all new housing developments that are designed to attract renters and buyers of diverse demographic backgrounds, including race, ethnicity, income, disability, and familial status.

Ongoing

3. Develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant rights regarding just cause evictions, limitations on rent increases, and replacement housing requirements if any existing residential units would be removed, based on state law.

By December 2025
Increase housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the following actions:

4. Incentivize multi-family and mixed- use development in the Gateway Specific Plan area (northeast portion of city) through the following actions:
a. Amend the Gateway Specific Plan to mandate that any public benefit provided to achieve a density of higher than 50 du/ac shall include a provision of affordable housing, and to encourage the production of workforce housing and missing middle housing.

By July 2025
1103
Orange County 243 25-29 Regional AFH
b. Allocate CDBG or other available funding assistance to projects in the Gateway Specific Plan area that include multi-family units targeted for extremely-low-income households, as feasible.

Annually
c. Provide administrative assistance to affordable housing developers in preparing grant applications.

Ongoing
d. Post and maintain a current inventory of vacant sites in the Gateway Specific Plan area suitable for multi-family residential or mixed-use development on the City website.

Ongoing
e. Contact local developers and publicize development
opportunities within the Gateway Specific Plan area at least once each year.

Annually
f. Assist in facilitating subdivision of large parcels where necessary to create building sites through concurrent
processing and project coordination.

Ongoing

5. Contact the property owners of vacant properties to assist development of the site for residential purposes.

Annually

6. Continue to implement state Density Bonus Law as amended from time to time.

Ongoing

7. Engage and assist developers seeking funding and/or tax credits for the construction of low- and moderate-income housing.

Annually

8. Incentivize affordable housing development through modified development standards, expedited processing, or other financial incentives for affordable housing projects.

Ongoing

9. Provide administrative assistance to developers of low- or moderateincome projects.Ongoing

10. Promote options for assistance to developers on the City website. Ongoing

11. Prioritize funding assistance for Extremely Low-Income units. Ongoing

12. Review City-owned properties annually to identify any surplus land that could be made available for affordable housing development and distribute list of suitable sites to regional affordable housing developers.

Annually

13. Work cooperatively with the County of Orange and other local cities to create a regional housing bond program to help fund affordable housing and permanent supportive housing.

Ongoing,
consultation with
County at least
annually
1104
Orange County 244 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Contributing Factors:

1. Insufficient fair housing monitoring and limited outreach capacity

2. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations

3. Limited understanding of fair housing laws
Actions: Timeframe:

Improve fair housing education and outreach through the following actions:

1. Direct fair housing inquiries to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC).

Ongoing

2. Post and update information annually regarding fair housing and request that FHCOC conduct a presentation every two years about the services available.

Annually

3. In cooperation with the FHCOC, contact all low-income apartment complexes annually to provide education and materials about the Section 8 program, including multi- lingual materials.

By July 2025 and
annually thereafter

4. Publish and update fair housing information on the City website and via social media annually.

Annually
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Laguna Niguel.

Contributing Factors:

1. Historical land use development patterns and zoning, environmental constraints, and lack of vacant land limit opportunities for larger and higher density project types.

2. Current high cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.

3. Lack of affordable housing and need for greater access to opportunities.

4. Community resistance to development.

5. Regional coordination affects transit services, funding sources, and allocation of housing resources including vouchers.

6. Age of housing stock.

7. Cost of repairs/rehabilitation.

Actions: Timeframe:

Encourage the development of ADUs and SB 9 units through the following actions:
1105
Orange County 245 25-29 Regional AFH

1. Monitor the production and affordability of ADUs every three years to ensure the City is meeting ADU production targets and act if projections are not consistent.

Perform review in
December 2026

2. Conduct increased outreach and education on ADU and SB 9 unit/lot split opportunities.

Ongoing

3. Continue to promote ADUs on the City’s website, social media, and at City offices.

Ongoing

4. Promote SB 9 units and lot splits on the City’s website, social media, and at City offices.

Ongoing

5. Expedite ADU permit processing. Ongoing
Provide support to individuals experiencing homelessness through the following actions:

6. Participate in meetings of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force as they occur
Ongoing

7. Allocate an appropriate level of CDBG funding in relation to the local need.

Annually

8. Explore and consider Project Homekey and opportunities to work with the County.

Ongoing

9. Assist applicants proposing permanent or interim supportive housing by helping to apply for funding.

Ongoing
Expand the use of Housing Choice Vouchers through the following actions:

10. Contact all low-income apartment complexes annually to provide education and materials about the Section 8 program including multilingual materials.

By July 2025 and annually
thereafter

11. Encourage the development of missing middle housing types and evaluate specific methods to encourage their production in RCAAs, areas of higher density, and in the central areas of the City.

Between 2021-2029,
facilitate 80 “missing
middle” units, with at least
20% located in targeted
areas, including RCAAs,
higher density areas,
central areas of the City.

Preserve existing affordable housing units and prevent
displacement through the following actions:

12. Monitor assisted units to assess the risk of conversion to market rate.

Annually
1106
Orange County 246 25-29 Regional AFH

13. Offer financial incentives to encourage owners of at-risk properties to maintain their rental units as affordable housing.

Three-year, twelve-month,
and six-month
coordination with at-risk
property owners and
OCHCS.

14. Allocate a portion of CDBG funds to assist in extending affordability covenants for at-risk units.

Annually

15. Provide educational materials to tenants of properties with expiring covenants regarding options for securing other affordable housing.

Ongoing

16. Continue the City’s active property maintenance program run by the Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development Department.

Conduct windshield
surveys covering all
properties in the City every
six months.

17. Seek CDBG funding for housing rehabilitation. Facilitate rehabilitation of 15 housing units between
2021-2029.

18. Survey older areas of the City and connect property owners to rehabilitation programs.

Six property owner
contacts per year.
1107
Orange County 247 25-29 Regional AFH
M. Lake Forest
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
While residents overall have relatively good access to opportunities, compared to the region, residents living below the FPL in the city generally have less access to opportunities than the rest of the population.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of opportunity due to high housing costs.

2. Lack of access to public transportation.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase housing supply in high opportunity areas through the following actions:

1. Implement Program 1: Land Use Policy, Entitlements, and Development Capacity (Shortfall Program), to rezone sites to accommodate new residential and mixed-use
development at densities consistent with the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2020) to meet the City’s RHNA at all
income levels.

2. Implement Program 2: Monitor Residential Capacity (No Net Loss), to ensure that replacement sites identified to continue to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA
throughout the planning period are consistent with the
City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

3. On an ongoing basis, actively recruit residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to serve or
participate on boards, committees, and other local
government bodies as positions are made available due to the regular appointment process or vacancies.

Between 2021-2029, the City’s
goal is to promote the
development of 1,648 new
units (including 303 lower
income units and 167 moderate
income units, consistent with
the City’s Quantified Objectives
for 2021-2029) with 75% of the
new units located in areas of
moderate or high opportunity;
rezone 158 acres to allow for
the development of up to 2,965
multifamily units, with 75% of
the units located in areas of
moderate or high opportunity;
and increase the number of
applications from residents
living in low or moderate
resource areas for open Board
and Commission positions by
20%.

Preserve existing affordable housing opportunities and prevent displacement through the following actions:

4. Implement Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units, to ensure that affordable units that are removed from the
City’s housing stock are replaced in accordance with state law.

5. Implement Program 5: Facilitate Affordable and Special Needs Housing Construction, to encourage the
development of housing units to serve the needs of larger Between 2021-2029, the City’s
goal will be to maintain at least
202 affordable housing units in
the City; increase the
proportion of new multifamily
units that are 3 or more
bedrooms by 10%; promote the
develop of 70 new extremely
low income housing units
(consistent with the City’s
Quantified Objectives for 2021-
1108
Orange County 248 25-29 Regional AFH
households, including large extremely low-income
households.

6. Implement Program 23: Economic Displacement Risk
Analysis, to proactively identify potential issues related to economic displacement as a result of new development.
2029); and commit $70,500 to
implement programs and
improvements serving the
Southwest Lake Forest
neighborhood with a focus on
programs and improvements
that protect existing residents
from displacement.

Increase access to opportunities for individuals with disabilities through the following actions:

7. Implement Program 1: Land Use Policy, Entitlements, and Development Capacity (Shortfall Program), to rezone sites adjacent to transit corridors and activity centers to allow for higher density residential development, suitable for
affordable and special needs housing, including new
opportunities for individuals with disabilities.

8. Implement Program 5: Facilitate Affordable and Special Needs Housing Construction, whereby the City will
proactively reach out to developers of housing for special needs populations to share details about special needs
groups in Lake Forest and promote the development of
housing for special needs groups in areas of moderate and high levels of opportunity.

