Simi Valley City Council
February 27, 2023

SupplementalHousingElementCCmtg2-27-23

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

MEMORANDUM
F
ebruary 27, 2023
TO
: City Council
F
ROM: Department of Environmental Services
S
UBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE REVISIONS TO THE SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2021-2029 PLANNING PERIOD (GPA -2021-0001), RE -USE OF THE ADOPTED MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) AND MITIGATION MONITORING

PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT REQUEST, AND AUTHORIZE THE
SUBMISSION OF THE REVISED 2021 -2029 HOUSING ELEMENT TO

THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT FOR CERTIFICATION; AND ADOPTION OF A

RESOLUTION
S
ubsequent to the preparation of the staff report, staff has amended proposed Resolution 2023-08 to allow the Director to approve minor changes , revisions, and respond to potential comments from the California Department of Housing and Urban Development (HCD).

I
n addition, Housing Element Appendix H4 – Fair Housing Assessment/Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing was inadvertently omitted from the draft Housing Element package for the February 27, 2023 City Council Meeting. No revisions to the Appendix H4 occurred since the first round of HCD comments after the initial October 25, 2021 City Council adoption. Appendix H4 is attached to this supplemental report. ___
_________________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
P
repared by: Eric Chen, Associate Planner
INDEX Page
R
evised Resolution 2023-08 ...................................................................................... 2 Appendix H4 ............................................................................................................... 5

SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.

5A

SupplementalHousingElementCCmtg2-27-23
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-08
A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SIMI VALLEY A PPROVING REVISIONS TO THE SIMI

VALLEY GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE
2021-2029 PLANNING PERIOD (GPA-2021-0001), RE-USE

OF THE ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(MND) AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN FOR THE

SUBJECT REQUEST, AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT
THE REVISED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR CERTIFICATION
W
HEREAS, the City of Simi Valley has initiated an amendment to the General Plan (GPA -2021-0001) to update the Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 Planning Period to meet requirements of State Housing Element Law; and W
HEREAS, on February 27, 2023, the City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing and considered all evidence and testimony presented; and W
HEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan was approved for the General Plan Housing Element Update for the 2021-2029 Planning Period on October 25, 2021. Since adoption of the Housing Element in October 2021, only minor changes have been incorporated into the 2021-2029 Housing Element to meet changes in the State Housing Element Law. The 2021- 2029 Housing Element is consistent with the previously prepared and adopted MND for the General Plan Amendment (GPA -2021-0001), that there have been no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require revisions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects and, therefore, it is being re-used as the environmental document for CEQA purposes; and W
HEREAS, sub sequent to City Council's initial adoption of the Housing Element on October 25, 2021, HCD requested minor changes and additional discussion on housing needs, resources, constraints, programs, and public participation. These changes are reflected in the Housing Element and because they are program related, the Housing Element must be re- adopted by the City Council before it is forwarded to HCD for final certification; and
W
HEREAS, subsequent to City Council's initial adoption of the Housing Element on October 25, 2021, HCD notified the City that, because more than 50 percent of the parcels included in Simi Valley's Housing Element sites inventory are non- vacant, the City must adopt a finding that the existing uses on these non-vacant parcels are likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and the development potential on these non-vacant sites would not constitute an impediment to future housing development. 2 RE S. NO. 2023-08
SupplementalHousingElementCCmtg2-27-23
Therefore, the revised Housing Element must be adopted by the City Council before it is forwarded to HCD for final certification; and
W
HEREAS, based on general development trends resulting from continuously rising land values, changes in desired land uses, COVID-impacted business shifts and closures, aging structures and underutilized properties, rising demand for housing, adjacency to public transportation and commercial services, and other factors/analysis as identified in the Recycling Trends section of the Housing Element, the existing uses on the sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the lower income Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) is likely to be discontinued during the planning period, and therefore do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.

NO

W, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

S
ECTION 1. It was determined that no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require revisions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan Housing Element Update due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Therefore, the CEQA findings, for re- use of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan Housing Element Update, contained in the City Council Staff Report dated October 25, 2021, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted.

S
ECTION 2. The findings for the 2021- 2029 Housing Element, contained in the City Council staff report dated February 27, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted.

S
ECTION 3. The City Council hereby delegates authority to the Environmental Services Director, or his designee, to incorporate the minor changes or revisions summarized herein into the 2021-2029 Housing Element, which are of a non- legislative nature and that result from HCD's review for final certification of the Housing Element, without further City Council consideration or re- adoption of the 2021- 2029 Housing Element.

S
ECTION 4. General Plan Amendment (GPA-2021-0001), the 2021-2029 Housing Element, as specified in Exhibit A of the City Council staff report February 27, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted and authorized for submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification.

S
ECTION 5. The time within which judicial review must be sought for administrative decisions is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.

S
ECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. 3 RE S. NO. 2023-08
SupplementalHousingElementCCmtg2-27-23
PASSED
and ADOPTED this 27th day of February 2023.

A
ttest:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Fred D. Thomas, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
A
pproved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
4 CHAPTER 4 : HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN 4-i
CHAPTER 4 Housing
5 RES. NO. 2023-08

Appendix H4
Fair Housing Assessment

6 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-1
APPENDIX H4 FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT/

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
In 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components:
■ A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity;
■ An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs;
■ An assessment of contributing factors; and
■ An identification of fair housing goals and actions.

Analysis of the fair housing issues in this section summarizes analysis and conclusions from the 2020 Ventura County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), and supplements with additional data as available and appropriate.

Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
The City of Simi Valley contracts with the Housing Rights Center (HRC) for fair housing services. Between 2017 and the first half of 2019, 35 housing discrimination cases were opened in Ventura County, 26 percent of which were closed or withdrawn. Approximately 31 percen t of the discrimination complaints filed Countywide were in Simi Valley, the most in the County. Most of the complaints (57 percent) were successfully conciliated by HRC. Among the 35 cases opened, physical disability (66 percent) and mental disability (20 percent) represented the majority of the protected classification.

In 2018, 10 fair housing tests were conducted in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks by HRC. Three testing sites in Simi Valley found evidence of discrimination, where White testers received preferential treatment over Black or African American testers.

Annually, HRC conducts outreach and education throughout the County, including in Simi Valley. Typical activities include Public Service Announcements/media publicity/ads; community presentations, literature distribution, and management trainings.
7 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-2

Figure H4-1: Public Housing Buildings, FHEO Cases by City, and HCVs by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2021), 2021.
8 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-3

INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. The racial and ethnic composition of Simi Valley and the Ventura County region is determined using the American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dissimilarity index trends, and the California Depa rtment of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

Local Trend
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately 40 percent of the Simi Valley population belong to a racial or ethnic minority group compared to only 35 percent during the 2006 -2010 ACS. Nearly 60 percent of the Simi Valley population is White, 26.3 percent is Hispanic or Latino, and 9.7 percent is Asian. HUD defines Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) as census tracts with a non -White population over 50 percent and with 40 percent or three times the overall poverty rate. Currently, there are no R/ECAPs located in the City. R/ECAPs are discussed further in the following section, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty.

Racial and ethnic dissimilarity trends for Simi Valley and the Ventura County Region are shown in Table H4 -1.

Dissimilarity indices measure how even two groups are distributed within a jurisdiction. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
■ <40: Low Segregation
■ 40-54: Moderate Segregation
■ >55: High Segregation
Dissimilarity between racial or ethnic minorities and White communities in Simi Valley has worsened since 1990.

However, segregation in the City remains low. Dissimilarity in Simi Valley is significantly lower than in the County.

Countywide, Non -White/White and Black/White communities are moderately segregated, while Hispanic/White communities are highly segregated.
9 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-4
Table H4-1: Racial or Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 2020
Simi Valley
Non-White/White 10.63 14.4 16.22 17.83
Black/White 10.17 14.26 13.43 21.41
Hispanic/White 15.36 20.92 22.67 24.11
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 11.29 10.49 14.87 19.70 Ventura County Region
Non-White/White 46.24 49.11 47.27 50.49
Black/White 47.82 45.42 36.6 41.99
Hispanic/White 52.19 56.14 54.55 56.75
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 29.93 28.93 28.61 34.03 SOURCE: HUD AFFH data, 2021.

Figure H4-2 shows racial/ethnic concentrated block groups from 2010 to 2018. Consistent with the increase Citywide, most block groups in Simi Valley have seen an increase in racial/ethnic minority populations since 2010.

Block groups located around the centerline of the City continue to have the highest minority populations (41 to 80 percent in 2018).

Regional Trend
Ventura County has a larger population of racial/ethnic minorities compared to Simi Valley. Over half of the County population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group, including 42.4 percent Latino or Hispanic, 7.1 percent Asian,

2.5 percent two or more races, and 1.6 percent Black or African American .1 As presented in Table H4 -1 above, Ventura has dissimilarity index scores exceeding scores for Simi Valley. Non- White and White populations are considered moderately segregated. Black and White communities are moderately segregated and Hispanic and White communities are highly segregated, while segregation between Asian or Pacific Islander and White communities is considered low.

Figure H4-3 shows racial/ethnic minority concentrations in the Simi Valley region, including Ventura and Los Angeles County. Racial/ethnic minority groups are most concentrated in the cities of Oxnard, Santa Paula, Fillmore, San Fernando, Winnetka, Culver City and the surrounding areas. Simi Valley has fewer block groups with high racial/ethnic minority populations compared to these cities, but more than jurisdictions south of the City such as Agoura Hills, Calabasas, and Malibu.

