Laserfiche WebLink
resulting from the extremely small number of voucher holders in R/ECAPs in Irvine. The <br />percentages of elderly and disabled residents, which often coincide, were similarly high. <br />Table 49: Santa Ana <br />Total # <br />%Asian <br />Families <br />units <br />% <br />% <br />% <br />or Pacific <br />with <br />% <br />%with a <br />Santa Ana <br />(occupied) <br />White <br />Black <br />Hispanic <br />Islander <br />children <br />Elderly <br />disability <br />Project -based <br />Section 8 <br />N/a <br />N/a <br />0.00% <br />N/a <br />N/a <br />N/a <br />N/a <br />N/a <br />RECAP tracts <br />Non R/ECAP <br />790 <br />5.70% <br />0.89% <br />24.68% <br />62.78% <br />3.60% <br />92.31% <br />14.64% <br />tracts <br />HCV Program <br />130 <br />6.02% <br />3.61% <br />26.51% <br />63.86% <br />22.35% <br />47.06% <br />25.889/o <br />RECAP tracts <br />Non R/ECAP <br />2,512 <br />10.40% <br />2.72% <br />31.62% <br />55.14% <br />25.97% <br />50.88% <br />21.17% <br />tracts <br />LUITC <br />126 <br />8.83% <br />1.42% <br />84.33% <br />5.98% <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />RECAP tracts <br />Non R/ECAP <br />966 <br />52.72% <br />1.26% <br />87.24% <br />2.17% <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />N/A <br />tracts <br />Like the analysis of Irvine above, the HUD tables provided here are outdated and utilize old <br />R/ECAPs, but they are nevertheless useful in comparing tracts with similar characteristics. The <br />LIHTC data is accurate, however, and reflects the only publicly supported housing development <br />within a RECAP — Wakeham Grant Apartments. The outdated data on Housing Choice Vouchers <br />shows a general tendency for the demographic composition of voucher holders to be quite similar <br />inside and outside R/ECAPs, with a slight tendency toward higher Asian American or Pacific <br />Islander representation in R/ECAPs. The LIHTC demographics tell a similar story. It should be <br />noted that LIHTC demographic information has been self -reported to the California state treasurer, <br />and does not always match the way HUD reports demographics, especially when it comes to race <br />versus ethnicity. This might account for the extremely high co -incidence of White and Hispanic <br />residents. Overall, it seems there is not much difference within and outside R/ECAPs for LIHTC <br />units in Santa Ana. <br />Do any developments of public housing, properties converted under the RAD, and <br />LIHTC developments have a significantly different demographic composition, in terms <br />ofprotected class, than other developments of the same category for the jurisdiction? <br />Describe how these developments differ. <br />See Tables in Appendix <br />237 <br />75A-516 <br />