9. Implement Program 6: Monitor and Implement Changes in federal and state Housing, Planning, and Zoning Laws to proactively identify changes in federal and/or state
regulations required to be implemented at the local level to improve access to opportunity for individuals with
disabilities.

Between 2021-2029, the City’s
goal will be to rezone 158 acres
to accommodate the
development of up to 2,965
new units with a focus to
promote the development of
units affordable to lower
income households in areas of
moderate or high opportunity;
increase the number of local
individuals with disabilities
taking transit by 10% by
encouraging the development
of new housing for individuals
with disabilities to be located
close to transit routes; increase
the proportion of new
multifamily units that are 3 or
more bedrooms by 10%; and
resolve 100% of reasonable
accommodation requests
consistent with the
requirements of state law.
1109
Orange County 249 25-29 Regional AFH
N. Mission Viejo
Issue: Concentration and Disproportionate Housing Needs Most of the city has a high concentration of White residents, although there are neighborhoods in the southern, northern, and western parts of the city where there's more diversity. Overall, residents have good access to opportunities, though getting around on public transit or finding affordable transportation can be a challenge. Additionally, data on fair housing complaints shows that people with disabilities often face challenges when it comes to housing. Renters across Orange County, including in Mission Viejo, are also struggling with housing costs.

Contributing Factors:

1. Limited affordable housing overall due to land use designations and zoning regulations.

2. Limited availability of affordable units in a range of sizes and types.

3. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.

4. Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive needs.

5. Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for individuals with disabilities.

6. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods.

7. Housing discrimination in the private market.

Actions: Timeframe:

Increase housing opportunities through the following actions:

1. Proactively outreach to developers about development opportunities.

Annually

2. Actively market Site 3 and reach conclusion regarding the importation of dirt to be able to deliver a Pad-ready site to potential developers.

By July 2026

3. For Site 3 development, establish a priority processing procedure, with fee waivers and grant other incentives and concessions as appropriate, including the need and
applicability for CDBG Funding.

By July 2026

4. Conduct an outreach and education program regarding SB 4 opportunities for religious facilities and nonprofit colleges.

By December 2025

5. Promote funding available from Orange County Housing Finance Trust’s Affordable ADU Loan Program.

Annually

6. Apply for funding available at the state to assist lower and moderate-income homeowners to develop ADUs.

Annually

7. Prioritize funding for projects that set aside units for special needs populations and those with extremely low incomes.

Annually
1110
Orange County 250 25-29 Regional AFH

8. Assist OCHA, FHF, and United Way in promoting the HCV program
Hold promotional workshops
annually.

9. Study and pursue a home sharing program Establish program in 2025 and begin implementation in 2026.

Improve conditions in neighborhoods through the following actions:

10. Assess and expand MV Shuttle services and Safe Routes to School program to serve new developments and
underserved neighborhoods.

Assess transit services at least
every three years. Assess and
expand Safe Routes to School
program to align with new
developments.

11. Target outreach to two neighborhoods where there are issues of housing conditions.

Annually

12. Study and develop appropriate strategies for adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial properties.

By the end of 2026.

Preserve existing affordable housing units through the
following actions:

13. Monitor status of all affordable units. Annually
Increase fair housing education and enforcement through the following actions:

14. Provide fair housing and tenant/landlord dispute resolution services
Annually

15. Expand promotion of housing resources, including fair housing services, via a multi-media approach, such as
eNewsletter with circulation of 20,000, message boards, senior newsletter, and other social media outlets.

Annually
1111
Orange County 251 25-29 Regional AFH
O. Newport Beach
Issue: Segregation and Disparities in Access to Opportunity Residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities, however, all of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White and are classified as areas of high White segregation.

Homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County overall, except for AAPI households, who have slightly higher homeownership rate in the city. Housing cost burden is also an issue for renters in the city.

Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Contributing Factors:

1. High cost of housing and limited supply of affordable housing.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Adopt and codify accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
regulations that facilitate and incentivize ADU
development beyond state law minimum requirements,
create new housing development incentives and fee
waivers, and that provide for access into areas of high opportunity that contribute to the following community
development actions:
a. Increase residential development opportunities;
b. Maximize infill development in “built out”
neighborhoods; and
c. Increase affordable housing options.

2. Conduct two community workshops that will accomplish the following:
a. Identify local issues that are influencing access to opportunity;
b. Identify potential solutions to address those local
issues;
c. Identify opportunities to increase the housing
supply for all income levels; and
d. Establish economic development priorities to help
stimulate the creation of jobs and access to
services.

By June 2023, the City will adopt
revised ADU regulations. By
December 2023, the City will
conduct two community
workshops. The City will seek to
produce 20 to 30 ADUs per
calendar year within higher
resource areas.

3. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure lower income units are developed in conjunction with new
market-rate development equitably throughout the City
and higher resource Census Tracts.

By December 2026, the City will
aspire to have approved
between 750 and 1,000
affordable housing units or to
have collected a commensurate
in-lieu affordable housing fee for
1112
Orange County 252 25-29 Regional AFH
use to subsidize future
affordable housing projects.

4. Maintain and promote the City’s Business Ambassador
Program to residents to support local businesses and
entrepreneurship.

5. Target outreach to two low-access Census Tracts via
mailers or by other means including social media to
provide website information about local entrepreneurship and educational opportunities.

The City will improve upon its
existing Business Ambassador
Program and will seek to assist
at least 35-45 individuals
annually with establishing their
own business opportunities.

The Business Ambassador
Program will be advertised
within the lower-opportunity
Census Tracts with a goal of
reaching at least 50% of the
households.

6. Continually update the City’s housing-related webpages to ensure current available data.

Starting 2023, the City will
annually review and update its
housing-related webpages.

7. Improve access to mortgage loans through the following actions:
a. Disseminate online information to the community
about home loans and the loan application and
approval process.
b. Conduct biannual affordable housing workshops
with invited guests from the local lending industry
and local affordable housing advocates.
c. Conduct annual report of loan dispositions in the
City and identify any trends or issues. Provide
findings to local lenders and financial institutions.

By June 2023, the City will
provide information to the
community about home loans
and the loan process. By
December 2023, the City will
conduct its first biannual
affordable housing workshop
with affordable housing lenders
and local affordable housing
advocates. The City will seek to
reach between 10,000 and
15,000 households with loan
information and will further seek
to reduce any occurrence of loan
disposition discrimination, if
found to be prevalent.
1113
Orange County 253 25-29 Regional AFH
P. Orange
Issue: Segregation and Disparities in Access to Opportunities Most of the city to the north and east of Villa Park is considered an area of high White segregation, and there are concentrations of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods west of Glassel Street.

Additionally, all publicly supported housing units and households with vouchers are located to the west and south of Villa Park. There are no publicly supported housing units or vouchers in use to the east of Villa Park, where it is a high White segregation area.

Geographically, the neighborhoods west of Glassel Street, have lower education and economic scores, and worse environmental quality. Conversely, neighborhoods to the north and east of Villa Park, have high education and economic scores, and good environmental quality. Related to this geographic distribution of opportunities, Hispanic and Black residents (especially Black residents living below the FPL) have relatively low access to neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.

Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of public investment in certain neighborhoods

2. Lack of sufficient affordable housing due, in part, to community opposition to affordable housing and land use and zoning regulations

3. Lack of fair housing knowledge
Actions: Timeframe:

Improve access to opportunity through the following actions:

1. The City will continue to utilize the Public Works and Community Services Departments for the as‐needed removal of graffiti and other deferred maintenance issues on public property, including sidewalks, parks, bus shelters signs and other structures adjacent to the public right‐of‐way, to enhance the quality of Orange’s residential neighborhoods.

Ongoing

2. Provide public information related to housing development and how the provision of affordable housing benefits the community.

Ongoing

3. The City will continue gathering community input on affordable housing, housing for special needs populations, and ADUs. The continued outreach will be City‐wide with a focus on traditionally under‐represented communities.

Ongoing

4. Continue to follow current state Density Bonus law. Ongoing

5. Update the Transitional Housing Ordinance that establishes guidelines and regulations for the development and operation of transitional housing in the city.
2025
1114
Orange County 254 25-29 Regional AFH

6. Prepare and adopt a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance that sets regulations for buildings designed for single room occupancy.
2025

7. Prepare and adopt a Residential Care Facility Ordinance that establishes regulations and standards for non-medical care facilities providing care to individual requiring assistance.
2025

8. Prepare and adopt a Farmworker and Employee Housing Ordinance that sets standards and regulations for housing provided to farmworkers by their employers.
2025

9. Adopt a program to subsidize application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80% AMI or lower when funding is available.

Ongoing

10. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing activities to the community.

Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in the City of Orange.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of sufficient affordable housing
Actions: Timeframe:

1. The City will assist in preserving at‐risk units by, but not limited to, supporting non‐profit applications for funding to purchase at‐risk units, work with property owners to maintain affordability and develop preservation strategies, and assist with funding when available.

Ongoing

2. The City will continue to seek qualified non‐profit organizations for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Funds will be available annually, contingent on funding availability.

Annually

3. The City will continue to encourage through outreach to private and non‐profit housing developers, the development of rental and for‐sale housing for larger (5 or more individuals) families. The City will support developers/builders that incorporate larger bedroom counts (3 or more bedrooms) to accommodate the needs of larger families and reduce incidents of overcrowding in the existing housing stock. The City will evaluate providing regulatory incentives such as density bonuses that encourage and support the development of housing for large families on a project‐by‐project basis.

Ongoing

4. The City will develop a program to subsidize application processing fees, when funding is available, for qualifying developments where all units affordable to 80% AMI or lower. The City will also promote the benefits of this program to the Ongoing
1115
Orange County 255 25-29 Regional AFH
development community by posting information on its webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications. 1116
Orange County 256 25-29 Regional AFH
Q. Rancho Santa Margarita
Issue: Concentration
Most of the City’s population is predominantly White, with greater diversity in the neighborhoods east of SR-241. There are no publicly supported housing units. Some vouchers are in use in the northeast part of the city, which is a low-medium concentration area.

Contributing Factors:

1. Location and type of affordable housing available

2. Land use and zoning laws that limit affordable housing development

3. Limited resources for fair housing agencies and organizations.

4. Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Continue to serve as a liaison between the public and appropriate agencies in matters concerning housing discrimination within the City.

Ongoing

2. Provide annual fair housing literature to schools, libraries, and post offices.

Make information available via the City’s fair housing service provider. Review annually to ensure that the posters and literature being provided are up to date.

Annually

3. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct biennial landlord education campaign to educate property owners about state law prohibiting discrimination based on household income. Provide public information and brochures regarding fair housing/equal housing opportunity requirements, including how to file a complaint and access the investigation and enforcement activities of the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission. Make said information available on the City’s website and at City Hall. Review information annually to ensure that any materials, links, and information provided are current.

Biennial
campaigns;
annual
review of
information
on website

4. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration policies by providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.

Ongoing

5. Monitor FBI data annually to determine if any hate crimes are housing-related and if the City’s fair housing service provider can take action to address potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes.

Annually
1117
Orange County 257 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities, except for access to transit.

Homeownership rates in the city are higher for all groups when compared to the County.

However, Hispanic households have the lowest homeownership rate, and it is 20 percentage points lower than the AAPI homeownership rate, which is the highest rate in the city.

Contributing Factors:

1. Location of employers

2. Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation

3. Location and type of affordable housing available
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Request the Orange County Transportation Authority explore bus route options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or protected class populations have access to transportation services.

Ongoing

2. Update the City’s Circulation element to better facilitate multimodal transportation to/from the lower opportunity Census Tracts to goods and services.

By mid-March
2025.

3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide community education regarding transport services for individuals with disabilities.

Ongoing
1118
Orange County 258 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Rancho Santa Margarita.

Contributing Factors:

1. Economic displacement

2. Environmental hazards such as wildland fires and the interface with urban areas Actions: Timeframe:

1. Support local eviction prevention strategies
to reduce the number of homeless
individuals and families (homelessness
prevention services).

Annually

2. Update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan by December 2024 to ensure
community resiliency from hazards.

By mid-2025

3. Conduct outreach to landlords and support
OCHA’s mobility counseling program to
increase Housing Choice Vouchers in the
city.

Increase Housing Choice Vouchers through the
Orange County Housing Authority by 5%
between 2021-2029.
1119
Orange County 259 25-29 Regional AFH
R. San Clemente
Issue: Concentration, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs The majority of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for one Census Tract encompassing neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as low-medium concentration. There is a cluster of publicly supported housing units in this lowmedium concentration area.

Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities may disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in San Clemente.

Contributing Factors:

1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes, the location and type of affordable housing, and an overall shortage of subsidized housing units

2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures

3. Cost of repairs or rehabilitation

4. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family housing

5. Lack of fair housing education and outreach
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Annually promote equal access to fair housing information for all residents. Expand outreach methods beyond traditional media (newspaper or City website) to include other social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Focus fair housing outreach efforts in the area along the western side of Interstate 5 where racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households are concentrated.

Annually, with the goal to
increase distribution of
information by 20%
between 2021-2029

2. Continue to work under contract with the Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) and/or other qualified fair housing service providers to provide fair housing services for all segments of the community.

Serve at least 50
households each year.

Annually evaluate and
adjust the scope of services
to ensure the City address
any emerging trends in fair
housing issues.

3. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, provide outreach and education to landlords and tenants regarding the state’s new source of income protection (SB 329 and SB 229) that recognizes public assistance such as Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and Veterans Assistance Supportive Housing (VASH) as legitimate source of income for rent
Conduct outreach and
education annually;
increase vouchers from
Orange County Housing
Authority by 10% between
2021-2029.
1120
Orange County 260 25-29 Regional AFH
payments. Specifically, provide fair housing responsibility to new ADU applicants.

4. Help non-profits acquire and convert market-rate housing to affordable housing
Ongoing

5. Work to preserve the City’s affordable housing inventory Ongoing

6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility among residents of all races and ethnicities by facilitating affordable housing throughout the community through the following actions:

Goal of creating 446
affordable units for lower
income households
between 2021 and 2029
a. Promote by-right approvals to facilitate at least one new multi-family housing project with at least 20% of units for lower income households
2021-2029
b. Promote Lot Consolidation program and incentives to
at least three developers.
2021-2029
c. Implement the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay to
facilitate at least one new multi-family housing project 2021-2029
d. Promote the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program to
facilitate at least one multi-family housing project with units affordable for lower income households
2021-2029

7. Provide rehabilitation financing assistance through the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and advertise this
program to the western and southern areas of the City with older housing units and overpaying households.

Assist at least two
homeowners per year

8. Increase public outreach to at least once a year and encourage residents to learn about available housing programs.

Annually

9. Through the City’s fair housing service provider (FHF) increase materials distribution by 25% through the following actions:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to
apartment managers and homeowner associations on
why denial of reasonable modifications/
accommodations is unlawful through fair housing
service contract at least once a year.

Annually
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach at least once a year to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies.

Methods of outreach may include workshops,
informational booths, presentations to community
Annually
1121
Orange County 261 25-29 Regional AFH
groups, and distribution of multilingual fair housing
literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referral services to address tenant landlord issues and
investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination
and take appropriate actions to reconcile cases or refer to appropriate authorities.

Ongoing
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online
media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory
housing advertisements.

Annually
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair housing provider.

Ongoing
1122
Orange County 262 25-29 Regional AFH
S. Santa Ana
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents, and between AAPI and White. The majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly Hispanic population except for the Riverview West community which is predominantly AAPI. There are lots of publicly supported housing units downtown and southeast of downtown, which are high POC segregation areas. There is a higher concentration of vouchers, as well as some publicly supported housing units, west of the Santa Ana River, which is also a high POC segregation area.

There is a R/ECAP covering multiple Census Tracts in the downtown area. These tracts are predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of fair housing education and outreach

2. Lack of affordable housing
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Ensure all City programs and activities relating to housing and community development are administered in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Ongoing

2. Hold annual small apartment managers’ workshop to train and educate property owners, HOAs, property managers, and tenants about best practices in property management, neighborhood safety, and landlord/tenant responsibilities.

Annually

3. Periodically prepare the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice to identify, remove, and/or mitigate potential impediments to fair housing in Santa Ana.

Every 5 years

4. Partner with legal assistance organizations to provide legal clinics for tenants on tenants’ rights and recourse for intimidation and unjust evictions.

Annually
1123
Orange County 263 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.

Geographically, neighborhoods downtown, west of downtown, and southeast of downtown have low economic scores, low education scores, high poverty rates, and poor environmental quality.

Neighborhoods in the north and south of the city have better economic and education scores.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing

2. Lack of public investment in low opportunity areas
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Publish preapproved ADU plans and publicize ADU program through dedicated web page in various languages to facilitate ADU construction.

Facilitate
construction of
723 ADUs
between 2021-
2029

2. Enforce the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, known as the Affordable Housing Opportunity & Creation Ordinance (AHOCO), to require eligible housing development projects of five or more units, including condominium conversions, to include at least 15 percent of the units as affordable to low-income households; or 10 percent of the units affordable to very low-income households; or 5 percent to extremely lowincome households; or a minimum of 10 percent available affordable households with five (5)5 percent to low- income, 3 percent to very lowincome, and 2 percent to extremely low-income households, for rental housing. Require 5 percent of the units as affordable to moderate-income households for for-sale housing.

