HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 23 - Public Hearing - FY 2025-29 5 Year Plan, Annual Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs Community Development Agency
www.santa-ana.org/community-development
Item # 23
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Staff Report
June 3, 2025
TOPIC: Fiscal Year 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2025-26
Annual Action Plan for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
AGENDA TITLE
Public Hearing – Approve the Fiscal Year 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Fiscal
Year 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets for the Community Development Block
Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Grant, and Emergency Solutions Grant for
Submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Receive
and File the Fiscal Year 2025-29 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing.
Published in the OC Register, La Opinion, and Nguoi Viet on April 28, 2025.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve the Fiscal Year 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year
2025-26 Annual Action Plan for submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
2. Approve the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budgets for the Community Development Block
Grant Program in the total amount of $4,366,478, HOME Investment Partnerships
grant in the amount of $1,159,062, and Emergency Solutions Grant in the amount of
$377,330.
3. Authorize the City Manager to prepare and approve funding agreements and/or
memorandums of understanding with various city departments and nonprofit public
service providers awarded funds as part of the approved budget for the Community
Development Block Grant program and the Emergency Solutions Grant program for
a term beginning July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.
4. Receive and file the Fiscal Year 2025-29 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing.
GOVERNMENT CODE §84308 APPLIES: Yes
DISCUSSION
Every five years, the City of Santa Ana (City) must submit a Five-Year Consolidated
Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to
receive federal funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 2
5
0
7
3
programs. These federal funds provide for the development of affordable housing,
street improvements, park and public facilities improvements, economic development,
code enforcement, nonprofit public services, the expansion and retention of businesses,
and for the delivery of services for individuals experiencing homelessness. In general,
the Five-Year Consolidated Plan describes how the City will invest and allocate these
limited federal funds for and on behalf of the community. The Five-Year Consolidated
Plan covers the five-year period from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2029. It also includes the
first Annual Action Plan for the one-year period from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
(e.g. it includes the Annual Plan for the first year of the Five-Year Plan). These two
planning documents are described in detail below.
Fiscal Year 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan
The Fiscal Year 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan is the City of Santa Ana’s
Strategic Plan for the investment of annual allocations of CDBG, HOME, and ESG
funds from HUD during the five-year period covered by the Consolidated Plan beginning
July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2029 (Exhibit 1). The Five-Year Consolidated Plan
(Plan) outlines the overall strategy that the City intends to carry out over the next five
years and identifies the objectives and outcomes to be accomplished with that
strategy. In consideration of limited grant resources, the Strategic Plan within the
Consolidated Plan outlines the areas and population segments with the greatest level of
need for a particular program or activity and intends to invest grant resources in high
leverage opportunities where data suggests that the City will be able to maximize the
impact of every dollar. The Strategic Plan identifies the City’s priority needs, including
the rationale for establishing allocation priorities, and specific measurable goals to be
addressed during the five-year period covered by the Consolidated Plan through
activities to be implemented as part of the five Annual Action Plans using CDBG,
HOME, and ESG Program funds.
The Consolidated Plan also contains a Needs Assessment and Market Analysis that
provide insight into the different levels of need in the community and the market in
which grant-funded programs will be implemented. The Needs Assessment
incorporates national data from the 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, the 2016-2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and
the 2023 and 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Counts in addition to data sets from
HUD, the State of California, and local/regional data. Based on the Needs Assessment
and Market Analysis, the Strategic Plan identifies six high priority needs to be
addressed using the City’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG Program funds. The six priority
needs for the City include:
•Expand the supply of affordable housing
•Preserve the supply of affordable housing
•Access to and supply of public services
•Increase access to and supply of homeless services and facilities
•Promote economic opportunity
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 3
5
0
7
3
•Improve City public facilities and infrastructure
The City of Santa Ana anticipates that it will continue to receive CDBG, HOME, and
ESG funding during the duration of this Consolidated Plan cycle. When accounting for
program income and prior year resources, the City anticipates that it will have the
following funding to target to its strategic goals and priorities over the next five years
(page 97):
Program Allocation
CDBG $20,950,890
HOME $5,795,310
ESG $1,886,650
TOTAL $28,632,850
The summary of goals to be achieved through the Strategic Plan is provided in a table
on page 104 of the Consolidated Plan. The goals are aspirational in nature and subject
to adjustment dependent on funding from HUD, city resources, and staff capacity. Staff
reports out on our progress to achieve the goals each year through the Consolidated
Annual Performance and Evaluation Report submitted to City Council after every fiscal
year.