Sites Inventory
Figure H4-2 also shows the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA. Sites are generally clustered in the central western and central eastern areas of Simi Valley. More than half (585.6 percent) of lower income RHNA units are in block groups where racial/ethnic minorities make up 61 -80 percent of the population. ( Table H4-2). A large majority of these units are allocated towards the lower income RHNA. Approximately 82 percent of lower income units are in block groups where more than 60 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group compared to only 16.1 percent of moderate income units and no above moderate income units. Most (83.9 percent) moderate income units and more than half of above moderate income units are in block groups where

1 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. 10 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-5
racial/ethnic minority populations make up between 41 and 60 percent of the population. In comparison, 47.2 percent of moderate income units and 44.6 percent of above moderate income units are located in block groups with the same racial/ethnic minority populations. Only 4.4 percent of lower income RHNA sites are in block groups with 21-40% racial/ethnic minority populations, compared to 7.1 percent of above moderate income units.

Table H4-2: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration Racial/Ethnic Minority
Concentration (Block
Group)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 21-40% 15 1.0% 0 0.0% 90 46.6% 105 4.7%
41-60% 251 17.1% 478 83.9% 103 53.4% 832 37.3%
61-80% 1,202 81.9% 92 16.1% 0 0.0% 1,294 58.0%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

Table H4-2: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration Racial/Ethnic Minority
Concentration (Block Group)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
21-40% 4.4% 6.0% 7.1% 4.7%
41-60% 40.0% 46.8% 48.2% 41.2%
61-80% 55.6% 47.2% 44.6% 54.1%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391

11 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-6

Figure H4-2: (A) Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2010) 12 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-7
13 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-8

(B) Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010 & 2018 data), 2021
14 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-9

Figure H4-3: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2021
15 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-10

DISABILITY
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability.

Local Trend
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 11.2 percent of Simi Valley residents experience a disability, comparable to 10.9 percent Countywide. Disabilities are more common amongst the elderly population; 24.7 percent of the population aged 65 to 74 and 50 percent of the population 75 and older experiences a disability. The most common disabilities in Simi Valley are ambulatory difficulties (5.9 percent of the population) and cognitive difficulties (5.1 percent of the population).

Census tracts with a higher number of persons with disabilities are generally not concentrated in specific areas of the City. All tracts in the City have disabled populations below 20 percent. The concentration of persons with disabilities by Census tract is shown in Figure H4-4.

Regional Trend
As discussed above, 10.9 percent of the Ventura County population experiences a disability. Approximately 35 percent of adults aged 65 and older experience a disability compared to only 9.6 percent of the population aged 35 to 64 and 5.2 percent of the population aged 18 to 34. Ambulatory (6 percent) and independent living (5.6 percent) difficulties are the most common disabilities countywide.

Figure H4-5 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities for the region. Jurisdictions adjacent to Simi Valley have similar concentrations of persons with disabilities. There are two tracts in Ventura County with slightly higher concentrations of persons with disabilities. Tracts with the highest concentration of disabled persons are located in Los Angeles County.

Sites Inventory
Figure H4-4 also shows the sites inventory used to meet the City’s RHNA. Most of the sites are in tracts where the disabled population makes up less than 20 percent of the population. Table H4-3 presents a breakdown of the sites inventory by income level and disabled population. Approximately 78 83 percent of lower income units, 77 95 percent of moderate income units, and 5379.5 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts with a disabled population below 20 10 percent. Only 22 17 percent of all units, including 22 17 percent of lower income units, 23 5 percent of moderate income units, and 4720.5 percent of above moderat e income units, are in tracts where disabled persons makes up 10-20 percent of the population.

Table H4-3: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Population of Persons with Disabilities Population of Persons
with Disabilities (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <10% 1,214 82.7% 544 95.4% 103 53.4% 1,861 83.4%
10-20% 254 17.3% 26 4.6% 90 46.6% 370 16.6%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%
16 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-11

Table H4-3: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Disabled Population Disabled Population (Census
Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
<10% 77.9% 77.0% 79.5% 77.8%
10-20% 22.1% 23.0% 20.5% 22.2%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
17 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-12
18 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-13

Figure H4-4: Concentrations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
19 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-14

Figure H4-5: Regional Concentration of Persons with Disabilities by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
20 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-15

FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confini ng children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Local Trend
Nearly a third (31.1 percent) of Simi Valley households are families with children. The City’s share of families with children is the same as the County and simil ar to neighboring cities including Camarillo (26.3 percent), Moorpark (34.3 percent), and Thousand Oaks (28.5 percent). Of the families with children in Simi Valley, 7 percent are single- parent households. Simi Valley has seen a decrease in families with children since 38.3 percent during the 2006 - 2010 ACS.

As shown in Figure H4-6, in all but one tract in Simi Valley, over 60% of children live in married c ouple households.

The tract with the smallest share of children in married couple households (between 40 percent and 60 percent) is located in the northwest section of the City. Nearly 5 percent of households in the Simi Valley are single female - headed households with children. There are six tracts in Simi Valley where the percent of children in female-headed households exceeds 20 percent; fewer than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households in a majority of tracts (Figure H4-7). Most of the tracts with more children living in female-headed households are located along Los Angeles Avenue.

Regional Trend
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, Ventura County, 31 percent of households are families with children, including

23.4 percent married couple households, 2.2 percent single- parent male- headed, and 5.5 percent single-parent female-headed. The County has a slightly larger share of single-parent and single-parent female-headed households than Simi Valley.

Figure H4-8 and Figure H 4-9 show concentrations of children living in married couple households and female - headed households by tract in the Ventura County region. In most tracts, more than 60 percent of children live in married couple households. There is one tract in Oxnard and several tracts in Los Angeles County where more than 40 percent of children live in female-headed households.

Sites Inventory
Table H4-4 and Table H4-5 and Table H4-5 show the sites inventory breakdown by household type. Most RHNA units, including 8 3.77.1 percent of lower income units, 10078.9 percent of moderate income units and 5 3.480.4 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts where 60 -80 percent of children live in married couple households. Approximately 16 percent of lower income units are in tracts where less than 60 percent of children reside in married couple households. There are no moderate or above moderate income units in tracts with population of children residing in married couple households in this range. 21 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-16
A significantly larger proportion of lower income units are in tracts more than 20 percent of children live in female- headed households. Nearly 66 percent of lower income RHNA units are in tracts where 20 to 40 percent of children reside in single-parent female-headed households compared to only 20.7 percent of moderate income units. There are no above moderate income units in tracts where more than 20 percent of children reside in female -headed households.

Table H4-4: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Children in Married Couple Households Population of Children
in Married Couple
Households (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 40-60% 239 16.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 239 10.7%
60-80% 1,229 83.7% 570 100.0% 103 53.4% 1,902 85.3%
>80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 90 46.6% 90 4.0%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

Table H4-5: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Children in Female-Headed Households Population of Children
in Female-Headed
Households (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <20% 505 34.4% 452 79.3% 193 100.0% 1,150 51.5%
20-40% 963 65.6% 118 20.7% 0 0.0% 1,081 48.5%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

Table H4-4: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Children in Married Couple Households Children in Married Couple
Households (Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
40-60% 9.2% 15.1% 12.5% 10.0%
60-80% 87.1% 78.9% 80.4% 85.9%
>80% 3.7% 6.0% 7.1% 4.1%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391

Table H4-5: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Children in Female-Headed Households Children in Female-Headed
Households (Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
<20% 45.1% 66.0% 67.0% 48.4%
20-40% 54.9% 34.0% 33.0% 51.6%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
22 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-17
23 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-18

Figure H4-6: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
24 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-19
25 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-20

Figure H4-7: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
26 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-21

Figure H4-8: Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
27 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-22

Figure H4-9: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2015-2019 ACS), 2021.
28 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-23
INCOME
Identifying low - or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI.

Local Trend
HUD’s 2013-2017 CHAS data (Table H4-6) shows that 32.4 percent of Simi Valley households earn 80 percent or less than the area median family income and are considered lower income, compared to 40 percent Countywide.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the median household income in Sim i Valley is $95,543, higher than $84,017 for the County.

Table H4-6: Income Distribution
Income Category
Simi Valley Ventura County
Total Percent Total Percent
<30% HAMFI 3,705 8.8% 31,100 11.5%
31-50% HAMFI 4,065 9.7% 31,720 11.7%
51-80% HAMFI 5,840 13.9% 45,325 16.8%
81-100% HAMFI 4,380 10.4% 26,540 9.8%
>100% HAMFI 24,030 57.2% 135,355 50.1%
Total 42,025 100.0% 270,045 100.0%
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.

Figure H4-10 shows the Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) areas in the City by tract and the sites inventory used to meet the 2021-2029 RHNA. Tracts along the centerline of the City, south of State Route 118, tend to have larger LMI populations. There is only one tract where more than 50 percent of households are LMI, located in the central eastern section of the City along Los Angeles Avenue.

Regional Trend
As discussed above, 40 percent of households in the County are in the low or moderate income category. Figure H4-11 shows the concentratio n of LMI households for the region. Simi Valley and the jurisdictions immediately adjacent, including Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Agoura Hills, and Calabasas, generally have lower concentrations of LMI households compared to other Ventura and Los Angeles County jurisdictions in the region.

The cities of Oxnard, Santa Paula, Fillmore, San Fernando, Glendale, and West Hollywood and the surrounding areas have larger concentrations of LMI households.

Sites Inventory
Half of lower income RHNA unit s are in tracts where LMI households make up 25 -50 percent of the population, compared to 62 percent of moderate income units and 61 percent of above moderate income units A larger proportion of lower income units ( 65.6 percent) are in LMI tracts where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income compared to moderate income units (16.1 percent) and above moderate income units 29 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-24
(none) (Table H4-7). Most moderate income units (83.9 percent) and more than half of above moderate income units are in tracts where 25 to 50 percent of households are low or moderate income. Nearly half (46.4 percent) of lower income units are in the tract with LMI populations exceeding 50 percent. Fewer moderate (32 percent) and above moderate (32 percent) are located within this tract.