Ongoing

3. Establish guidelines as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update for new housing development projects to include a variety of unit sizes, including units for large families, that are affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income families.

By December 2025

4. Annually monitor the status of at-risk housing projects, specifically the Warwick Square, Highland Manor, and other projects that may come due.

Contact owners of properties at risk of conversion within one year of expiration to discuss City’s desire to preserve projects as affordable housing.

Annually

5. Assist low-income households with down payment assistance loans of up to $120,000 and moderate-income households with loans of up to $80,000.

Annually
1124
Orange County 264 25-29 Regional AFH

6. Create, assist, and support neighborhood associations, especially in R/ECAP and TCAC Census Tracts, to collaborate on projects and sponsor and hold annual events.

Annually

7. Complete infrastructure improvements in residential neighborhoods consistent with the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Ongoing

8. Through the City’s RFP process for Affordable Housing Development (see program 2), facilitate and encourage the development in the Transit Zoning Code plan area of varied housing types at a mix of affordability levels, including for lower income households using appropriate incentives, such as awarding bonus points to developers whose projects provide at least 75% or more for the units for extremely low-income families at 30% Area Median Income.

Annually
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Santa Ana.

Additionally, more than 20% of housing units are overcrowded in most of the city’s neighborhoods.

Contributing Factors:

1. High cost of housing in the private market

2. High cost of housing repairs/rehabilitation
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Implement the City’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance for tenants facing housing instability, including ongoing outreach and education, a program monitor system, and a schedule of penalties that may be imposed for noncompliance. Provide tenant protections beyond state mandates.

Annually

2. Provide housing assistance payments to eligible households participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program and adhere to policies and procedures in the federal regulations and the Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Plan. Administer 100 percent of the funding provided to the Housing Authority annually for eligible households. This includes Special Purpose Vouchers including the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program; Mainstream Voucher Program; Foster Youth to Independence Program; and Emergency Housing Voucher Program. The objectives are to:
1) Utilize 100 percent of the Annual Budget Authority provided by HUD for each CY; 2) Apply for new funding opportunities for additional vouchers; 3) Retain High Performer SEMAP status; 4) Communicate on a regular basis with active landlords by providing information on key program updates.

Ongoing
1125
Orange County 265 25-29 Regional AFH

3. Contract with a local nonprofit organization (currently Habitat for Humanity) to implement the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program. Provide grants for the repair and rehabilitation of single-family and mobile homes, prioritizing applicants in R/ECAP and TCAC Census Tracts and low-income households.

Annually

4. Enhance local preferences program for residents working and living in Santa Ana who are seeking affordable housing. Explore a right-of-first-refusal ordinance for mobile home parks and publicly supported multifamily residential properties to minimize tenant displacement and preserve affordable housing stock. Evaluate and pursue collective ownership models for mobile home parks as a tool to prevent displacement.

Ongoing
1126
Orange County 266 25-29 Regional AFH
T. Tustin
Issue: Segregation
There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents. There is a concentration of publicly supported housing units in the south, in neighborhoods that are predominantly AAPI.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing opportunities.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Engage linguistically isolated communities by translating official City announcements (i.e., community meeting, hearings, etc.) to Spanish and disseminating printed copies of information to renters, property owners, and via social media, to expand knowledge of affordable housing options in High Opportunity Areas.

Ongoing

2. Conduct at least one community informational meeting in areas that lack affordable housing opportunities and that exhibit high segregation, on an annual basis.

Annually

3. Improve housing conditions in segregated areas establishing a multi-family quality rental housing inspection program that focuses on high segregation areas. The City will receive at least one monthly referral from the City’s Neighborhood Improvement Task Force (NITF) (NITF includes Code Enforcement, Police, Social Service/County, School District representatives, City staff form various Departments) to identify households in need of this tenant protection and anti-displacement focused program; focused on improving the quality of single family and multi-family residential dwellings by providing technical assistance and funds to repairs substandard housing conditions. The City will conduct at least five multi-family quality rental housing inspections in the program’s first year and will increase the number of annual inspections by 2, each year thereafter, until 2029.
2025
through
2029
1127
Orange County 267 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents (especially those living below the FPL) are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital; and are more likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods. Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

Homeownership rates are very low for Black and Hispanic households, equaling less than half of the homeownership rate for AAPI and White households.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas.

2. Lack of public and private investment in low-resource neighborhoods.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. Create an ADU/SB 9 accelerator program and focus in
High Opportunity Areas within the northeast portion of
the City where there are predominately single-family
residences to expand housing choices. This program
could include a permit fee waiver for affordable housing units, permit fast tracking, and technical assistance.

By 2025, the City will adopt a
program and mail out
information pertaining to the new
accelerator program for ADUs
and SB 9 developments,
specifically to high opportunity
areas.

2. Provide technical assistance and permit fast-tracking for new ADU/SB9 development proposals and at least six
projects that include housing affordable to lower income households annually through 2029.

Fast track a minimum of 10 ADU
and/or SB 9 developments in
high opportunity areas on an
annual basis; reduce review
times by 25% compared to year
2022.

3. Translate the City’s Tustin Housing Authority website and factsheets promoting affordable housing opportunities
and ancillary support services, such as transit and
childcare, into Spanish, and distribute to low resource areas.

Annually, 2023 through 2029

4. Tustin Legacy (Tract 744.15) is a Master Planned
Community being developed. Although the tract has
been identified as low resource, it has been substantially enhanced with new resources within recent years. The
area comprises 1,500 acres, of which 800 acres remain for future development of a diverse housing stock,
community amenities, and resources. By 2029, the City
will continue to implement projects that increase assets in the Specific Plan area as proposed by developers and identified in the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure By 2029, the City anticipates the
Tustin Legacy (Tract 744.15) to be
identified as a “high resource”
area according to TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map criteria.
1128
Orange County 268 25-29 Regional AFH
Program. Improvements will provide increased access to
safe and decent housing, transportation, recreation, and a healthy environment.

5. Create a “Financial Assistance for Child Care” webpage with information and links to Children’s Home Society of California (CHS) and the Orange County Department of
Education (OCDE). These programs provide funding to
low-income families for childcare services. The City will work with Tustin Preschool, Kiddie Academy of Tustin, or other local preschool programs within Census Tract
755.14 to advertise and promote financial assistance
through pamphlets, e-blasts, and other applicable online community forums (such as Facebook and NextDoor).

By December 2022; update
annually thereafter
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Tustin.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of affordable housing.

2. Substandard housing in low-resource areas.

3. High cost of housing repairs/rehabilitation.

Actions: Timeframe:

1. The City will partner with a non-profit to develop and launch a CDBG funded Housing Rehabilitation Program
to facilitate the repair of dilapidated housing to address lack of plumbing, kitchen facilities and repairs to provide relief of overcrowding. Program participants will be
provided grants and/or loans to conduct necessary
housing updates.

Starting in July 2024, the program
will facilitate four (4) rehabilitation
projects to assist with reducing
overcrowding per year and
another four (4) projects will assist
with general habitability repairs,
with a total of eight (8) dwellings
assisted annually.

2. The City will amend the zoning code to require all new multi-family projects to provide at least five (5) percent large family units (3+ bedrooms) which will prevent
overcrowding and further cost burden, by addressing
demand for such units and increasing the large units
into the local housing inventory.

Zoning code amended by January
2024. Four (4) large family units
will be generated annually, and 32
total by 2029.

3. Improve housing conditions in segregated areas
establishing a multi-family quality rental housing
inspection program that focuses on high segregation
areas. The City will receive at least one monthly referral 2025 through 2029
1129
Orange County 269 25-29 Regional AFH
from the City’s Neighborhood Improvement Task Force
(NITF) (NITF includes Code Enforcement, Police, Social
Service/County, School District representatives, City
staff form various Departments) to identify households
in need of this tenant protection and anti-displacement focused program; focused on improving the quality of
single family and multi-family residential dwellings by providing technical assistance and funds to repairs
substandard housing conditions. The City will conduct at least five multi-family quality rental housing inspections in the program’s first year and will increase the number of annual inspections by 2, each year thereafter, until 2029.
1130
Orange County 270 25-29 Regional AFH
U. Westminster
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunities, and Disproportionate Housing Needs The majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly AAPI population with a few exceptions. The northwestern corner of the city, between I-405 and Bolsa Chica Rd is an area of high White segregation. The location of publicly supported housing units and areas with highest concentration of vouchers aligns with the high POC segregation areas in the central part of the city. There are no publicly supported housing units, and fewer vouchers in use, in the western parts of the city that are high White segregation, racially integrated, and low-medium segregation areas.

AAPI residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs.

Native American residents living below the FPL are also less likely to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs. Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.