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Annual Action Plan
The Consolidated Plan includes the first of five Annual Action Plans during the five-year
period covered by the Consolidated Plan. As part of this five-year strategic planning
process, the City is required to submit an Annual Action Plan each year that describes
how the City will achieve the goals stated in the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. This
document establishes a one-year investment plan that outlines the intended use of
resources in the forthcoming fiscal year. The proposed Annual Action Plan covers Fiscal
Year (FY) 2025–26 and seeks to allocate funding where programs and resources will
have the maximum positive impact (Exhibit 1).
The Annual Action Plan describes the planned use of the City’s federal entitlement
grants specifically for FY 2025-26. For FY 2025-26, the City will receive $4,190,178 in
CDBG program funds and $176,300 in prior years resources, $1,159,062 in HOME
program funds, and $377,330 in ESG program funds from HUD:
Program Allocation
CDBG $4,366,478
HOME $1,159,062
ESG $377,330
TOTAL $5,902,870
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 4
5
0
7
3
The various projects and programs covered under the FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan
are designed to serve low-income residents. The FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan
includes the program budgets described in detail below for the CDBG, HOME, and ESG
programs respectively.
Community Development Block Grant Program Budget
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides funds to improve
low and moderate-income neighborhoods, eliminate blight, and create a more
stable economic base. These funds may be used for a diverse range of programs,
including affordable housing, street improvements, park and public facilities
improvements, economic development, code enforcement, and public services. The
City’s CDBG allocation for FY 2025-26, is $4,190,178.
The proposed FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan consists of the Community
Development Commission funding recommendations for nonprofit public service
programs from 2024 and staff’s funding recommendations this year for administration
and planning, code enforcement, city capital improvements, and housing. The CDBG
Program Funding Plan can be summarized in two general categories: 1) Capital
Projects/CDBG Program Funding Plan; and 2) Public Services. A summary of the
process and allocation for the FY 2025-26 CDBG Program is provided below for both
general categories.
Capital Projects/CDBG Program Funding Plan
The FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan includes the funding allocations for
administration and planning, code enforcement in low and moderate-income areas of the
city to address health and safety violations, economic development to provide small
business grants, nonprofit public services, city capital improvement projects, and
single-family rehabilitation grants (Exhibit 2).
The CDBG allowable cap of 20% for administration and fair housing services is
$838,035 for FY 2025-26. Administration is necessary for staffing, compliance,
reporting, fiscal management, studies, and monitoring of the entire program. Fair
housing is necessary due to CDBG requirements that the City affirmatively further fair
housing.
Two new city capital improvement projects are recommended for funding for a total of
$591,955, which includes $415,655 for Cedar Street Improvements and $176,300 for
the Bristol-Tolliver Street Urban Greening Project.
The proposed programs and capital improvement projects have been determined to be
of highest priority and need by the Executive Directors of the Parks, Recreation, and
Community Services Agency, Public Works Agency, and Community Development
Agency. These determinations come subsequent to the City's internal application
process, ensuring a thorough assessment and alignment with overarching objectives.
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 5
5
0
7
3
FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Budget
General Activity Funding Amount
CDBG Program Administration and Fair Housing $838,035
Code Enforcement - Enforcement of Housing and Municipal Building Codes $825,000
Economic Development $100,000
Non-Profit Public Services $628,527
City Capital Improvements $591,955
Housing $1,382,961
TOTAL $4,366,478
City Department / Division 2025-26
Award
Community Development Agency - Administration of the CDBG Program.
Proposed funding amount calculated based on 20% administrative cap less
Fair Housing amount.$768,036
Orange County Fair Housing Council Inc. – Provides fair housing education,
landlord tenant counseling, and enforcement services to combat housing
discrimination and city administrative support for the residents of the City of Santa
Ana. A commitment to further fair housing is a requirement of CDBG funding.$70,000
Code Enforcement – Community Preservation Services $825,000
Economic Development - New Business Start-Up/Micro Enterprise Grants $100,000
Public Works Agency – Cedar Street Improvements, Bristol-Tolliver Street
Urban Greening Project $591,955
Housing – To address rehabilitation of single-family housing with Habitat for
Humanity of Orange County (Citywide)$500,000
Housing – To provide down payment assistance (Citywide)$882,961
TOTAL $3,737,952
Nonprofit Public Services
A maximum of 15% of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for FY
2025-29 ($628,527) is allocated for nonprofit public services. For the fiscal years 2024-
2025 and 2025-26, the City agreed to provide the entire estimated public service
allocation to nonprofit organizations for programs with an emphasis on crime
prevention, intervention, and suppression for children, youth, and families, economic
development, tenant services assistance and programs, health services, and senior
services (Exhibit 3).