Table H4-7: Sites Inventory Breakdown by LMI Population LMI Household
Population (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <25% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 90 46.6% 90 4.0%
25-50% 505 34.4% 478 83.9% 103 53.4% 1,238 55.5%
50-75% 963 65.6% 92 16.1% 0 0.0% 1,055 47.3%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

Table H4-7: Sites Inventory Breakdown by LMI Population LMI Population (Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
<25% 3.7% 6.0% 7.1% 4.1%
25-50% 50.0% 61.9% 60.7% 51.8%
50-75% 46.4% 32.1% 32.1% 44.1%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
30 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-25
31 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-26

Figure H4-10: Low/Moderate Income (LMI) Concentrations by Tract and Sites Inventory Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020), 2021.

H4-10
32 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-27

Figure H4-11: Regional LMI Concentrations by Tract
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020), 2021.
33 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-28

RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY

RACIALLY /E THNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non -White population (greater than 50 percent) with a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. According to HUD’s 2020 R/ECAP mapping tool based on the 2009-2013 ACS, there are currently four R/ECAPs in Ventura County; two are located in Oxnard, one is located in Port Hueneme, and one is located in Santa Paula (Figure H4-12). There are no R/ECAPs in Simi Valley.

Figure H4-12: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) 34 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-29

RACIALLY /E THNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. A HUD Policy Paper defines racially concentrated areas of affluence as affluent, White communities.
2 According to this report, Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and “in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.” RCAAs have not been studied extensively nor has a standard definition been published by HCD or HUD, this fair housing assessment uses the percent non -Hispanic White population and median household income as proxies to identify potential areas of affluence. As shown in Figure H4-13 and Figure H4-14, Census tracts with a higher White population and highest median income are located on the outskirts of the City, specifically the northern, southern, and eastern sides.

2 Goetz, Edward G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.’ Published by the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research (21,1, 99-123).
35 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-30

Figure H4-13: White, non-Hispanic Concentrated Areas
36 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-31

Figure H4-14: Median Income by Census Tract
37 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-32

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunity based on race/ethnicity and poverty status. Table H4 -8 shows index scores for the following opportunity indicator indices (values range from 0 to 100):
■ Low Poverty Index: The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. ■ School Proficiency Index: The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. ■ Labor Market Engagement Index: The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
■ Transit Trips Index: The higher the trips transit index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
■ Low Transportation Cost Index: The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
■ Jobs Proximity Index: The higher the index value, the better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
■ Environmental Health Index: The higher the value, the better environmental quality of a neighborhood.

Table H4-8: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Simi Valley
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 64.20 66.09 59.39 73.16 83.77 63.51 48.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.60 48.76 72.58 85.35 62.97 46.58 Hispanic 53.01 62.40 48.35 70.60 84.42 63.90 49.41
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.94 68.32 55.07 75.31 84.50 61.55 44.42 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 58.14 63.88 54.11 71.95 84.44 64.26 48.81
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 56.09 60.05 53.38 70.85 84.51 67.06 53.40 Black, Non-Hispanic 48.79 54.13 38.11 63.37 85.78 76.88 59.54 Hispanic 44.91 55.70 44.40 68.32 84.56 69.80 57.68
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.91 55.71 45.66 72.48 87.66 74.73 57.07 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 39.03 50.80 48.64 60.81 83.33 66.64 65.45
Ventura County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.62 61.67 64.10 70.38 78.93 51.75 44.78 Black, Non-Hispanic 60.76 39.71 52.75 75.08 82.03 49.13 39.34 38 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-33
Table H4-8: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Hispanic 47.82 30.11 43.25 73.84 82.15 46.29 38.13
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.26 52.50 61.22 73.62 80.08 50.94 40.16 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 59.70 48.02 52.92 70.89 80.82 47.55 44.05
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 64.14 53.76 58.07 70.25 81.19 53.93 46.60 Black, Non-Hispanic 50.45 23.14 45.88 79.07 84.78 46.30 38.52 Hispanic 38.60 23.80 37.91 75.16 83.64 45.04 37.83
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.63 40.17 50.36 75.36 80.57 44.36 40.53 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 31.63 13.42 35.08 81.40 86.51 33.15 37.49
SOURCE: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), 2020.

To assist in this analysis, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accom pany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table H4-9 shows the full list of indicators.

Table H4-9: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial Segregation Poverty: tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County SOURCE: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020. 39 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-34
Local Trend
In Simi Valley, Hispanic residents were most likely to be impacted by poverty and low labor market participation based on HUD’s Opportunity Indicators. Hispanic residents also had the least access to higher quality school systems in both Simi Valley and Ventura County. White residents in Simi Valley and throughout the County were least likely to be exposed to poverty. White residents also had the most exposure to higher quality school systems and had the highest labor market participation. Asian and Pacific Islander communities had the lowest score for environmental health in the City. Simi Valley residents, regardless of race or ethnicity, had better access to higher quality school systems and jobs than residents Countywide. Simi Valley residents also had lower transportation costs and experienced higher environmental quality than the regional average.

The following opportunity map scores are for the census tracts that make up Simi Valley ( Table H4-10). There are no areas of high segregation and poverty in the City. Approximately 43 percent (12 tracts) of the Census tracts in the City are designated as High Resource, 39 percent (11 tracts) are Moderate Resource, 11 percent (3 tracts) are Highest Resource, and 7 percent (2 tracts) are Low Resource. Neither of the low resource Census tracts (tracts 77 and 75.14) have substantially high populations of racial/ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, LMI households, or households with children ( Figure H4-2 through Figure H4-10). Opportunity map scores by Census tract and the sites inventory are presented in Figure H4-15. Economic, environmental, and education scores for the City are further detailed below.

Table H4-10: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization
Census Tract
Economic
Domain Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain Score
Composite
Index Score Final Category
6111007505 0.567 0.517 0.562 0.173 High Resource
6111007506 0.809 0.272 0.556 0.246 High Resource
6111007507 0.958 0.624 0.767 0.608 Highest Resource
6111007512 0.944 0.003 0.508 -0.133 Moderate Resource
6111007513 0.93 0.52 0.562 0.407 High Resource
6111007514 0.801 0.236 0.014 -0.438 Low Resource
6111007700 0.539 0.138 0.014 -0.668 Low Resource
6111007800 0.514 0.39 0.41 -0.076 Moderate Resource
6111007901 0.52 0.219 0.368 -0.19 Moderate Resource
6111007903 0.846 0.177 0.713 0.317 High Resource
6111007904 0.581 0.171 0.708 0.158 Moderate Resource
6111008001 0.424 0.244 0.542 -0.002 Moderate Resource
6111008002 0.629 0.258 0.593 0.162 Moderate Resource
6111008004 0.708 0.329 0.374 -0.028 Moderate Resource
6111008005 0.494 0.548 0.463 0.021 Moderate Resource
6111008101 0.691 0.166 0.837 0.302 High Resource
6111008201 0.711 0.185 0.534 0.106 Moderate Resource
6111008202 0.584 0.183 0.497 -0.003 Moderate Resource
6111008302 0.871 0.152 0.604 0.246 High Resource
6111008303 0.705 0.371 0.604 0.244 High Resource
40 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-35
Table H4-10: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization
Census Tract
Economic
Domain Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain Score
Composite
Index Score Final Category
6111008304 0.938 0.205 0.604 0.329 High Resource
6111008305 0.98 0.118 0.758 0.49 Highest Resource
6111008306 0.893 0.191 0.511 0.224 High Resource
6111008401 0.438 0.197 0.671 0.06 Moderate Resource
6111008402 0.674 0.306 0.671 0.263 High Resource
6111008500 0.772 0.112 0.75 0.287 High Resource
SOURCE: California Fair Housing Task Force, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2021 Statewide Summary Table. December 2020.

Regional Trend
As discussed previously, White residents countywide had the highest HUD opportunity indicator scores for low poverty, school proficiency, labor market participation, jobs proximity, and environmental health indices. Hispanic communities received the lowest scores in the same indices. Black residents were most likely to use transit and Hispanic residents had the lowest transportation costs.

Figure H4-16 shows the TCAC opportunity map for the Simi Valley region. Jurisdictions south of Simi Valley, including Calabasas, Agoura Hills, Westlake Village, Malibu, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood, a re mainly comprised of highest resource tracts. Oxnard, Santa Paula, Fillmore, San Fernando, Sun Valley areas are concentrated with low resource tracts. There are also areas of high segregation and poverty in the Oxnard, Canoga Park, Winnetka, Northridge, Reseda, and Panorama City areas.

Table H4-11: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Simi Valley
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 64.20 66.09 59.39 73.16 83.77 63.51 48.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.60 48.76 72.58 85.35 62.97 46.58 Hispanic 53.01 62.40 48.35 70.60 84.42 63.90 49.41
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.94 68.32 55.07 75.31 84.50 61.55 44.42 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 58.14 63.88 54.11 71.95 84.44 64.26 48.81
Ventura County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.62 61.67 64.10 70.38 78.93 51.75 44.78 Black, Non-Hispanic 60.76 39.71 52.75 75.08 82.03 49.13 39.34 Hispanic 47.82 30.11 43.25 73.84 82.15 46.29 38.13
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.26 52.50 61.22 73.62 80.08 50.94 40.16 41 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-36
Table H4-11: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Native American, Non-
Hispanic 59.70 48.02 52.92 70.89 80.82 47.55 44.05
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 64.14 53.76 58.07 70.25 81.19 53.93 46.60 Black, Non-Hispanic 50.45 23.14 45.88 79.07 84.78 46.30 38.52 Hispanic 38.60 23.80 37.91 75.16 83.64 45.04 37.83
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.63 40.17 50.36 75.36 80.57 44.36 40.53 Native American, Non-
Hispanic 31.63 13.42 35.08 81.40 86.51 33.15 37.49
SOURCE: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), 2020.

Sites Inventory
As shown in Figure H4-15, most of the sites used to meet the City’s RHNA are in the center of the City in moderate resource tracts; 83.778.6 percent of lower income units, 77 95.4 percent of moderate income units, and 5 3.479.5 percent of above moderate income units are in moderate resource tracts (Table H4-12). A larger share of moderate and above moderate income units is in low income resource areas than lower income units.There are no moderate or above moderate income units in low resource tracts. However, 239 lower income units (16.3 percent of all lower income units) are in low resource tracts. A significantly larger proportion of above modera te income units (4 6.6 percent) are in high resource tracts compared to lower income units ( none) and moderate income units (4.6 percent).