There are large racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Black, Hispanic, and Native American households have the lowest rates (around 30%), and these rates are less than half the homeownership rate for White households, which is the highest in the city. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than in the County overall and is nearly 20 percentage points lower than the White homeownership rate in the city.

Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Westminster.

Contributing Factors:

1. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations

2. Land use and zoning laws.

3. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.

4. Location and type of affordable housing.

5. Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.

6. Lack of community revitalization strategies
Actions: Timeframe:

1. Maintain an inventory of the available sites for residential development and post it online (with annual updates) and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request. Monitor development trends to ensure continued ability to meet the RHNA.

Ongoing

2. Continue to perform project-by-project evaluation to determine if adequate capacity remains for the remaining RHNA.

Ongoing

3. Adopt new mixed-use zoning districts and rezone all sites identified in the City’s most recent Housing Element to accommodate shortfall housing need, consistent with the densities, acreages, and capacity Completed
1131
Orange County 271 25-29 Regional AFH
levels identified in the Housing Element. Complete all rezoning pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

4. Encourage and facilitate construction of ADUs through the following actions:
a. Update the City’s ADU Ordinance to reflect state law. 2025 b. Prepare pre-approved ADU design templates, tailored to meet specific zoning and building standards. Use of these design templates by a potential developer would ensure that the proposed ADU meets most, if not all, required standards at the outset of the development process, minimizing and streamlining the review process. This is expected to significantly incentivize production of ADUs by removing costs, reducing approval timeframes, and providing high application certainty.

Completed
c. Promote development of ADUs by continuing to provide written information at the City’s planning counter and on the City’s website and update it annually.

Ongoing
d. Monitor ADU permit applications and approvals annually through the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) process; identify and implement additional incentives or other strategies including rezoning, as appropriate, to ensure adequate sites during the planning period. Should ADU production fall short of projections for three consecutive APR reporting periods then new incentives, strategies, and/or rezoning shall be implemented within six months of the third submitted APR.

Annually
e. Promote the City’s ADU Process Guide (available on the City’s website).

Ongoing
f. Host an annual workshop on accessory dwelling units, including guidance for development and common questions and answers.

Annually
g. Continue requesting information on rental rates to determine their affordability and review this information annually against the projects identified in the Housing Element.

Annually

5. For all project applications, identify need for replacement of affordable housing units and ensure replacement, if required, occurs.

Ongoing

6. Use HOME Funds and Housing Successor Funds to increase affordable housing production through the following actions:
a. Provide HOME Funds and Housing Successor Funds to assist development such as for the purpose of acquisition and/or 2021-2029
1132
Orange County 272 25-29 Regional AFH
subsidizing the cost of land acquisition and off-site improvements for construction of 100 new affordable housing units.
b. Use HOME Funds and Housing Successor Funds to acquire 16 multifamily or single-family units to be rehabilitated by a nonprofit and restricted to low-income rental housing.
2021-2029
c. Contact local service providers and developers annually and inform them of the potential partnerships with the Housing Division through paperless methods such as phone calls, email, and online postings.

Annually

7. Encourage development of affordable and special needs housing opportunities
a. Contact affordable housing providers (including non-profit providers) annually to encourage them to develop affordable housing for low-/very-low-income households and the disabled in Westminster.

Annually
b. Maintain on the City’s website an inventory of sites suitable for the development of affordable housing for low-income households and households with special needs and update it annually.

Ongoing
c. Support and prepare applications for funding annually. Annually d. Provide incentives and concessions to developers to assist in the development of housing for lower income households or
households with special needs, such as flexible development standards, expedited processing, and support from state funding including SB 2 Planning Grants and Permanent Local Housing Allocation. The preparation of flexible development standards and expedited processing for projects including affordable units will be addressed through the City’s Zoning Code Update.
2022-2025
e. Explore additional funding sources and strategies such as boomerang funds and financing districts to assist the development of housing for lower income households on a biennial basis.

Ongoing

8. Continue to make available the City’s application submittal packet to provide interested builders or service providers with Density Bonus information through paperless methods such as online postings.

Provide printed copies at the front counter. Meet with developers to explain the process and requirements.

Ongoing

9. Maintain a Zoning Code that is consistent with state law regarding low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, employee housing, and Ongoing
1133
Orange County 273 25-29 Regional AFH
farmworker housing; and update the Zoning Code as needed to comply with future changes.

10. If an application to convert a residential development to a condominium/stock cooperative is submitted to the City, the provisions of the City’s condominium conversion ordinance shall be implemented and enforced.

Ongoing

11. Implement the mobile home park conversion ordinance by requiring applicants to (a) identify the quantity and conditions of each lowerincome household/unit, and (b), upon approval of a permit to convert a mobile home park, implement mitigation measures that fully mitigate the net loss of low-income households.

Ongoing

12. Conduct a Displacement Risk Analysis Study to identify the local conditions that lead to displacement and develop and implement an action program based on the results. Identify potential partners to participate in the study that specialize in eviction-related topics related to displacement, such as the Fair Housing Foundation. Annually monitor program effectiveness.
2021-2029

13. Implement incentives that will facilitate lot consolidation and increase the overall feasibility of affordable housing projects; as part of the City’s Zoning Code Update, incorporate specific development standards that support lot consolidation, such as a reduction in parking standards, shared parking arrangements in mixed-use projects, a reduction of minimum unit size, and modification of setback requirements. Apply annually for grant funding to prepare conceptual development plans on consolidated lots.
2022-2025 for code
update and
annually for grant
funding

14. Address substandard housing through the following actions:
a. Using the land use data generated from the General Plan Update, adopted in 2020, combined with the data generated from the 2007 Housing Conditions Survey, identify multifamily projects with the most significant level of deterioration for the purpose of providing loans for rehabilitation of multifamily units, subject to the applicable funding source requirements.
2021-2029
b. Provide funding through the Neighborhood Pride Multi-Family Rental Rehabilitation Program to bring at least 14 substandard units up to code.
2021-2029
c. Continue to conduct annual community workshops explaining code compliance issues. Prepare and distribute a Good Neighbor Guide describing how residents can maintain a healthy, safe, and appealing property.
2021-2029
1134
Orange County 274 25-29 Regional AFH
d. Continue to utilize the Community Preservation Unit to assist with community education and neighborhood maintenance.
2021-2029

15. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the following actions:
a. Continue to make available a program directory or list of housing resources (including resources and regulatory opportunities such as the Secondary Unit Ordinance) to the public through the City’s website and in City Hall.

Ongoing
b. Continue to advertise the City’s reasonable accommodations provisions using the City’s website, brochures, and other forms of appropriate media. Ensure continued use of the City’s reasonable accommodation provisions, by processing in a timely manner any application requesting a reasonable accommodation.

Ongoing
c. Continue the City’s commitment to working with the Fair Housing Foundation and disseminating fair housing information at City Hall, public libraries, the Chamber of Commerce, and on the City’s website. Include within the annual budget adequate funding to continue the contract with the Fair Housing service provider.

Annually
1135
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Orange Community Development Department annually receives federal funds through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Every five years, HUD requires all jurisdictions receiving federal funds to submit a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). The plan helps define the City’s priorities, strategies, and goals for the five-year period.

The Consolidated Plan supports the objectives outlined in Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended. It also aligns with HUD’s primary goals of creating sustainable urban communities by offering decent housing, providing a suitable living environment, and enhancing economic opportunities for individuals with low and moderate incomes.

The Consolidated Plan is for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2030. During this period, the City anticipates receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME).

The CDBG program provides funding to support community development activities such as public infrastructure improvement, economic development, and public services. HOME funds can be used for affordable housing development activities such as rehabilitation and new construction and tenant-based rental assistance for low-income individuals and families.

The City of Orange 2025-2030 Con Plan is organized around 5 sections: Needs Assessment (NA), Market Analysis (MA), Strategic Plan (SP), and 2025 Annual Action Plan (AP).

2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview
All HUD-funded projects must meet one of three National Objectives: primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent or eliminate slum or blight; or meet other community development needs that address an urgent need to existing conditions posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. The City’s five-year Con Plan strategic goals address housing and community needs including affordable housing, economic development, public facilities improvement, public services for low mod income persons, and fair housing.
1136
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

3. Evaluation of past performance
The City of Orange’s evaluation of past performance has been completed through its Annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) prepared at the end of each fiscal year. The documents compare the measurable goals and objectives to the actual performance. The review of the fifth and final year of the 2020-2025 Con Plan period will be conducted in the 2025 CAPER, which will be submitted to HUD in September 2025.

4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process Residents and stakeholders were included in the planning process and development of the Consolidated Plan in the following ways:

Community Needs Survey
The City of Orange conducted a community survey from August 2023 to December 2023, to gather input for its 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. Over 180 residents participated. The survey featured 26 questions focused on identifying priority goals for the upcoming planning period.