On May 7, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute agreements
with nonprofit organizations awarded funds as part of the approved CDBG Program for
a two-year term beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2026. Therefore, funding for
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 6
5
0
7
3
Public Services approved for FY 2024-2025 are being renewed for FY 2025-26 at the
same proportional award amount with an average 6% decrease due to a funding
decrease from HUD.
Public Service Organizations 2025-26
Award
AIDS Services Foundation of OC dba Radiant Health Centers – HIV Care
Services $34,860
America on Track – Brighter Futures for Children of Prisoners $34,860
Community Health Initiative Orange County – Community Health Access
Program $34,860
Community Legal Aid SoCal – Domestic Violence Prevention Project $34,860
Delhi Center – Teens Engaged in Learning and Leadership $62,053
Girl’s Inc. of Orange County – StrongHer Together $34,860
Human Options – Assisting Domestic Violence Victims $34,860
Lutheran Social Services of Southern California – Victims Intervention
Program $34,860
MOMs OC – Maternal Child Health Coordination Program $34,860
Nati's House (dba Neutral Ground) – Summer Night Lights $34,860
Orange County Children's Therapeutic Arts Center –Neighborhood Crime
Prevention & Intervention Program $34,860
Project Hope Alliance – On Site Case Management Program $43,574
StandUp for Kids - On Campus Mentoring for Homeless Youth $34,860
Straight Talk Clinic, Inc. – Crisis Intervention and Comprehensive Mental Health
Services for Low-Income Santa Ana Residents $34,860
Templo Calvario – Legado Academy $34,860
United Cerebral Palsy Association of OC dba Unlimited Possibilities – Safety
Net Fund $34,860
WISEPlace – Steps to Independence $34,860
TOTAL $628,527
HOME Investment Partnerships Grant Program Budget
The HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program provides funds for a wide range of
housing-related activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable
housing for rent or homeownership, or providing direct tenant-based rental assistance to
low-income residents. The program’s flexibility allows HOME funds to be used for grants,
direct loans, loan guarantees or other forms of credit enhancements, or tenant-based
rental assistance or security deposits.
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 7
5
0
7
3
At least 15% of HOME funds must be set aside for specific activities to be undertaken by
a special type of nonprofit called a Community Housing Development Organization
(CHDO). A CHDO is a private nonprofit, community-based organization that has staff
with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves. In order to
qualify for designation as a CHDO, the organization must meet certain requirements
pertaining to their legal status, organizational structure, and capacity and experience.
The City’s HOME allocation for FY 2025-26 is $1,159,062. In this Annual Action Plan,
funds are proposed for program administration, the required set-aside for CHDOs, and
funds for affordable housing development and rehabilitation.
FY 2025-26 HOME Program Budget
General Activity Funding Amount
HOME Program Administration $115,906
HOME CHDO Set-Aside $173,859
Affordable Housing Development and Rehabilitation $869,296
TOTAL $1,159,061
The FY 2025-26 HOME Program Funding Plan is not attached as an exhibit because
the funding plan is described in the table above.
Emergency Solutions Grant
The Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program provides funds to assist both
sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals, as well as those on the brink of
homelessness, enabling them to swiftly regain stability in permanent housing after
experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness. Recipients of ESG funding in
Orange County include the following entitlement jurisdictions: the County of Orange,
City of Anaheim, City of Irvine, City of Santa Ana, and City of Garden Grove.
Collectively, this group is referred to as the Orange County ESG Collaborative that was
formed over ten years ago.
The City's ESG allocation for FY 2025-26 is $377,330. The proposed FY 2025-26 ESG
Program Funding Plan includes a list of homeless service providers recommended for
funding for FY 2025-26 (Exhibit 4). These funding recommendations are based upon
applications received during the 2019 RFP process, taking into account performance
metrics and current needs as identified by staff. The budget below is broken down by
category to provide more detail on funds allocated to eligible ESG activities:
FY 2025-26 ESG Program Budget
General Activity Funding Amount
ESG Program Administration $28,300
Emergency Shelter & Outreach $176,885
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 8
5
0
7
3
Housing Relocation & Stabilization Services $114,000
Homeless Management Information System $58,146
TOTAL $377,331
Outreach and Engagement
To develop the 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan and 2025-26 Annual Action Plan,
in accordance with the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan, staff conducted
extensive outreach and engagement to the community for three months from October
2024 to December 2024 through surveys, community meetings, and public hearings.
Efforts were made to encourage participation by low- and moderate-income persons,
particularly those living in slum and blighted areas and in areas where HUD funds are
proposed to be used, and by residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods. The City also made efforts to encourage the participation of minorities
and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities. The consultation
process included representatives of the Continuum of Care, Santa Ana Housing
Authority, and other specified groups who completed surveys, provided local data, and
assisted the City to ensure practical coordination of strategies to maximize impact and
to avoid duplication of effort.