Table H4-12: Sites Inventory Breakdown by TCAC Opportunity Area Category TCAC Opportunity
Area Category (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent High Resource 0 0.0% 26 4.6% 90 46.6% 116 5.2%
Moderate Resource 1,229 83.7% 544 95.4% 103 53.4% 1,876 84.1% Low Resource 239 16.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 239 10.7%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

Table H4-12: Sites Inventory Breakdown by TCAC Opportunity Area Score TCAC Opportunity Area (Census
Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
High Resource 12.2% 7.9% 8.0% 11.5%
Moderate Resource 78.6% 77.0% 79.5% 78.5%
Low Resource 9.2% 15.1% 12.5% 10.0%
42 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-37
Table H4-12: Sites Inventory Breakdown by TCAC Opportunity Area Score TCAC Opportunity Area (Census
Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391
43 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-38
44 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-39

Figure H4-15: TCAC Opportunity Area Map and Sites Inventory SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas, 2021. 45 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-40

Figure H4-16: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Map
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas, 2021. 46 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-41

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
As described previously, the Fair Housing Task Force calculates economic scores based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. Refer to Table H4-9 for the full list of TCAC opportunity area indicators.

Local Trend
According to the 2021 TCAC maps presented in Figure H4-17, there are three Census tracts in Simi Valley with exceptionally low economic scores; one located in the central eastern area of the City north of State Route 118, and two in the central area of the City south of Los Angeles Avenue. In general, the centerline of the City, south of State Route 118, has lower economic sc ores compared tracts along the City boundaries. This area of the City also has higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities, children in female -headed households, and LMI households (see Figure H4-3, Figure H4-7, and Figure H4-10).

Regional Trend
TCAC opportunity area economic scores in Simi Valley are generally consistent with the neighboring cities of Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Moorpark, and Camarillo ( Figure H4-18). In Ventura County, the cities of Santa Paula and Oxnard have the highest concentration of tracts with economic scores in the lowest quartile. The Los Angeles County cities of Canoga Park, Reseda, and San Fernando Valley also have tracts with lower economic scores.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
As described above, the Fair Housing Task Force determines education scores based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. Refer to Table H4-9 for the full list of TCAC opportunity area indicators.

Local Trend
Areas with lower education scores, shown in Figure H4-19 are generally located in the center and western sections of the City. Most tracts in Simi Valley have education scores between 0.50 and 0.75. The tracts in the northwestern corner of City with the lowest education scores, scoring in the lowest quartile. These tracts are considered low resource areas (see Figure H4-15).

Regional Trend
Figure H4-20 shows TCAC opportunity area education scores by tract for the region. The coastal areas from Point Mugu to the Los Angeles County Pacific Palisades neighborhood have the highest education scores regionally. In Ventura County, Camarillo ad Thousand Oaks have the highest concentration of tracts with high education scores, while Oxnard has the highest concentration of tracts scoring in the lowest quartile.

47 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-42

Figure H4-17: TCAC Opportunity Area Economic Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Economic Score, 2021. 48 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-43

Figure H4-18: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Economic Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Economic Score, 2021. 49 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-44

Figure H4-19: TCAC Opportunity Area Education Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Education Score, 2021. 50 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-45

Figure H4-20: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Education Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Education Score, 2021. 51 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-46

TRANSPORTATION
Local Trend
In 2017, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) conducted a Fare Equity Survey of public transportation passengers.3 According to the VCTC survey of the East County route (includes Simi Valley, Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks), 61.2 percent of riders belonged to a racial or ethnic minority group, a majority of which were Hispanic or Latino (39.3 percent of all riders), 60.8 percent had household incomes of less than $35,000, and 23.1 percent lived in large households of five or more people.

Availability of efficient, affordable transportation can be used to measure fair housing and access to opportunities. 4 SCAG developed a mapping tool for High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) as part of the Connect SoCal 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG defines HQTAs as areas within one-half mile from a major transit stop and a high -quality transit corridor. 5 Figure H4-21 shows that there is one HQTA located in Simi Valley. This HQTA encompasses one block group with a larger racial/ethnic minority population, two tracts with higher populations of disabled persons, one tract with higher a concentration of families with children, and two LMI area block groups (see Figure H4-2 through Figure H4-10).

HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index, described in Figure H 4-8 previously, can be used to show transportation need geographically. Block groups with lower jobs proximity indices are located further from employment opportunities and have a higher need for transportation. As shown in Figure H 4-21, Census block groups in the northwestern section of the City have higher jobs proximity indi ces (>40). Census block groups in the central, southern, and eastern sections of the City had the lowest job proximity indices. Some of the block groups with lower jobs proximity indices overlapped with areas with high concentrations of racial/ethnic minor ities, disabled persons, families with children, and LMI households. However, areas with less access to employment opportunities are not isolated to tracts or block groups with higher populations of special needs groups.

Regional Trend
Figure H4-22 shows jobs proximity index scores and HQTAs regionally. The areas around Simi Valley, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and Fillmore have the highest concentrations of block groups with the lowest jobs proximity index scores (<20). Several jurisdictions in the San Fernando Valley areas of Los Angeles County also have high concentrations of low scoring block groups. There are few areas in Ventura County that are considered HQTAs. The largest HQTA in the County is in the cities of Ventura and Oxnard.

3 Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). 2018. Title VI Fair Equality Suvey. 4 TransForm. 2019. Pricing Roads, Advancing Equity: A Report and Toolkit to Help Communities Advance a More Equitable and Affordable Transportation System.
5 Major transit stop: A site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail tr ansit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (CA Public Resource Code Section 21064.3). It also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation.

High-quality transit corridor: A corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 52 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-47

Figure H4-21: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group and HQTAs SOURCE: SCAG, High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) 2045 – SCAG Region, 2021; HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD AFFH – Jobs Proximity Index (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020. 53 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-48

Figure H4-22: Regional Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group and HQTAs SOURCE: SCAG, High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) 2045 – SCAG Region, 2021; HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD AFFH – Jobs Proximity Index (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2021. 54 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-49

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Environmental health scores are determined by the Fair Housing Task Force based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. Refer to Table H4-9 for the full list of TCAC opportunity area indicators. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to considering (1) environmental factors such as pollutant exposure, grou ndwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure and (2) sensitive receptors, including seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants, CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. This section also uses data from the February 2021 update to the CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0).

Local Trend
Four tracts on the western side of the City have environment al scores exceeding 0.50 ( Figure H4-23). The rest of the City scored below 0.50 for environmental health. Tracts in the northern half of the City received environmental scores in the lowest quartile. Many of these tracts have higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households (see Figure H4-2 and Figure H4-10). Figure H4-24 shows CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores by Simi Valley tract and the sites inventory used to meet the City’s 2021 -2029 RHNA. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are based on percentiles. Lower scores indicate better environmental conditions. All tracts scored in the 60 th percentile or below.

Tracts along the centerline of the City, specifically on the western and eastern sides, have the poorest environmental health conditions in Simi Valley, with scores ranging from the 51st to 60th percentile. Tracts along the northern and southern City boundaries tend to have better CalEnviroScreen scores.

Regional Trend
TCAC opportunity area environmental scores for the region are presented in Figure H4-25. A majority of Ventura County is comprised of tracts with environmental scores in the lowest quartile. Malibu, Agoura Hills, and the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles County have the highest concentrations of tracts with better environmental scores. There are very few tracts in Ventura County with environmental scores in the highest quartile. Tracts with environmental scores exceeding 0.75 are located in the Ojai, City of Ventura, and Thousand Oaks areas.

Sites Inventory
The City’s sites inventory is included in Figure H4-24. Many of the sites are located in tracts scoring in th e 40th percentile or above. Table H4 -13 shows that approximately 50 48 percent of RHNA units are in tracts with CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores between the 4131st and 5040th percentile and 40 43.3 percent of units are in tracts with scores between the 51st and 60th percentile. A larger share of moderate and above moderate units is in 51 st to 60th percentile-scoring tracts (worst scores) compared to lower income units. There are more lower units in tracts in the 30th percentile or below.RHNA units in tracts with scores within the 30th percentile (best scores) includes 4.6 percent of moderate income units and 15 percent of above moderate income units. There are no lower income RHNA units in tracts scoring within the 30th percentile.
55 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-50
Table H4-13: Sites Inventory Breakdown by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Score CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentile Score
(Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 1-10% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 29 15.0% 29 1.3%
11-20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
21-30% 0 0.0% 26 4.6% 0 0.0% 26 1.2%
31-40% 42 2.9% 38 6.7% 61 31.6% 141 6.3%
41-50% 978 66.6% 92 16.1% 0 0.0% 1,070 48.0%
51-60% 448 30.5% 414 72.6% 103 53.4% 965 43.3%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

Table H4-13: Sites Inventory Breakdown by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile
(Census Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
1-10% 1.0% 1.9% 2.7% 1.2%
11-20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21-30% 8.5% 1.9% 0.9% 7.4%
31-40% 52.0% 41.5% 41.1% 50.4%
41-50% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
51-60% 37.6% 54.7% 55.4% 40.4%
Total 2,014 265 112 2,391

56 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-51

Figure H4-23: TCAC Opportunity Area Environmental Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score, 2021. 57 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-52
58 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-53

Figure H4-24: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores by Tract and Sites Inventory SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021. 59 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-54

Figure H4-25: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Environmental Score by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Fair Housing Task Force Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score, 2021. 60 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-55

DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS

COST BURDEN
Housing problems for Simi Valley were calculated using HUD’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the 2013-2017 ACS. The following conditions are considered housing problems:
■ Substandard Housing (incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities) ■ Overcrowding (more than 1 person per room)
■ Cost burden (housing costs greater than 30 percent)
Local Trend
Table H4-14 breaks down households by race and ethnicity and presence of housing problems including cost burden for Simi Valley households. In Simi Valley, 40 percent of households had one or more housing problem, including

37.5 percent with a cost burden. The City had a slightly lower proportion of households with a housing problem compared to the County, where 42.8 percent of households had a housing problem including 39 percent with a cost burden. In Simi Valley, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and other races have the highest instance of housing problems including cost burden in the City. Approximately 57 percent of Pacific Islander households and 49 p ercent of Hispanic households experience one or more housing problems, compared to only 38 percent of White, non - Hispanic households.