Topics included housing needs, infrastructure and facilities needs, service needs, fair housing issues, economic development needs and transportation needs. The survey was conducted at city-wide events including National Night Out, Treats in the Streets, Tree Lighting, El Modena Neighborhood Outreach Day, and offered at the City’s public counters and website. The survey results offer valuable insights into the community’s needs and priorities.

Housing Summit
A Housing Summit was held in November 2023 to collect data to inform the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Rights (AI) and the 5-Year Consolidated Plan. A Workbook was developed for Housing Summit participants to complete. The workbook responses were summarized to inform the AI and Con Plan. Approximately 42 individuals participated in the Housing Summit representing the following Organizations:
o OC Goodwill
o Jamboree Housing
o C&C Development
o The HUB OC
o Rescue Mission
o Love Orange
o Temporary Shelter
o Home Aid
o Building Partners
o Orange Housing Development Organization
1137
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Public Hearing
Public Hearings on the Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) are held before the CDBG Committee and City Council to allow community members to provide input on local housing and development needs. These hearings help ensure that the City Council receives feedback on how federal funds should be allocated to address issues like affordable housing, homelessness, and public services, ensuring the plan aligns with the community's priorities and needs.  Public Meeting #1 and Presentation on the Draft Consolidated was held before the CDBG Committee on February 13, 2025
 Public Hearing #1 for the deliberation on the recommendation of funding for applicants applying for CDBG funding and first review of the Consolidated Plan was held before the CDBG Committee on March 13, 2025
 Public Meeting #2 and Presentation on the Draft Consolidated Plan was held before the City Council on April 8, 2025
 Public Hearing #2 for the adoption of the Consolidated Plan was held before the City Council on June 24, 2025

5. Summary of public comments
A public comment was received at the City Council meeting on April 8, 2025 to correct the draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan, clarifying that the City of Orange does not have any cold weather shelters and emphasizing the need for additional low and extremely low income housing units.

The request was incorporated into the Consolidated Plan.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them N/A

7. Summary
The priority needs identified from findings from community needs survey, housing summit and community meetings are as follows:

Affordable Rental Housing
 Increased supportive housing to assist homeless persons in the transition from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to homeless persons to enable them to live as independently as possible.
 Increased senior housing units to accommodate the aging population.  Low-barrier housing is housing where a minimum number of expectations are placed on people who wish to live there. The aim is to have as few barriers as possible to allow more people access to services.
 Homeowner housing rehabilitation.
1138
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
 Housing code enforcement.
 Down payment assistance.
 Rehabilitation of aging apartment buildings.
 Accessibility to housing affordability.

Public Services
 Senior services are a top priority in the city for the aging population.  Crime awareness, prevention and safety measures.
 Youth services and childcare services.
 Afterschool programs for youth engagement and development.

Homeless Populations Needs
 Homeless services including mental health and addiction services, permanent housing and transitional housing.

Public Facilities and Improvements
 Increased Code Enforcement to address infrastructure needs.  Street improvements including undergrounding of utilities.  Parking facilities including parking permit programs.  Tree planting and urban greenery to enhance aesthetic and environmental quality.  Create a more bike friendly environment.
 Mindfulness of segments of society that are most vulnerable to natural disasters.  Identify broadband internet problems throughout the city and provide equal access throughout the city.

Economic Development
 Job creation and job-generating businesses to support local economic growth.  Small business loans.
 Employment training.
 Rehabilitation of commercial buildings.

Fair Housing Services
 Support for family/children, race, and anti-discrimination efforts.  Education and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws to ensure equal housing opportunities for all.
1139
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)

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

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator ORANGE Community Development
Department
HOME Administrator ORANGE Community Development
Department
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative
The Community Development Department is the lead agency for the development of the Consolidated Plan and administers CDBG and HOME programs. The City is not a recipient of the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) to directly fund homeless related projects. The City of Anaheim is the lead agency for the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) Program and administers the Program for all jurisdictions in Orange County.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Jessica Herrera, Housing Manager
Community Development Department
300 East Chapman Avenue,
Orange, California 92866
Telephone: (714) 744-7270
1140
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and 91.315(I)

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

The City advertised the availability of CDBG and HOME funds, solicited input from nonprofit organizations, and encouraged residents to participate in the development of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan. A housing summit was held on October 12, 2023 in which stakeholders from local organizations and agencies were invited by the City to engage in open dialogue regarding the following topics: CDBG funding, affordable housing development, fair housing law, homelessness needs, and vital social services. Furthermore, a needs assessment a survey was administered to learn about community needs and gaps.

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

The City is not a recipient of homeless-related grants and therefore not a participant of Continuum of Care. However, the City takes part in a regional effort lead by the County of Orange to address homelessness in Orange and surrounding jurisdictions. The City is home to a regional healthcare cluster including UC Irvine Medical Center, Children's Hospital of Orange County (CHOC), and St. Joseph Hospital of Orange. Nonprofits such as Illumination Foundation and Family Solution Collaborative provide housing services to homeless families released from CHOC hospital and other Orange County hospitals.

If and when the City receives homeless grants that are eligible for housing services and case management services, they would consider allocating homeless funds to these groups. The City was the recipient of HOME American Rescue Program funds in 2022 and used the funding to support the Hub Resource Center (HRC) that provides resources, coordinates and facilitates continuum of care services, and assists with housing services to the City’s most vulnerable population.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The County of Orange is the lead agency for Continuum of Care and covers the Orange County jurisdiction, including 34 cities and Unincorporated Areas. Participation from County 1141
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
departments and agencies, local governments, homeless, housing and supportive service providers, community groups (including non-profits, faith-based organizations, interested business leaders, schools, individuals with lived experience, and many other stakeholders) is welcomed and encouraged.

The City of Orange supports the County’s efforts to develop effective programs to address the needs of homeless individuals. To help address the issue and find ways to address the underlying problems that lead to homelessness, Orange has joined with the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, La Habra, La Palma, Placentia, Villa Park, Stanton, and Yorba Linda in an unprecedented partnership called the North Service Planning Area (SPA). The North SPA Partnership is a joint collaboration that includes two full-service Navigation Centers to provide help to the region’s homeless. The Buena Park Center and the Placentia Center will provide homeless individuals a total of 250 beds, health resources, job skill training, and the ability to reconnect with lost family. These facilities join the two shelters already built by the City of Anaheim, which house another 326 beds.

The County has put together a Consolidated Plan, which identifies the Urban County of Orange’s overall housing and community development needs and outlines a strategy to address those needs. The City supports the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA's) applications for HUD/VASH funding for homeless veterans. In addition, the City has provided funding to key homeless resources/services which include HomeAid’s Family Care Center operated by Mercy House and The HUB which feeds, clothes and provides services that support and enhance the quality of life for homeless individuals.

The City is not a recipient of ESG funds.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities
1142
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Agency/Group/Orga
nization
Agency/Group/Orga
nization Type
What section
of the Plan was
addressed by
Consultation?
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Friendly Center, Inc. Services-Children
Services-Elderly
Persons
Anti-poverty
Strategy
Friendly Center participated in the public
workshops and public hearing during the
needs assessment process and
completed needs assessment survey.

Assistance League of
Orange
Services-Children
Services-Education
Anti-poverty
Strategy
Assistance League of Orange
participated in the public workshops and
public hearing during the needs
assessment process and completed
needs assessment survey.

Building Partners Housing Developer Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
Building Partners participated in the
Housing Summit and needs assessment
survey.

C&C Development Housing Developer Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
C&C Development participated in the
Housing Summit and needs assessment
survey.
1143
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
County of Orange Housing Services -
Housing ServicesChildren ServicesElderly Persons
Services-Persons with
Disabilities Serviceshomeless ServicesHealth Health Agency Other government -
County
Housing Need
Assessment
Public Housing
Needs
Homelessness
Strategy
Homeless
Needs -
Chronically
homeless
Homeless
Needs -
Families with
children
Homelessness
Needs -
Veterans
Homelessness
Needs -
Unaccompanie
d youth Antipoverty
Strategy
Various County agencies (i.e, Housing
Authorities, Office of Care Coordination,
Social Services Agency, Health Care
Agency, Community Resources, and
Housing and Community Development)
participated in the Needs Assessment
Survey and Housing Summit.

HomeAid Nonprofit housing
developer –
Emergency shelter
provider
Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
HomeAid participated in the Housing
Summit and needs assessment survey.

The HUB OC Services-Children
Services-Elderly
Persons-ServicesPersons with
disabilities-Servicesvulnerable
communities
Anti-poverty
strategy
Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
The Hub OC participated in the public
meeting, public hearing during the needs
assessment process, Housing Summit
and completed needs assessment
survey.