To foster meaningful engagement and gather comprehensive input, staff created two
surveys, distributed flyers, and held 13 community meetings. For the two surveys, first a
Community Needs Survey was made available in electronic and hard copy in English,
Spanish, and Vietnamese. It was open from October 3, 2024 to December 11, 2024. A
total of 102 responses were received. A second Stakeholder Survey was made
available in English from October 23, 2024 to November 23, 2024. It was e-mailed to
hundreds of businesses and nonprofit organizations. A total of 40 responses were
received.
Consolidated Plan flyers soliciting community and stakeholder input were created in
English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. These flyers include a link to the survey and they
were distributed to the following recipients, who were asked to share them with their
respective stakeholders:
• CDBG nonprofit contacts for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25
• ESG nonprofit contacts for FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25
• 2-1-1 list of non-profits and other community organizations
• Affordable housing developers and their property management companies
• Neighborhood Associations Newsletters
• Community Development Commissioners
• Economic Development’s list of business owners
• Homeless Services Division list of homeless service providers
• Posted on City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Catalog Page
• Delivered flyers to all of the City’s Community Centers
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 9
5
0
7
3
• Posted on City’s social media platforms including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook,
Nixle, COSA Newsletter
• Housing Authority’s Family Self-Sufficiency program and lobby
• Santa Anita’s Thanksgiving Event on Saturday, November 16th
A total of 13 Consolidated Plan Community Meetings were also held at the following
locations with 134 participants in attendance:
Date Location Event Type Time # of
Participants
Tuesday,
October 22
Southwest Senior
Center Community Meeting 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.1
Wednesday,
October 23 Roosevelt Walker Stakeholder Meeting 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.0
Stakeholder Meeting 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.10Thursday,
October 24
Salgado Community
Center Community Meeting 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.0
Friday,
October 25
El Salvador
Community Center Community Meeting 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.0
Monday,
November 4
Willard Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association Meeting
(English and
Spanish)
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.23
Artesia Pillar
Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association Meeting
(English and
Spanish)
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.10
Thursday,
November 7 Downtown and Flower
Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association Meeting 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.8
Tuesday,
November 12
Pacific Park
Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association Meeting
(English and
Spanish)
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.18
Wednesday,
November 13
Mabury Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association Meeting
(English)
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.15
Morning Virtual
Meeting 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.21Tuesday,
November 19
Virtual Meetings via
Teams Afternoon Virtual
Meeting 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.11
Thursday,
November 21
ComLink
Neighborhood
Association
Neighborhood
Association Meeting
(English)
6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.17
TOTAL 134
For comparison purposes of the extent of outreach for this Consolidated Plan compared
to the last one, in 2020 staff held only five community workshops and conducted a
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 10
5
0
7
3
survey. For this Consolidated Plan, staff conducted nearly three times the amount of
community meetings and outreach as before while also conducting a survey.
Fiscal Year 2025-29 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing
The federal regulations for the Consolidated Plan require that grantees conduct an
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of
impediments identified through that Assessment, and maintain records reflecting the
assessment and actions (Exhibit 6). An AFH is a document that analyzes local and
regional policies, procedures, and practices within a community that may limit a
person’s ability to choose their residence free from discrimination, and addresses
actions that may be taken to overcome these discriminatory housing policies,
procedures, and practices
While the requirement to complete an AFH must be fulfilled by individual grantees, HUD
encourages regional collaboration for this planning effort. In Orange County, 19
entitlement cities (Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley,
Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Laguna Niguel, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, San
Clemente, Santa Ana, Tustin, and Westminster) and 14 cities contracted with the
County of Orange (Cities of Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills,
Laguna Woods, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach,
Stanton, Villa Park, Yorba Linda, and all unincorporated areas of the County) elected to
prepare a Regional AFH. The 19 entitlement cities and 14 cities contracted with the
County of Orange entered into an agreement with MDG Associates, Inc. to complete the
Regional AFH. The benefit of a Regional AFH is that it allows for a broader perspective
on issues that may be impacting housing choice and/or mobility within the region as well
as potential solutions and/or strategies. The Regional AFH provides an overview of
laws, regulations, conditions, or other possible obstacles that may affect an individual or
a household’s access to housing in a community. It also presents local and regional
demographic profiles, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific groups,
identifies existing barriers or impediments that may limit housing choice, and proposes
actions to overcome those barriers.