Cost burden by tenure based on HUD CHAS data is shown in Table H4 -15 . Approximately 54.1 percent of all renter
households are cost burdenedburdened, and 28.3 percent are severely cost burdened. In comparison, only 31 percent of owner households are cost burdenedburdened, and 12.4 percent are severely cost burdened.

Figure H4-26
compares overpayment by tenure over time using the 2010 -2014 and 2015-2019 ACS. Overpayment for homeowners has increased in the southeastern section of the City, while overpayment for renter households has increased in the northern and western sections of the City. Overpayment for owner and renter households throughout the rest of the City has remained constant or gone down since the 2010-2014 ACS.

Table H4-14: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Cost Burden
With 1 or More Housing
Problem Total
Households Total Percent Total Percent
White, non-Hispanic 10,760 36.9% 11,185 38.3% 29,190
Black/African American, non-
Hispanic 184 33.5% 185 33.6% 550
Asian, non-Hispanic 1,145 31.5% 1,240 34.1% 3,635
American Indian/Alaska
Native, non-Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 65
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 20 57.1% 20 57.1% 35
Hispanic, any race 3,350 42.7% 3,835 48.9% 7,845
61 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-56
Table H4-14: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Cost Burden
With 1 or More Housing
Problem Total
Households Total Percent Total Percent
Other (including two or more
races), non-Hispanic 310 43.7% 324 45.6% 710
Total 15,760 37.5% 16,800 40.0% 42,025
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.

Table H4-15: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Level
Income Level
Owner-Occupied
Households
Renter-Occupied
Households Total Households
0-30% HAMFI 1,620 2,085 3,705
% w/ cost burden >30% 72.2% 73.4% 72.9%
%w/ cost burden >50% 61.4% 63.1% 62.3%
31-50% HAMFI 2,125 1,940 4,065
% w/ cost burden >30% 62.1% 91.8% 76.3%
%w/ cost burden >50% 45.4% 68.0% 56.2%
51-80% HAMFI 3,685 2,155 5,840
% w/ cost burden >30% 61.6% 77.3% 67.4%
%w/ cost burden >50% 30.4% 27.1% 29.2%
81-100% HAMFI 2,615 1,765 4,380
% w/ cost burden >30% 50.5% 56.4% 52.7%
%w/ cost burden >50% 14.7% 6.8% 11.5%
>100% HAMFI 20,110 3,920 24,030
% w/ cost burden >30% 16.3% 11.4% 15.5%
%w/ cost burden >50% 1.4% 0.5% 1.2%
Total 30,160 11,865 42,025
% w/ cost burden >30% 31.0% 54.1% 37.5%
%w/ cost burden >50% 12.4% 28.3% 16.9%
NOTE: HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.

Sites Inventory
Table H4-16 shows the distribution of RHNA units by population of cost burdened owners at the tract level. The largest proportion of RHNA units are in tracts where 20 to 40 percent of owners overpay for housing, including 82.9 percent of lower income units, 16.1 percent of moderate income units, and 31.6 percent of above moderate income units. Most moderate income units (79.3 percent) and above moderate income units (6 8.4 percent) are in tracts where 40 to 60 percent of owners are cost burdened.
62 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-57
Table H4-16: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Cost Burdened Owners Population of Cost
Burdened Owners
(Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <20% 0 0.0% 26 4.6% 0 0.0% 26 1.2%
20-40% 1,217 82.9% 92 16.1% 61 31.6% 1,370 61.4%
40-60% 251 17.1% 452 79.3% 132 68.4% 835 37.4%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%
Table H4-17 shows the distribution of RHNA units by tract population of overpaying renters. A larger proportion of moderate (77.2 percent) and above moderate (68.4 percent) income units are in tracts where less than 60 percent of renters are cost burdened compared to lower income units (31.5 percent). However, there are no lower income units in tracts where more than 80 percent of renters are cost burdened, whereas 31.6 percent of above moderate income units are in tracts with this proportion of overpaying renters.

Table H4-17: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Cost Burdened Renters Population of Cost
Burdened Renters
(Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 40-60% 463 31.5% 440 77.2% 132 68.4% 1,035 46.4%
60-80% 1,005 68.5% 130 22.8% 0 0.0% 1,135 50.9%
>80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 61 31.6% 61 2.7%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

63 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-58

Figure H4-26: (A) Overpayment – Owner Households (2010-2014) 64 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-59
65 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-60

(B) Sites Inventory and Overpayment – Owner Households (2015-2019) 66 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-61

(C) Overpayment – Renter Households (2010-2014)
67 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-62
68 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-63

(D) Sites Inventory and Overpayment – Renter Households (2015-2019) SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates), 2021. 69 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-64

OVERCROWDING
Local Trend
As shown in Table H4-14, approximately 40 percent of Simi Valley residents experienced a housing problem such as cost burden, in complete kitchen or plumbing facilities, or overcrowding. Table H4 -18, below, shows that approximately 3 percent of households in Simi Valley are overcrowded, including 0.8 percent severely overcrowded households. Overcrowding was not more common amongst lower income households. Only 1.5 percent of households earning less than 30 percent of the area median income were overcrowded, compared to 6.1 percent of 80-100 percent AMI households and 2.5 percent of the households earning over 100 percent of the AMI.

Census tracts 78 and 85.04 both have concentrations of overcrowded households exceeding the County average of

8.2 percent. Tract 78 has higher concentr ations of racial/ethnic minorities, families with children, female-headed households with children, and LMI households. Tract 80.04 also has a higher percentage of families with children and contains block groups with higher racial/ethnic minority concentr ations (see Figure H4 - and Figure H4-3 ).

Census tracts by concentration of overcrowded households are shown in Figure H4-17.

Table H4-18: Overcrowding by Income Level
Income Level
>1 Person per Room
(Overcrowded)
>1.5 Persons per Room (Severely
overcrowded)
Total Households Number Percent Number Percent
0-30% HAMFI 55 1.5% 55 1.5% 3,705
31-50% HAMFI 120 3.0% 0 0.0% 4,065
51-80% HAMFI 255 4.4% 90 1.5% 5,840
81-100% HAMFI 269 6.1% 64 1.5% 4,380
>100% HAMFI 600 2.5% 115 0.5% 24,030
Total 1299 3.1% 324 0.8% 42,025
NOTE: HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.

Sites Inventory
Table H4-19 and Figure H4-27 show the distribution of RHNA units by population of overcrowded households at the tract level. As discussed above, there are two tracts where more than 8.2 percent, the Statewide average, of households are overcrowded. A larger proportion of lower income units (68.5 percent) are in these tracts compared to moderate income units (22.8 percent). All above moderate income units are in tracts where fewer than 8.2 percent of households are overcrowded.
70 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-65
Table H4-19: Sites Inventory Breakdown by Overcrowded Households Population of
Overcrowded
Households (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <=8.2% 463 31.5% 440 77.2% 193 100.0% 1,096 49.1%

8.3-15% 1,005 68.5% 130 22.8% 0 0.0% 1,135 50.9%
Total 1,468 100.0% 570 100.0% 193 100.0% 2,231 100.0%

71 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-66
78 80.04
72 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-67

Figure H4-27: Sites Inventory and Overcrowded Households by Census Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD CHAS data (2011-2015 ACS), 2021

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. In Simi Valley, only 0.4% of households lacked complete plumbing facilities and 0.5% of households lacked complete kitchen facilities (Table H4-20). Ventura County had a similar percentage of households lacking complete plumbing facilities, but more units lacking complete kitchen facilities.

Table H4-20: Substandard Housing Conditions
Income Level
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities
Total Occupied
Units
Number Percent
Simi Valley 153 0.4% 222 0.5% 42,029
Ventura County 844 0.3% 2,725 1.0% 271,226
SOURCE: ACS 2014-2018 (5-Year Estimates).
73 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-68
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. Homes may begin to require major repairs or rehabilitation at 30 to 40 years of age. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately

53.4 percent of the housing stock in Simi Valley was built prior to 1980 and may be susceptible to deterioration, compared to 59 percent Countywide.

As shown in Table H4-21, households that earn less than 120 percent of the area median income are more likely to live in older homes that may be in need of rehabilitation compared to households making 120 percent or more than the area median income. Approximately 58 percent of households earning 0 to 50 percent of the area median income, 59 percent of households earning 51 to 80 percent of the area median income, and 57 percent of households earning 81 to 120 percent of the area median income lived in housing built prior to 1980. Only 47.5 percent of households earning over 120 percent the area median income lived in housing built prior to 1980.

Figure H4-28 shows the median age of housing units by Simi Valley census tract. Older housing units are generally concentrated in the center of the City. The median year built for these tracts is 1965 to 1969. Most tracts along the Simi Valley city boundaries have a higher concentration of newer housing built in 1982 or later. Many of the tracts with aging housing units also have higher concentrations of overpaying owners and renters, children living in female-headed households, and racial/ethnic minorities (see Figure H4-, Figure H4-4, and Figure H4-15).