Jamboree Housing Nonprofit housing
developer
Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
Jamboree Housing participated in the
Housing Summit and needs assessment
survey.

Love Orange Services-Children
Services-Elderly
Persons-ServicesPersons with
disabilities-Servicesvulnerable
communities
Anti-poverty
strategy
Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Love Orange participated in the Housing
Summit and needs assessment survey.
1144
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
OC Goodwill Services – workforce
development
Housing Need
Assessment
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Strategic Plan
OC Goodwill participated in the Housing
Summit and needs assessment survey.

OC Rescue Mission Services-Children
Services-Elderly
Persons-ServicesPersons with
disabilities-Servicesvulnerable
communities
Housing Need
Assessment
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Strategic Plan
OC Rescue Mission participated in the
Housing Summit and needs assessment
survey.

Orange Housing
Development
Corporation (OHDC)
Non-profit housing
developer
Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
OHDC participated in the Housing
Summit and needs assessment survey.

Temporary Shelter Emergency Shelter
Provider
Housing Need
Assessment
Homeless
Strategy
Strategic Plan
Temporary Shelter participated in the
Housing Summit and needs assessment
survey.

Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City consulted all known local agencies and organizations involved in activities that are relevant to the preparation of this Consolidated Plan.

Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the
goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care County of Orange Homelessness strategy Housing Element City of Orange Housing Affordability Policies and Programs
Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l))
1145
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The City worked with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), the Orange County Office of Care Coordination, and the Orange County Social Services Agency during the preparation of the Consolidated Plan.

Narrative (optional):
1146
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation. Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting.

A Community and Stakeholder Survey was conducted to gather data for the preparation of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan process from August 10, 2023 through December 30, 2023. The survey was hosted on the City’s website housing page, social media, city kiosk, and made available in paper form on the City Clerk and Community Development counters. To maximize outreach opportunities, the City also conducted the survey at the 2023 National Night Out, Treats in the Streets, and Annual Tree Lighting events and the 2023 El Modena Neighborhood Outreach. The City also held a Housing Summit in October 2023. A workbook was distributed to stakeholders at a Housing Summit to solicit input and assess housing needs, infrastructure and facilities needs including broadband, service needs, fair housing needs, economic development needs, and transportation needs.

The City advertised the availability of CDBG and HOME funds, held one public hearing (March 13, 2025) and one public meeting (February 13, 2025) before the CDBG program advisory body and a public meeting (April 8, 2025) and a public hearing before the City Council (June 24, 2025). The City collected input from local nonprofit agencies, and encouraged residents to participate in the development of the 2025- 2029 Consolidated Plan and the 2025-26 Annual Action Plan. The City provided the needs assessment survey in English and Spanish at various public and nonprofit service counters and on the City's website. The City considered the survey responses when setting program goals and priorities.
1147
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen
Participation
Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Newspaper Ad Nontargeted/broad
community

N/A N/A N/A N/A
2 Letters to Public
Service Agencies
Invitation to 78
different fair
housing service
organizations
across Orange
County to
participate in focus
groups and
interviews.

Four one-on-one
interviews and two
focus groups were
conducted during
the preparation of
the Analysis of
Impediments.

Comments
comprised of the
fair housing issues
frequently
encountered by the
organizations, the
underlying causes
for those issues,
and ongoing efforts
currently to
address them.

All comments received
were considered in the
preparation of this
report.

N/A
3 Community
Meetings
(In person and
virtual)
City residents,
interested
organizations
The City and
County,
respectively,
provided
opportunities to
engage via inperson and online
to accommodate
various residents’
needs.

Citizen input and
comments will be
included in the Con
Plan.

All comments were
accepted.

N/A
1148
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Citizen
Participation
Outreach
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments received
Summary of comments
not accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
4 Internet
Outreach
Nontargeted/broad
community
185 survey
respondents
participated.

Comments
comprised of
needs for
affordable rental
housing units,
improvements to
public facilities,
and homeless
shelters.

All comments received
were considered in the
preparation of this
report.

N/A
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
1149
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
The City of Orange held a housing summit in October of 2023 and promoted a community outreach survey to collect input from the public on housing and community needs. Based on the needs that were identified during the community outreach process, as well as data from the 2020 American Community Survey (5-year estimate) and 2016 – 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), priority needs, goals, and objectives for the Consolidated Plan were identified.

1. Economic Development

2. Affordable Rental Housing

3. Public Services

4. Homeless Population Needs

5. Public Capital and Infrastructure Improvements

6. Fair Housing Services

7. Tenant Based Rental Assistance
1150
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205
Summary of Housing Needs
The Housing Needs Assessment section of this Consolidated Plan utilizes data from the 2016- 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates as well as 2016-2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from HUD. The City’s total population is currently 139,320, a less than 1% decrease since 2009. Incidentally, the number of households actually increased slightly by 2%. Small family households make up the largest household group at 47%.

Moreover, the two senior household categories (62 years to 74 years and 75 years and older) combined in the extremely low-income category is larger than the non-senior households. From this data, we can infer that affordable senior rental housing is a need in the community. The statistical data from the 2016-2020 ACS 5-year estimates on demographics, income, and housing reveals the following key information:
 Median household income is $96,605.
 Median house price is $680,300.
 Median monthly rent is $1,751.
 More than half of the City’s housing units are owner-occupied (59.2%).  Almost 39% of the City’s population makes less than $75,000.  Approximately 10.3% of the City’s population lives below the poverty rate.

Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change Population 139,760 139,320 -0%
Households 42,680 43,325 2%
Median Income $78,513.00 $96,605.00 23%
Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year) Number of Households Table
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 6,070 5,195 8,800 4,805 18,450
Small Family Households 1,705 2,325 3,550 1,845 10,790
Large Family Households 615 510 1,185 715 1,975
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 1,250 1,290 2,115 1,570 4,230 Household contains at least one
person age 75 or older 1,245 770 995 475 1,410
1151
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or younger 1,110 854 1,330 700 1,415 Table 6 - Total Households Table
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
1152
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Housing Needs Summary Tables

1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete
plumbing or
kitchen
facilities 140 100 35 40 315 15 10 0 0 25
Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51
people per
room (and
complete
kitchen and
plumbing) 280 100 235 45 660 0 15 35 115 165
Overcrowded -
With 1.01-1.5
people per
room (and
none of the
above
problems) 405 340 430 180 1,355 45 55 110 30 240
Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems) 2,090 925 440 0 3,455 1,295 885 1,020 70 3,270 1153
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems) 360 980 1,800 455 3,595 150 650 1,050 725 2,575 Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above
problems) 295 0 0 0 295 50 0 0 0 50
Table 7 – Housing Problems Table
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS

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

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or more
of four housing
problems 2,915 1,465 1,140 265 5,785 1,350 965 1,165 215 3,695 Having none of
four housing
problems 1,155 1,260 3,445 2,100 7,960 650 1,505 3,055 2,225 7,435 Household has
negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 – Housing Problems 2
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
1154
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)

3. Cost Burden > 30%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 1,130 1,285 985 3,400 400 640 665 1,705
Large Related 505 305 185 995 60 130 265 455
Elderly 665 325 385 1,375 855 625 900 2,380
Other 935 445 795 2,175 160 200 285 645
Total need by
income
3,235 2,360 2,350 7,945 1,475 1,595 2,115 5,185
Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30%
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS

4. Cost Burden > 50%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 0 0 410 410 345 325 0 670
Large Related 0 0 115 115 60 60 50 170
Elderly 485 135 25 645 775 360 600 1,735
Other 0 855 365 1,220 145 0 0 145
Total need by
income
485 990 915 2,390 1,325 745 650 2,720
Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50%
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS

5. Crowding (More than one person per room)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single family
households 680 390 550 200 1,820 45 60 90 95 290
Multiple,
unrelated family
households 14 65 120 34 233 0 10 55 49 114
1155
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Other, non-family
households 30 44 0 10 84 0 0 0 0 0
Total need by
income
724 499 670 244 2,137 45 70 145 144 404
Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1/2
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
Households
with Children
Present

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2/2
Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance.

It is important to note that the “other” classification in Tables 9, 10, and 11 is attributed to “single-person households.” 2016 – 2020 CHAS data for “low-income or below” (i.e. – making less than 80% AMI) and “single - person households” under the categories for “cost burden greater than 30%, “cost burden greater than 50%”, and “crowding” indicates the following observations. Based on this information, there is a need for more affordable studios or 1- bedroom apartments for low income, single-person households.

1. Single-person households that are considered “low income or below” and “renters” make up roughly one third of the low-income household renters that report facing cost burden.

2. Cost burden greater than 30% - 2,175 single-person households with incomes less than 80% of AMI pay more than 30% of their income on rental housing expenses.