To prepare the Regional AFH on behalf of all of the cities and the County, MDG
Associates conducted a broad array of outreach and engagement through community
meetings, focus groups, and public hearings. MDG Associates reached out to tenants,
property owners, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy
organizations, legal services providers, social services providers, housing developers,
and industry groups to hear directly about fair housing issues affecting residents of
Orange County. Specifically, beginning in October 2024, MDG Associates held
meetings with individual stakeholders throughout the County. In January and February
2025, evening community meetings were held in Costa Mesa, La Habra, and Santa
Ana. Also in February, MDG Associates held a focus group with a wide array of
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 11
5
0
7
3
nonprofit organizations and government officials. Additional presentations and meetings
were held with City Councils and various city staff members.
Geographically specific community meetings were held across Orange County,
including the South, West, Central, and North parts of the County. Additional outreach
was conducted for members of protected classes, including the Latino and Vietnamese
communities. All community meetings had translation services available if requested in
Spanish and Vietnamese. In addition, all meetings were held in locations accessible to
people with mobility issues.
Next Steps
HUD regulations require a 30-day public review and comment period for the draft 2025-
29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan. On April 28, 2025, the
drafts were posted to the City’s webpage and a public notice (Exhibit 7) was published
in the Orange County Register, La Opinion, and Nguoi Viet newspapers, that the draft
Plans were available for review beginning April 28, 2025, and that two public hearings
would be held on May 28, 2025 at the Community Development Commission and June
3, 2025 at the City Council regular meeting. The 30-day public comment period will
conclude on May 30, 2025, at 4:00 P.M.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds will be budgeted and available in the following grant account (nos. 13518780,
13518782, 13518783, 13518785 and 13018780) upon execution of a grant agreement
between the City and HUD and adoption of the FY 2025-26 annual budget. A proposed
carryover of $176,300 for the Bristol-Tolliver Street Urban Greening Project will be
presented to City Council for approval to FY 2025-26 as part of the citywide carryforward
process:
Fiscal
Year
Grant
Year
Accounting
Unit-Account
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account Description Amount
FY
2025-26 2025 13518780-
various
Community
Development
Block Grant
CDBG
Administration $838,035
FY
2025-26 2025 13518782-
various
Community
Development
Block Grant
CDBG Housing $1,382,961
FY
2025-26 2025
13518783-
various
Community
Development
Block Grant
CDBG Programs $1,340,655
FY
2025-26 2023 13518783-
various
Community
Development
Block Grant
CDBG Programs $176,300
FY
2025-26 2025
13518783-
69135
Community
Development
Block Grant
CDBG Programs $628,527
Total for FY 2025-26 $4,366,478
FY 2025-29 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan and Budgets
for CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs
June 3, 2025
Page 12
5
0
7
3
Fiscal
Year
Grant
Year
Accounting
Unit-Account
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account Description Amount
FY
2025-26 2025 13018780-
various
HOME
Investment
Partnerships
Grant
HOME Program $1,159,062
Total for FY 2025-26 $1,159,062
Fiscal
Year
Grant
Year
Accounting
Unit-Account
Fund
Description
Accounting Unit,
Account Description Amount
FY
2025-26 2025 13518785-
various
Emergency
Solutions
Grant
ESG Grant $377,330
Total for FY 2025-26 $377,330
Any remaining balances not expended at the end of the fiscal year will be presented to
City Council for approval of carryovers to FY 2026-27.
EXHIBIT(S)
1. FY 2025-29 Consolidated Plan and FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan
2. FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan
3. FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Summaries
4. FY 2025-26 ESG Program Funding Plan
5. FY 2025-26 ESG Program Summaries
6. FY 2025-29 Regional Assessment of Fair Housing
7. Proofs of Publication
Submitted By: Michael L. Garcia, Executive Director of Community Development
Approved By: Alvaro Nuñez, City Manager
DRAFT - April 2025
2025-2029 Consolidated Plan
2025-2026 Action Plan
EXHIBIT 1
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 1
Santa Ana City Council
Valerie Amezcua
Mayor
Benjamin Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tem
Phil Bacerra
Council Member
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Council Member
David Penaloza
Council Member
Thai Viet Phan
Council Member
EXHIBIT 1
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT 1
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
ES-05 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
The Process .............................................................................................................................. 9
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies ...................................................................................... 9
PR-10 Consultation ..................................................................................................................10
PR-15 Citizen Participation ......................................................................................................62
Needs Assessment ..................................................................................................................65
NA-05 Overview ......................................................................................................................65
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment .......................................................................................67
NA-35 Public Housing .............................................................................................................79
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment .....................................................................................82
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment ................................................................87
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs.........................................................91
MA-05 Overview ......................................................................................................................94
MA-10 Number of Housing Units ...........................................................................................95
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing ...............................................................99
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) .................................. 104
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing .................................................................................... 108
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services ............................................................................. 109
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services ...................................................................... 113
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing ................................................................................. 116
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets...................................................... 117
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ................................................................... 123
MA-60 Broadband Needs...................................................................................................... 127
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 128
Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................................ 129
SP-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................... 129
SP-10 Geographic Priorities .................................................................................................. 132
SP-25 Priority Needs ............................................................................................................. 133
EXHIBIT 1
ii
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions .................................................................................. 140
SP-35 Anticipated Resources ................................................................................................ 142