Table H4-21: Housing Age by Income Level
Built 2000
or later
Built 1980-
1999
Built 1960-
1979
Built 1940-
1959
Built 1939
or earlier Total HHs
0-50% HAMFI 13.2% 29.0% 51.2% 5.3% 1.3% 7,770
51-80% HAMFI 11.0% 30.2% 52.8% 4.7% 1.2% 5,840
81-120% HAMFI 9.5% 33.3% 50.9% 5.7% 0.6% 8,675
>120% HAMFI 15.3% 37.2% 44.2% 2.9% 0.4% 19,745
Total 11,040 28,510 40,415 3,490 595 84,050
NOTE: HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
SOURCE: HUD CHAS Data (2013-2017 ACS), August 2020.
74 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-69

Figure H4-28: Median Year Built - Housing Units
SOURCE: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

DISPLACEMENT RISK
HCD defines sensitive communities as “communities [that] currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased development or drastic shifts in housing cost.” The following characteristics define a vulnerable community:
■ The share of very low income residents is above 20%; and ■ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
> Share of renters is above 40%,
> Share of people of color is above 50%,
> Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median,
> They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures (percent change in rent above County median for rent increases), or
> Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).

HCD has identified three vulnerable communities in Simi Valley, tract 78, tract 83.06, and tract 83.03 (Figure H4-18).

These communities are also areas with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities ( Figure H4-3), disabled 75 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-70
persons (Figure H4-3), families with children ( Figure H4-6) and female-headed households ( Figure H4-7), and LMI households(Figure H4-10).

Tract 78 also has a larger population of overcrowded households (9.1 percent) and cost burdened renters compared to other areas of the City (61.9 percent) ( Figure H4-26 and Figure H4-27). Tract 78 has the largest proportion of renter-occupied households (65.7 percent) compared to other tracts in the City (Figure H4-30). Tract 78 is zoned for a variety of uses: Commercial Planned Development (CPD), Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential High Density (RH), Residential Very High Density (RVH), Residential Moderate Density (RMod), and a small pocket of Residential Low Density (RL). In general, this tract has a higher concentration of RVH zones compared to other areas of the City. Zoning designations are further described in the Other Relevant Factors: Zoning Designations section of this Assessment of Fair Housing
Tracts 83.06 and 83.03 on the eastern side of the City also have larger renter populations compared to the remainder of Simi Valley (53.3 percent an d 54.3 percent respectively) (Figure H4-30). According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 55.3 percent and 59.6 percent respectively, of renters in these tracts are cost burdened. This is generally consistent with the trend Citywide. A majority of these tracts are zoned for Residential Medium Density (RM). Residential zoning deisgnations in these areas also include Residential Moderate Density (RMod) and Residential High Density (RH) and one Residential Low Density (RL) area. Zoning designations are further described in the Other Relevant Factors: Zoning Designations section of this Assessment of Fair Housing 76 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-71

Figure H4-29: Urban Displacement
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Urban Displacement Project, 2021. 77 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-72

Figure H4-30: Population in Renter-Occupied Households by Tract SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, HUD 2020, 2022.

OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS

HOUSING TYPE
LMI household population by block group with Simi Valley subsidized housing projects is presented in . Subsidized housing projects are generally located along the centerline of Simi Valley (E. Los Angeles), where block groups with larger LMI populations are located. The location of subsidized housing projects likely contributes to the distribution of LMI households in the City. The following subsidized housing projects are in Simi Valley:
■ Harmony Terrace Apartments (134
affordable units)
■ Sorrento Villas (148 affordable units)
■ Casa de Paz Apartments (14 affordable
units)
■ La Rahada Apartments (8 affordable units)
■ Heywood Gardens (74 affordable units)
■ Vintage at Sycamore (98 affordable units)
■ Vintage Paseo Senior Apartments (175
affordable units)
■ Plaza del Sol Apartments (34 affordable
units)
■ The Haven at Tapo Street (35 affordable
units)
■ Peppertree MHSA (11 affordable units)
78 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-73
■ Las Serenas Senior Apartments (107
affordable units)
■ Seasons at Simi Valley (68 affordable units)
■ Camino Esperanza (30 affordable units)
All subsidized housing projects are located in block groups where more than 25 percent of households are low or moderate income and five projects, Casa de Paz Apartments, La Rahada Apartments, Heywood Gardens, The Haven at Tapo Street, and Peppertree MHSA, are located in LMI areas where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income.

As shown in Figure H4-1 in the Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach section, there are also more HCV recipients in tracts along E. Los Angeles Avenue. All subsidized units are in tracts where more than one percent of renters receive HCVs, including nine in tracts where five to 15 percent of renters receive HCVs, and two in tracts where 15 to 30 percent of renters receive HCVs.

Mobile home parks in the City are presented in Figure H4 -32. There are seven mobile home parks in Simi Valley:

Friendly Village Simi MH Community (222 units), Garden Grove TP (16 units), Tradewinds MHP, LLC (100 units), Crest Mobile Home Village (41 units), Simi Country (247 units), Rocky Village Trailer Park (16 units), Susana Woods Prestige Mobile Estates (139 units). Mobile homes generally cater to lower income households. All mobile home parks are located in block groups where more than 25 percent of households are low or moderate income. Two of the seven mobile home parks, Tradewinds MHP and Garden Gove TP, are in LMI areas where more than 50 percent of the population is low or moderate income.

Zoning designations and housing types also likely contribute to the concentration of LMI households in some areas of Simi Valley. Zoning and housing are further discussed in the Other Relevant Factors: Zoning Designations section of this Assessment of Fair Housing.
79 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-74

Figure H4-31: Low/Moderate Income (LMI) Concentrations by Block Group Subsidized Housing Projects Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2020, CHPC 2021), 2022. 80 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-75

Figure H4-32: Mobile Home Parks
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HIFLD 2018), 2022.
81 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-76

ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Simi Valley Zoning Map is shown in Figure H4 -33. Populations identified throughout this Assessment of Fair Housing, including racial/ethnic minority populations, LMI households, and children residing in female-headed households, are generally more concentrated in tracts and block groups along the centerline, E. Los Angeles Avenue, of Simi Valley. As discussed above, subsidized housing projects and mobile home parks also tend to be concentrated in these areas. Residential Low Density (RL) de signations, or single-family homes, are most prevalent in the southwestern, central northern, and northeastern areas of the City. These areas generally have fewer fair housing issues. Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Moderate Density (RMod), and Residential High Density (RH) are more prevalent in the central areas of Simi Valley. Higher density housing in generally more affordable and suitable for low or moderate income households.

The two TCAC low resource tracts identified in the City are also located along this centerline on the western side of the City, north and south of Tierra Rejada Road and E. Los Angeles Avenue. The northern low resource tract (tract 77) has the highest concentration of General Industrial (GI) and Light Industrial (LI) zoning designations in the City.

Residential zones in this tract include Mixed Use (MU) , Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Moderate Density (RMod), and Mobile Home (MH). The southern low resource tract (75.14) has a mixed of residential zoning designations including Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Moderate Density (RMod), Residential High Density (RH), and Residential Very High Density (RVH).

82 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-77

Figure H4-33: Simi Valley Zoning Map
SOURCE: City of Simi Valley Panning Division – Zoning Maps, accessed September 2022. 83 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-78

SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
As described in this fair housing assessment, issues related to segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs may impede fair housing in Simi Valley. A summary of the fair housing issues in the City is shown below in Table H4-22.

Table H4-22: Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Fair Housing Enforcement and
Outreach
■ 31% of discrimination complaints filed in Ventura County between 2017 and 2019 occurred in Simi Valley.
■ Three fair housing testing sites in Simi Valley found evidence of racial discrimination.

Integration and Segregation
Race and Ethnicity ■ Areas with racial/ethnic minority populations over 50 percent are generally dispersed throughout the City with a small concentration in the central western section of the City.
■ Racial/ethnic dissimilarity indices have increased since 1990, indicating that segregation in the City has worsened.

Disability ■ Census tracts with a higher percentage of persons with disabilities are generally distributed evenly throughout the City; tracts closer to the City borders had lower populations of persons with disabilities.

Familial Status ■ Census tracts with higher ratios of families with children tended to be located in the center of the City.
■ Census tracts with more female-headed households with children were located in the central and south western sections of the City.

Income ■ 32.4 percent of Simi Valley households are considered lower income (earning 80 percent or less than the area median income).
■ Simi Valley had a lower percentage of lower income households and a higher median household income compared to Ventura County.
■ LMI areas are scattered throughout the center of the City; there were no LMI areas in the outskirt areas.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty ■ There are 4 R/ECAPs in Ventura County, none of which are located in Simi Valley.

Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Affluence
■ Areas with higher White populations generally correlated with areas with the highest median income; Census tracts with lower White populations and lower median incomes were generally concentrated in the center of the City. ■ Census tracts with the highest White populations were located in the northern and southern sections of the City.
■ Census tracts with the highest median incomes were located in the eastern sections of the City.
84 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-79
Table H4-22: Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Access to Opportunity ■ Most of the Census tracts in the City were designated as high or moderate resource areas.
■ Two Census tracts were designated as low resource areas; neither correlated with areas with high racial/ethnic minority populations, high populations of persons with disabilities, high populations of families with children or female-headed households, or LMI areas.
■ Hispanic residents were most likely to be impacted by poverty, have low labor market participation rates, and have the least access to higher quality school systems. ■ Asian and Pacific Islander communities were most likely to be exposed to reduced environmental quality.

Education ■ White residents were most likely to live near higher quality school systems. ■ Areas in the northwestern section of the City had the lowest school proficiency indices; these areas were also designated as low resource and had racial/ethnic minority populations over 50%.

Employment ■ Areas in the south central section of the City had the lowest job proximity indices; the eastern end of the City had the lowest labor market participation. ■ Neither of the areas identified were areas of high racial/ethnic minority populations or LMI areas.

Transportation ■ Generally, residents were equally likely to use public transportation and have similar transportation costs regardless of geographic location indicating that public transportation is roughly spread out throughout the City and is accessible to all residents.