Cost burden greater than 50% - 1,220 single-person households with incomes less than 80% of AMI pay more than 50% of their income on rental housing expenses.

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

The City does not allocate funding to the Section 8 program operated by the Orange County Housing Authority. Therefore, the City does not have access to the data collected from the 1156
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
applicants through the Section 8 program to provide specific information on the number and types of families in need of Section 8 vouchers. Furthermore, the Orange County Housing Authority does not collect this type of information for families participating in the Section 8 program.

What are the most common housing problems?
Among renters, the most prevalent issue is housing cost burden greater than 30% of income, with 3,595 households affected, predominantly in the 50 - 80% AMI range. Additionally, 3,455 renter households face a housing cost burden greater than 50% of their income, 60% of which are in the 0 – 30% AMI income bracket. Similarly, overcrowding and severe overcrowding are more prevalent amongst lower income renting households. The most prevalent housing issue for owners is housing cost burden greater than 50%. Once again, the majority of owner households (40%) that reported a cost burden greater than 50% are in the extremely low-income (0 – 30% AMI) bracket.

Overall, the data reflects a shortage of affordable rental housing for households that make less than 30% of the Area Median Income.

Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? Special needs populations such as the elderly are more susceptible to housing problems. For example, there are 485 renter households in the City of Orange that make less than 30% of the Area Median Income and report a housing cost burden greater than 50%, 100% of which are elderly households.

Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance
The City of Orange does not receive funds to specifically address the needs of the homeless but rather works in collaboration with the County and surrounding jurisdictions to do such. Several nonprofits operate within Orange to provide support and resources to individuals or families who are at risk of becoming homeless, such as Mercy House and the Hub Resource Center.

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

Not applicable.
1157
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness
The high cost of housing is a significant factor in the instability and increased risk of homelessness in the City of Orange. As previously mentioned, the median home value in Orange is $680,300, which is 196% increase from the national median of $229,800. Similarly, the median monthly rent in the City of Orange is $1,751 compared to the national median of $929.

Discussion
Refer to the sections above.
1158
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
The City’s primary racial or ethnic group is White including White Hispanics. A disproportionately greater housing need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the income level as a whole.

The following tables identify the presence of one or more housing problems among households of differing race/ethnicities and income levels, with the analysis that follows identifying any racial/ethnic group having evidence of a disproportionate housing need. 0%-30% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 4,770 1,300 0
White 1,975 675 0
Black / African American 135 10 0
Asian 710 250 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 20 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 1,800 335 0
Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%.
30%-50% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 4,055 1,140 0
White 1,875 635 0
1159
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Black / African American 30 10 0
Asian 380 175 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 45 0 0
Hispanic 1,670 305 0
Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%.
50%-80% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 5,150 3,650 0
White 2,245 1,885 0
Black / African American 175 55 0
Asian 795 270 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 1,890 1,235 0
Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%.
1160
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
80%-100% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,665 3,140 0
White 815 1,805 0
Black / African American 40 10 0
Asian 180 255 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 10 0
Hispanic 535 955 0
Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%.

Discussion
The tables above identify the presence of one or more housing problems (lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, overcrowding at > 1 person per room, or overpayment at > 30%) for different racial/ethnic groups within a given income category. The following summarizes the results of these CHAS tables and identifies groups experiencing disproportionate housing need in the City of Orange.
0 – 30% of Area Median Income
 79% of extremely low-income households in the City of Orange have one or more housing problems, 38% of these households identified as Hispanic.  The highest incidence of housing problems amongst extremely low-income households is experienced by Black/African American households at 93% although they only make up roughly 2% of the total 6,070 extremely low-income households. 30 – 50% of Area Median Income
 The highest incidence of housing problems amongst low-income households is experienced by Pacific Islanders (100%), Black/African Americans (75%), and White 1161
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
households (75%). Despite these numbers, Pacific Islanders and Black/African American households each only make up less than 1 percent of this income group.  Similar to the last income group, zero households reported no or negative income without the presence of at least one other housing problem.
 Of the 1,975 Hispanic households in this income group, 85% experienced one or more housing problems.
50 – 80% of Area Median Income
 76% of Black/African American households in this income group experienced one or more of the four housing problems despite only making up 3% of this income group. 75% of Asian households in this income group experienced one or more housing problems while making up 12% of the total group.
 59% of median income households in the City of Orange have housing problems, with high incidences among all racial groups, ranging from 54% (White) to 76% (Black/African American).
 60% of Hispanic households in the median income bracket have housing problems.

Hispanic households make up 36% of the total households in this income group. 80 – 100% of Area Median Income
 35% of median income households in the City of Orange have housing problems with incidences amongst racial groups ranging from 0% to 80%.  The highest incidence of housing problems (80%) in this income group is experienced by Black/African American households although they only make up 1% of median income households in the City. Asian households make up 9% of this income group yet 41% experience housing problems.
 There are only 10 Pacific Islander households in the median income bracket, none of them experience housing problems.
1162
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
While the City is predominately White (69%) and race plays a role in determining if a household is more susceptible to housing problems, severe housing problems are tightly linked to income levels as well as race and ethnicity.

A disproportionately greater housing need exists when the members of a racial or ethnic group at an income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10% or more) than the entire income bracket. The following tables identify the presence of severe housing problems among households of differing race/ethnicities and income levels, with the analysis that follows identifying any racial/ethnic group evidencing a disproportionate housing need. 0%-30% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 4,265 1,805 0
White 1,720 935 0
Black / African American 110 40 0
Asian 630 335 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 20 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 1,690 450 0
Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%.
1163
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
30%-50% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,430 2,765 0
White 1,085 1,425 0
Black / African American 30 10 0
Asian 280 270 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 45 0 0
Hispanic 960 1,015 0
Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%.
50%-80% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,305 6,500 0
White 765 3,365 0
Black / African American 80 150 0
Asian 375 690 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 1,070 2,065 0
Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%.
1164
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
80%-100% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 480 4,325 0
White 150 2,475 0
Black / African American 0 50 0
Asian 50 380 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 10 0
Hispanic 280 1,210 0
Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI
Data
Source:
2016-2020 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are:

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

Discussion
The tables above identify the presence of one or more severe housing problems (lacks complete kitchen facilities, lacks complete plumbing facilities, overcrowding at more than 1.5 persons per room, or cost burden over 50%) for different racial/ethnic groups within a given income category.

The following summarizes the results of these CHAS data tables and identifies groups experiencing disproportionate housing need in the City of Orange. 0 – 30% AMI
 70% of extremely low-income households in the City of Orange, as a whole, have one or more severe housing problems.
 73% of Black/African American households in this income group experience severe housing problems, although they only make up 2% of the total 6,070 extremely lowincome households. Similarly, 65% of Asian households in this income group have severe housing problems, accounting for 16% of the total.
 There are 20 American Indian or Alaska Native households in this income bracket, none of which reported severe housing problems.
1165
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
 Hispanic households face severe housing problems at a rate of 79%, representing 35% of the total households in this group.
30 – 50% AMI
 47% of low-income households in the City of Orange have one or more housing problems.  There are only 45 Pacific Islander households and 40 Black/African American households in the low-income group, respectively making up roughly 1% of the total 5,195 lowincome households. However, these groups have the highest incidence of severe housing problems. 100% of Pacific Islander households and 75% of Black/African American lowincome households reported severe housing problems.  51% of Asian households in this income group have severe housing problems, accounting for 11% of the total.
50 – 80% AMI
 26% of households in the 50-80% AMI range report having one or more severe housing problems.
 The highest incidence of severe housing problems in the moderate-income bracket is found among Black/African American (35%) and Asian households (35%), although Black/African American households only make up 3% of moderate income households and Asian households only make up 12%
80 – 100% AMI
 10% of households in the median income level report severe housing problems.  6% of White households in this income group experience severe housing problems, making up the largest portion of the total households at 2,625, which represents 55% of the total.
 12% of Asian households in this income group have severe housing problems, accounting for 430 households and 9% of the total.
 Black/African American households comprised approximately 1% of this income group, while Pacific Islander households accounted for less than 0.5%. Although neither group experienced severe housing problems within this category, they remain at greater risk in lower income brackets. This trend highlights the intersectionality of income level and race/ethnicity in assessing a household’s vulnerability to severe housing challenges. 1166
Consolidated Plan ORANGE 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has a disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction:

The data indicates that White (including non-Hispanic) households earning less than 30% of Area Median Income (AMI) experience housing cost burden at a disproportionate rate, making up 56% of housing burdened households in this income category. Roughly one out of four of the households earning less than 30% of AMI identify as Hispanic. For income levels between 30% to 50% AMI and more than 50% of AMI, the impact of housing cost burdens affects higher percentages of White households followed by Hispanic and then Asian households.

Orange City CouncilJune 24, 2025

Orange City Council
June 24, 2025