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure .................................................................................. 146
SP-45 Goals Summary .......................................................................................................... 149
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement ......................................................... 152
SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing .................................................................................. 153
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy .............................................................................................. 156
SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards .......................................................................................... 158
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy ................................................................................................. 159
SP-80 Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 160
Annual Action Plan................................................................................................................ 161
AP-15 Expected Resources ................................................................................................... 161
AP-20/ AP-23 Annual Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 164
AP-35 Projects ....................................................................................................................... 167
AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................ 168
AP- 50 Geographic Distribution ............................................................................................ 172
AP-55 Affordable Housing .................................................................................................... 173
AP- 60 Public Housing ........................................................................................................... 174
AP- 65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities ......................................................... 175
AP- 75 Barriers to Affordable Housing ................................................................................. 177
AP-85 Other Actions .............................................................................................................. 180
AP- 90 Program Specific Requirements ............................................................................... 182
Tables
Table 1 - Strategic Plan Summary ........................................................................................... 5
Table 2 – Responsible Agencies .............................................................................................. 9
Table 3 – Participation .............................................................................................................12
Table 4– Other local / regional / federal planning efforts ......................................................61
Table 5 - Citizen Participation Outreach .................................................................................63
Table 6 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics ..........................................................68
Table 7 - Number of Households Table .................................................................................68
Table 8 - Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) .............................68
Table 9 - Housing Problems (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks
kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) ........................69
EXHIBIT 1
iii
Table 10 - Cost Burden >30%..................................................................................................70
Table 11 - Cost Burden > 50% .................................................................................................70
Table 12 - Crowding– More than one person per room ........................................................71
Table 13 - Households with children under the age of six ....................................................71
Table 14 - Public Housing by Program Type .........................................................................79
Table 15 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type ..........................79
Table 16 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type ...........................................80
Table 17 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type ....................................80
Table 18 - Homeless Needs Assessment ...............................................................................84
Table 19 - Nature and Extent of Homelessness .....................................................................85
Table 20 - Residential Properties by Unit Number ................................................................95
Table 21 - Unit Size by Tenure ...............................................................................................95
Table 22 - Rental Housing Costs ........................................................................................... 100
Table 23 - Cost of Housing .................................................................................................... 100
Table 24 - Rent Paid .............................................................................................................. 100
Table 25 - Housing Affordability........................................................................................... 100
Table 26 - Monthly Rent ........................................................................................................ 101
Table 27 - Condition of Units ................................................................................................ 105
Table 28 - Year Unit Built ...................................................................................................... 105
Table 29 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint ..................................................................................... 106
Table 30 - Total Number of Units by Program Type ........................................................... 108
Table 31 - Public Housing Condition .................................................................................... 108
Table 32 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households ............................... 109
Table 33 - Homeless Service Providers for the City of Santa Ana ...................................... 111
Table 34 - Business Activity .................................................................................................. 117
Table 35 - Labor Force .......................................................................................................... 117
Table 36 - Occupations by Sector ......................................................................................... 118
Table 37 - Travel Time .......................................................................................................... 118
Table 38 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) .... 118
Table 39 - Educational Attainment by Age .......................................................................... 118
Table 40 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Educational Attainment ................ 119
Table 41 - Strategic Plan Summary ...................................................................................... 130
Table 42 - Geographic Priority Areas ................................................................................... 132
Table 43 – Priority Needs Summary .................................................................................... 133
Table 44 – Influence of Market Conditions........................................................................... 140
Table 45- Anticipated Resources .......................................................................................... 143
Table 46- Institutional Delivery Structure ............................................................................ 146
Table 47 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary .......................................................... 147
Table 48 – Goals Summary ................................................................................................... 149
Table 49- Expected Resources –PY 2025 .............................................................................. 162
EXHIBIT 1
iv
Table 50 - Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 164