Environmental Health ■ Environmental health indices were comparable Citywide. ■ The western side of the City had slightly lower environmental health indices but the area does not correlate with racial/ethnic populations, disabled populations, LMI areas, or household type.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden ■ 40% of households had a housing problem, including 37.5% with a cost burden. ■ Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Other races had the highest percentage of households with housing problems.
■ Census tracts with the highest populations of households with cost burden also had block groups with high racial/ethnic minority concentrations and LMI areas.

Overcrowding ■ 3.1% of Simi Valley households were overcrowded, including 0.8% extremely overcrowded.
■ Overcrowding did not disproportionately affect lower income households; overcrowding was most common amongst households earning 81-100% of the area median income and households earning 51-80% of the area median income.

Substandard Housing ■ Households lacking complete plumbing facilities in Simi Valley was comparable to the County average; there were fewer households lacking complete kitchen facilities in Simi Valley (0.5%) compared to the County (1%)
■ All households, regardless of income category, were generally equally likely to live in aging housing that may need rehabilitation; households earning over 120% of the median income were significantly less likely to live in aging housing. 85 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-80
Table H4-22: Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Displacement Risk ■ There are three vulnerable communities with a higher risk of displacement in the City; these communities have higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities and LMI households.

Sites Inventory
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throug hout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing was integrated throughout the discussion in the fair housing assessment section.

For the purposes of this analysis, Simi Valley has been divided into the following neighborhoods: Central East, Central West, East End, Northern, Southern, West End, South Western, and Upper Northern . There are no RHNA units located in the South Western and Upper Northern neighborhoods. The sites inventory and neighborhoods are shown in Figure H4-34. Simi Valley has identified sites throughout the City will the capacity to accommodate 2,391 units, including 1,620 lower income units, 570 moderate income units, and 201 above moderate income units. The distribution of RHNA units by neighborhood, tract, and AFFH variables is presented in Table H4-23.

CENTRAL EAST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Central East neighborhood is generally bound by the 118 Highway to the north, City boundary to the south, and Yosemite Avenue to the east . Residential Medium D ensity (RM) is the predominant zoning designation in this neighborhood. Other residential zoning designations include Residential Moderate Density (RMod), Residential High Density (RH), Residential Low Density (RL), and Residential Very High Density (RVH), in order of prevalence.

Non-residential zoning designations include Commercial Planned Development (CP D), General Industrial (GI), and Light Industrial (LI) (see Figure H4-33).

A total of 726 RHNA units are allocated in this neighborhood in tract 82.01: 209 lower income units, 414 moderate income units, and 103 above moderate income units. Tract 82.01 is a moderate resource area. This tract has racial/ethnic minority populations and populations of cost burdened renters comparable to the Citywide trend.

Tract 82.1 is not considered LMI area and does not have a population of overcrowded households exceeding the Statewide average of 8.2 percent. The Central East neighborhood contains a plethora of amenities and resources including schools, religious facilities, neighborhood parks, and grocery stores (Figure H4-35). The central location of this neighborhood also ensures residents have access to resources in adjacent neighborhoods such as the Northern and Central West neighborhoods. The City’s RHNA strategy in this neighborhood promotes a variety of housing types of various income levels. RHNA units in the Central East neighborhood are generally not exposed to inadequate fair housing conditions in excess of the Citywide averages. The City’s RHNA strategy in the Centra l East neighborhood will not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions.

CENTRAL WEST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Central West neighborhood is bound by the 118 Highway to the north, Arroyo Simi Creek to the south, and N.

Madera Road to the west. Like the Central East neighborhood, the Central West neighborhood is primarily zoned 86 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-81
for RM. Additional zoning designati ons, generally in order of prevalence, include CPD, GI, RVH, RH, Rmod, Automotive Industrial (AI), Sub-Regional Retail (SR), RL, and LI (see Figure H4-33).

The City’s RHNA strategy allocated 1,055 units (963 lower income and 92 moderate income) in tract 78 of this neighborhood. The Central West neighborhood contains the largest proportion of lower income units identified, representing 59.4 percent of all lower income units identified. Tract 78 is a TCAC moderate resource ar ea and has been identified as a sensitive community at risk of displacement. Approximately 68 percent of households in thi s tract are low or moderate income, making it an LMI area. Renter overpayment and overcrowding is slightly more prevalent in this neighborhood compared to other areas of the City. Tract 78 also has a larger proportion of non - White persons (68.2 percent) co mpared to other tracts. As presented in Figure H4-35, households residing in the Central West neighborhood will have adequate access to facilities and amenities including schools, grocery stores, neighborhood parks and recreation facilities , re ligious facilities, and a hospital. The central location of this neighborhood also ensures residents have accessible resources in adjacent neighborhoods such as the Central East and Southern neighborhoods. While the City’s RHNA strategy does concentrate lower income units in this area, where fair housing issues are slightly more prevalent, lower income units may be more apt to serving existing populations, specifically cost burdened renters and overcrowded households. Further, the RHNA strategy ensures lower income units are not allocated in this tract alone. The City’s RHNA strategy in this tract, in addition to AFFH programs outlined in this Housing Element, will ensure fair housing conditions are not exacerbated.

EAST END NEIGHBORHOOD
The East End Neighbo rhood is located on the fair eastern side of the City, bound by City boundaries to the north, east, and south, and Yosemite Avenue to the west. The East End neighborhood is zoned predominantly RM in the area south of the 118 Highway and RL north of the 118 Highway. There are also smaller pockets of RMod, RH, RVH Mobile Home (MH), and Residential Estate (RE) designations in this neighborhood. Additional non-residential zones include Open Space (OS), CPD, Commercial Resort (CRS), Commercial Recreation (CR), GI, and LI (see Figure H4-33).

There are only 26 RHNA units allocated in the East End neighborhood, all in tract 83.03. All 26 units are allocated towards the moderate income RHNA. Tract 83.03 is a high resource area but also a sensitive community at risk of displacement. Fewer than 8.2 percent of households are overcrowded in this tract and 59.6 percent of renters are cost burdened, consistent with most tracts Citywide. Racial/ethnic minority populations are similar to most other Simi Valley tracts, and tract 83.03 is not considered an LMI area. As shown in Figure H4-35, amenities and facilities are available throughout the City. The East End neighborhood contains a variety of amenities and facilities including neighborhood parks, schools, and grocery stores. Additional facilities are also accessible to East End residents south of the City and in the Central East neighborhood, west of the East End. Households in this neighborhood will have sufficient access to necessary resources. The allocation of 26 moderate income units in this neighborhood will not exacerbate fair housing conditions.

NORTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD
The northern neighborhood encompasses most of the City area north of the 118 Highway and is predominantly zoned RM. Other residential zoning designations in this neighborhood include Residential Very Low Density (RVL), RL, RH, RE, and RMod, in addition to non-residential designations such as CPD, Regional Commercial Center (RCC), Business Park (BP), Civic Center (CC), OS, and Commercial Office (CO) (see Figure H4-33). 87 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-82
A total of 76 RHNA units are located in the Northern neighborhood ( 15 lower income and 61 above moderate income) in tracts 84.01 and 85. All 15 lower income units are in tract 84.01 and all 61 above moderate income units are in tract 85. Neither tract has been identified as a sensitive community at risk of displacement. Tr act 84.01 is a moderate resource area and tract 85 is a high resource area. Neither tract is categorized as an LMI area, and racial/ethnic minority populations in both tracts are consistent with or lower than the Citywide average. Tract 85 has a larger proportion of overpaying renters (78.1 percent) compared to most other tracts in Simi Valley. Like a majority of Simi Valley, residents of the Northern neighbo rhood have adequate access to a variety of facilities and amenities including schools, religious facilities, neighborhood parks, grocery stores, and a hospital ( Figure H4-35).

Northern neighborhood residents are also located adjacent to the Central West and Central East neighborhoods which are also heavily populated with amenities and facilities. The RHNA strateg y in the Northern neighborhood ensures RHNA units of various income levels are allocated in an area where fair housing issues are generally less prevalent. Lower income units in this area may also help mitigate renter cost burden in this neighborhood. RHNA units in the Northern neighborhood will not exacerbate conditions related to fair housing.

SOUTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD
The Southern Neighborhood, bound by Simi Valley boundaries to the south and east, Arroyo Simi River to the north, and 1st Street to the west, is predominantly zoned for RM, RE, and OS. There are also smaller areas zoned for Rmod, RL, RH, and CO (see Figure H4-33).

There are 42 lower income units, 38 moderate income units, and 29 above moderate income units, totaling 109 units, allocated in the Southern neighborhood. Lower and moderate income units are allocated in tract 80.04 and above moderate income units are allocated in tract 75.06, categorized as a moderate resource area and high resource area respectively. Neither tract is considered a sensitive community at risk of displacement. Tract 80.04 has larger populations of cost burdened renters and overcrowded households c ompared to the remainder of Simi Valley. While renter overpayment and overcrowding are more prevalent in tract 80.04, RHNA sites in this neighborhood promote a variety of housing types suitable for various income levels. As shown in Figure H4-35, the southern side of the Southern neighborhood has f ewer facilities and amenities compared to other areas of Simi Valley. However, the sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA in this neighborhood are located in the proximity of several schools, religious facilities, and neighborhood parks, ensuring new hou seholds have adequate access to opportunities in this neighborhood. The RHNA strategy in the Southern neighborhood promotes a mixed income community and does not concentrate lower income units alone in an area where fair housing issues are more prevalent. The RHNA strategy in the Southern neighborhood may also help to mitigate existing fair housing is sues, specifically cost burden and overcrowding.

WEST END NEIGHBORHOOD
The West End neighborhood is generally bound by N. Madera Road, the Arroyo Simi Creek, and 1 st Street to the east, Madera Road to the south, and City boundaries to the north and west. This neighborhood has the highest concentration of GI and LI zones in Si mi Valley. Other non-residential zoning designations include OS, CO, BP, Sub- Regional Retail (SR), CDP, and CR. The West End neighborhood has a mix of residential zones ( RL, RM, Rmod, RH, RVH, and RE) (see Figure H4-33).

There are 239 lower income units allocated in the West End neighborhood, all in tract 77. This neighborhood has the third largest proportion of lower income units (14.8 percent of all lower income units allocated), after the Central West neighborhood (59.4 percent of all lower income units) and Central East neighborhood (22.3 percent 88 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-83
of all lower income units). There are no moderate or above moderate income RHNA units allocated in the West End neighborhood. Tract 77 is a low resource tract with a larger racial/ethnic minority population (70 percent) compared to the remainder of the City. However, this tract is not considered an LMI area and populations of cost burdened renters and overcrowded households residing in this tract are consistent with Citywide trends. The sites identified in the West End neighborhood are located in an area with a plethora of amenities and facilities including schools, grocery stores, religious facilities, and neighborhood parks. The sites are also adjacent to the Central West and Southern neighborhoods where amenities and facilities are abundant. While the City does allocate lower income units alone in this low resource area, actions outlined in this Housing Element will ensure future and existing households have adequate access to economic, educational, and transportation opportunities in addition to the amenities shown in Figure H4-35.
89 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-84
Table H4-23: Sites Inventory by Neighborhood, Tract, and AFFH Variable Neighborhood
/Tract
# of
HHs in
Tract
Total
Capacity
(Units)
Income Distribution
% Non-
White
% LMI
HHs
TCAC
Opp. Cat.
%
Overpay
Renter
% Over-
crowded
HH
At Risk of
Displace-
ment? Lower Moderate Above
Moderate
Central East

82.01 1,551 726 209 414 103 46.2 –

53.5% 39.3% Moderate 58.2% 0.9% No
Central West
78 1,427 1,055 963 92 0 68.2% 61.5% Moderate 61.9% 9.1% Yes East End

83.03 1,357 26 0 26 0 45.8 –

47.6% 44.9% High 59.6% 7.5% Yes
Northern

84.01 1,809 15 15 0 0 40.0% 42.3% Moderate 49.5% 1.5% No 85 2,993 61 0 0 61 30.1 –

39.3% 23.5% High 78.1% 2.0% No
Southern

75.06 2,431 29 0 0 29 39.6% 20.8% High 52.2% 0.6% No

80.04 1,490 80 42 38 0 46.0 –

47.7% 38.9% Moderate 65.2% 8.3% No
West End
77 2,020 239 239 0 0 70.0% 38.9% Low 53.6% 3.5% No

90 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-85

Figure H4-34: Sites Inventory and Neighborhoods
91 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-86

Figure H4-35: Sites Inventory, TCAC Opportunity Areas, Amenities and Facilities 92 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-87
Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors The following are contributing factors that affect fair housing choice in Simi Valley.

INSUFFICIENT AND INACCESSIBLE OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT
The City contracts with HRC to provide fair housing services to Simi Valley residents. In 2018, 10 fair housing tests were conducted in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks by HRC. Three testing sites in Simi Valley found evidence of discrimination, where White testers received preferential treatment over Black or African American testers.

Between 2013 and 2021, the FHEO received 13 inquiries from Simi Valley residents. One inquiry was related to disability status, and one was related to national origin. All other inquiries were not related to a specific protected class. There are nine tracts in the City where 60 to 80 percent of renters are cost burdened and one tract where more than 80 percent of renters are cost burdened. Of the 10 tracts identified, between 5 and 15 percent of renters in three tracts receive HCVs and between 1 and 5 percent of renters in two tracts receive HVCs. Few to no r enters receive HCVs in the remaining five tracts where renter cost burden is prevalent, indicating households may be unaware of affordable housing opportunities.

Contributing Factors
■ Lack of accessible fair housing information and variety of inputs media ■ Lack of marketing fair housing events such as fair housing conferences, resource fairs, and community meetings
■ Insufficient fair housing enforcement and testing

CONCENTRATION OF SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS
There are concentrations of special needs groups in cluding racial/ethnic minorities, children in female -headed households, and LMI households in tracts along the centerline (E. Los Angeles Avenue) of the City. Many of these tracts also tend to have larger populations of overpaying renters. Two of the tracts with larger racial/ethnic minority populations and cost burdened renters also have larger populations of overcrowded households. Since 2010, racial/ethnic minority populations along E. Los Angeles Avenue have continued to increase. Housing problems, such as cost burden, are more likely to affect non-White populations, specifically the Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and other/two or more race populations. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, environmental conditions are also poorer in this area; therefore, non-White populations are more exposed to adverse environmental conditions. in the northern sections of the City. These areas also have a higher concentration of overpaying renters.

Contributing Factors
■ Lack of private investment
■ Location and type of affordable housing
■ Lack of sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure 93 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-88

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS
Over 50% of households in Simi Valley were built prior to 1980 and are aged 30 or older. Approximately 0.4% of Simi Valley households lack complete plumbing facilities and 0.5% lack complete kitchen facilities. Aging housing units also tend to be more concentrated in the central areas of Simi Valley, where larger populations of racial/ethnic minority groups, LMI households, and children in single-parent female-headed households reside.

Contributing Factors
■ Age of housing stock
■ Cost of repairs or rehabilitation

DISPLACEMENT RISK OF LOW INCOME RESIDENTS DUE TO

ECONOMIC PRESSURE
There are three areas in Simi Valley that are considered vulnerable communities at risk of displacement (tracts 78,

83.06, and 83.03). These areas also have a higher concentration of LMI households and overpaying renters. Sensitive communities at risk of displacement are in block groups in the central eastern and western areas of the City. All three sensitive communities, tracts 78, 83.06, and 83.03, have larger proportions of renter -occupied households compared to the remainder of the City ( 65.7 percent, 53.3 percent, and 54.3 percent, respectively). Renters are more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden. All three tracts contain block groups that are considered LMI areas with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 41 percent. It is also relevant to note that

51.6 percent of units identified to meet Simi Valley’s RHNA are located in sensitive communities, including 68.8 percent of lower income units identified.

Contributing Factors
■ Unaffordable rents
■ Concentration of poverty in some tracts
■ Availability of affordable housing
94 RES. NO. 2023-08
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-89
Priorities, Goals, and Actions
Table H4-24: Priorities, Goals, and Actions
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Action
Enforcement and
Outreach
■ Insufficient and inaccessible outreach
and enforcement
> Lack of accessible fair housing
information and variety of inputs
media
> Lack of marketing fair housing
events such as fair housing
conferences, resource meetings,
and community meetings
■ Continue the contracting with HRC to provide fair housing services to Simi Valley residents.
■ Continue offering to host fair housing workshops in Simi Valley annually, including the landlord-tenant workshop and the homebuyer’s education workshop hosted by HRC.
■ Increase outreach related to fair housing education and workshop, specifically, the block group on the western side of the City where many sites used to meet the City’s RHNA are located and in low resource tracts on the western end of the City.
■ Offer fair housing outreach and education in Spanish and English.

New Housing
Choices in Areas
of High
Opportunity
Place-Based
Strategies to
Encourage
Community
Revitalization
■ Concentration of special needs
groups
> Lack of private investment
> Location and type of affordable
housing
> Lack of sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, and other
infrastructure
■ Commit to one public improvement project annually.
■ Implement the minor streets rehabilitation project which consists primarily of asphalt resurfacing or slurry sealing of the full width of various residential streets throughout the City based on pavement conditions and ranking identified on the City’s street paving priority list within the City’s LMI areas
■ Substandard Housing Conditions
> Age of housing stock
> Cost of repairs and rehabilitation
■ Support nonprofits in pursuing funding for acquisition/rehabilitation of housing through the City’s HOME program.
■ Continue the City’s rehabilitation program and target home rehabilitation in tracts with a higher concentration of aging housing units, generally located in the center of the City
95 RES. NO. 2023-08
APPENDIX H4
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY GENERAL PLAN H4-90
Table H4-24: Priorities, Goals, and Actions
Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Action
Protect Existing
Residents from
Displacement
■ Displacement risk of low income
residents due to economic pressures
> Unaffordable rents
> Concentration of poverty in
some tracts
> Availability of affordable housing
■ Through SB 2 and LEAP grants already acquired by Simi Valley, develop the following Specific Plans for high impact development areas to ensure continuity, economic vibrancy, and increase housing diversity. It will designate and rezone under-utilized opportunity areas for additional housing capacity or preparing specific plans or form based codes that include zoning and development standards and plan-level environmental analysis that can be used to streamline future housing projects and facilitate affordability
> Tapo Street Corridor: Between Hwy 118 and Los Angeles Avenue with mixed-use and housing opportunities, and
extending eastward toward Stearns Street to include the Metrolink Station (TOD/HQTA)
> Los Angeles Avenue Corridor: Between Sinaloa Road and Erringer Road, to identify opportunities along the commercial retail corridor and the Mountain Gate shopping center with mixed-use opportunities
■ Continue providing the following assistance to small businesses that may be displaced due to the rezoning proposed by this Housing Element:
> Community Development Block Grant COVID-19 (CDBG-CV)
Small Business Grant Program for FY2020-21: Provide
financial assistance, through CDBG grants, to small
businesses that have been impacted by COVID-19.

Applicants eligible to receive up to $5,000 in the form of a grant that will not require repayment.
> Business Location Assistance: The City’s Economic
Development Office provides several resources to assist business owners in finding an appropriate location for their business. The City is a subscriber to proprietary software, which gives staff the ability to provide custom reports of available properties and vacant spaces. These services
include lists of building and tenant spaces available for lease or for sale; asking rents and sales prices; comparable data for lease rates; demographic data; analytical property data; property ownership information; ideas and introductions to brokers and property managers.
> Agency Partners: The City of Simi Valley has also established partnerships with the Economic Development Collaborative of Ventura County (EDC-VC) and Small Business Development
Center (SBDC) to promote job growth, maintain economic
vitality, and provide management assistance to small
business owners.

96 RES. NO. 2023-08