Table 51 - Project Information .............................................................................................. 167
Table 52 - Project Summary ................................................................................................. 168
Table 53 - Geographic Distribution ...................................................................................... 172
Table 54 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement ................... 173
Table 55 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type ................................ 173
Table 56 - CDBG Requirements ............................................................................................ 182
Table 57 - Other CDBG Requirements.................................................................................. 182
Figures
Figure 1 – Households ............................................................................................................67
Figure 2 – Most Prevalent Housing Problems .......................................................................76
Figure 3 - Households With 30-50% & >50% Cost Burden ....................................................77
Figure 4 - Overall Homelessness By Age ...............................................................................84
Figure 5 – Accessibility and Condition of Public Facilities and Infrastructure .....................92
Figure 6 – Availability and Quality of Social Services ...........................................................93
Figure 7 – Change in Median Rent and Income .....................................................................94
Figure 8 – Minimum Wage Affordability ................................................................................98
Figure 9 - Median Home Value ...............................................................................................99
Figure 10 - Units Affordable to Households By Income Range .......................................... 101
Figure 11 - Rent Differentials ................................................................................................ 102
Figure 12 – Rental & Ownership Housing Income............................................................... 103
Figure 13 - Top Industry Sectors By Jobs ............................................................................ 119
Figure 14 – Community Need For Internet Reliability ......................................................... 127
Figure 15 – Community Need For Disaster Preparedness .................................................. 128
Maps
Map 1 – Households with Extremely Low Incomes and Severe Cost Burden .....................72
Map 2 - Households with Low Income and Severe Cost Burden .........................................73
Map 3 - Households with Moderate Income and Severe Cost Burden ................................73
Map 4 - Households with Multiple Housing Problems ....................................................... 124
Map 5 - Concentration of Households with Low-Income .................................................... 125
EXHIBIT 1
1
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary
The City of Santa Ana has prepared the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan as required to receive
federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships
(HOME), and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds. As required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the Consolidated Plan provides a comprehensive
assessment of the City’s housing and community development needs and outlines the
City’s priorities, objectives, and strategies for the investment of CDBG, HOME, and ESG
funds to address these needs over the next five years, beginning July 1, 2025, and ending
June 30, 2030.
Each year, the City receives CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds through a formula-based
allocation from HUD. These funds are awarded to non-profit organizations, for-profit
entities, and public agencies to support a variety of activities that align with the City’s
Consolidated Plan goals and address the priority needs of low- and moderate-income
residents.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
The CDBG program, established under the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, is a flexible federal funding source designed to address a wide range of housing and
community development needs. HUD evaluates the City’s Consolidated Plan and program
performance based on three primary objectives: providing decent housing, creating
suitable living environments, and expanding economic opportunities for low- and
moderate-income households. To qualify for CDBG funding, each activity must meet one
of the following national objectives:
-Benefit low- and moderate-income persons; or
-Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight; or
-Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency (usually the
result of a natural disaster).
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME)
The HOME program, established under the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act of 1990, is the largest federal program dedicated to affordable housing
development. Designed to increase the supply of safe and affordable housing for low- and
moderate-income households, the HOME program is often implemented in collaboration
with non-profit housing developers, public agencies, and private entities. Eligible activities
supported by HOME funds include new construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of
affordable housing, homebuyer assistance programs, and tenant-based rental assistance.
EXHIBIT 1
2
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG)
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009
(HEARTH Act) amended the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, significantly
revising the former Emergency Shelter Grants Program and renaming it the Emergency
Solutions Grants program. The ESG program provides funding for street outreach,
emergency shelter, emergency shelter operations, essential services, rapid re-housing, and
homelessness prevention.
The City has been allocated $4,190,178 of CDBG, $1,159,062 of HOME, and $377,330 of ESG
funds for the 2025 Program Year. The 2025-2026 Action Plan allocates these resources to
fund program activities listed below that will be implemented from July 1, 2024, to June
30, 2025.
2025-2026 CDBG ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC SERVICES
AIDS Services Foundation of OC (dba Radiant Health Centers) $34,860
American on Track $34,860
Community Health Initiative Orange County $34,860
Community Legal Aid SoCal - Domestic Violence Prevention Project $34,860
Delhi Center - Teens Engaged in Learning & Leadership $62,053
Girls Inc of Orange County - StrongHer $34,860
Human Options $34,860
Lutheran Social Services of SoCal $34,860
MOMs OC $34,860
Nati’s House (dba Neutral Ground) - Summer Night Lights $34,860
OC Children’s Therapeutic Arts Center - Willard $34,860
Project Hope Alliance $43,574
Straight Talk Clinic, Inc. $34,860
Templo Calvario Community Development Corporation $34,860
United Cerebral Palsy Association of OC (dba Unlimited Possibilities) $34,860
WISEPlace $34,860
CAPITAL
Cedar Street Improvements $415,655
EXHIBIT 1
3
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Community Preservation Code Enforcement $825,000
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
New Business Start-Up/Micro Enterprise Grants $100,000
HOUSING
Singe Family Rehabilitation Program – Habitat for Humanity of OC $500,000
Down Payment Assistance Program $882,961
ADMINISTRATION & PLANNING
Administration & Planning $768,035
Fair Housing Council of Orange County $70,000
2025-2026 HOME ACTIVITIES
Affordable Housing $869,296
CHDO $173,859
Administration & Planning $115,906
2025-2026 ESG ACTIVITIES
Interval House $80,000
Covenant House $40,000
Santa Ana Police Department HEART Program $56,885
Volunteers of America Los Angeles – Rapid Rehousing $57,000
WISEPlace – Rapid Rehousing $57,000
Orange County United Way – Homeless Management Information System $58,146
Administration & Planning $28,300
As of the date of the preparation of this draft document, HUD has not yet released the 2025-
2026 Annual Allocations. HUD has advised the City to prepare this draft document utilizing
the current year annual allocation and include “contingency provision” language detailing
how the City will adjust its proposed Plan once the actual allocation amounts become
EXHIBIT 1
4
known. As such, should the City’s allocation be greater or less than the amount anticipated
the difference will be applied equally across all projects.
Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan needs
assessment Overview
The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan is grounded in a comprehensive, data-driven needs
assessment and market analysis, combined with insights gathered from residents,
community organizations, and other local stakeholders. This approach ensures CDBG,
HOME, and ESG funds are directed toward high priority needs that align with the City’s
goals.
Based on this, the City has identified 10 priority needs, which will be addressed through six
goals over the five-year period. These goals establish a clear framework for the allocation
of CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds which ensure investments produce meaningful results.
Each goal is tied to measurable outcome indicators which allow the City to track progress,
assess performance, and evaluate the impact of HUD-funded activities. The following table
summarizes the goals, priority needs, and expected five-year outcomes.
EXHIBIT 1
5
Table 1 - Strategic Plan Summary
Goal Name Category Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 1: Affordable
housing development,
maintenance, and
preservation
Affordable Housing -Expand the supply of
affordable housing
-Preserve the supply of
affordable housing
CDBG $5,237,723
HOME $5,215,779
-Homeowner Housing
Rehabbed: 25 Household/
Housing Units
-Rental Housing Rehabbed:
40 Household/ Housing
Units
-Rental Housing Units
Constructed: 25 Housing
Units
-Homeownership Housing
Units Constructed: 8
Housing Units
-Direct Financial Assistance
to Homebuyers: 8
Households Assisted
-TBRA/RRH: 40 Households
Assisted
Goal 2: Code
enforcement
Non—Homeless Special
Needs; Non-Housing
Community
Development
Preserve the supply of
affordable housing
CDBG $2,933,125 Housing Code Enforcement:
10,440 Housing Units
Goal 3: Public Service
Programs
Non—Homeless Special
Needs; Non-Housing
Community
Development
Access to and supply of
public services
CDBG $3,142,633 Public services activities
other than for low-/mod-
income housing benefit:
7,400 Households
EXHIBIT 1
6
Goal Name Category Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 4: Homeless
services and facilities
Homeless Increase access to and
supply of homeless
services and facilities
ESG $1,745,151 TBRA/RRH:45 Households
Assisted
Homeless Person Overnight
Shelter:315 Persons
Assisted
Overnight/ES/TH Beds
Added: 15 beds
Homelessness Prevention:
55 Persons Assisted
Goal 5: Economic
development programs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Promote economic
opportunity
CDBG:
$209,509
15 businesses assisted
Goal 6 Public facility
and infrastructure
improvement
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Improve city public
facilities and
infrastructure
CDBG: $5,237,723 Public services other than
Low/ Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 7,000
persons assisted
EXHIBIT 1
7
Evaluation of past performance
The investment of HUD resources during the 2019-2023 Program Years had widespread
impact in Santa Ana. During Program Year 2019, the global coronavirus pandemic struck
and in 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(CARES). The City received $6,894,836 CDBG-CV and $13,325,845 ESG-CV funds to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to the virus in the community. The World Health Organization,
based on evidence, has ended pandemic status and the national public health emergency
has ended.
Together with other federal, state, and local investments, HUD resources allowed the City
of Santa Ana and its partners to provide assistance to low and moderate-income individuals
and households through community. The City continues to effectively implement its
activities and align projects and programs with the City’s overall strategies and goals. A
full review of past performance is available in the Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Reports (CAPERs) that can be accessed through the City’s website at
https://www.santa-ana.org/?post_type=document&p=96924&preview=true. In summary,
as of June 30, 2024, the City provided
-Public services to 73,556 individuals
-Code enforcement to 22,996 housing units
-Economic development grants to 12 start up businesses
-Homelessness prevention services to 855 individuals;
-Emergency shelter to 387 individuals
Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process
The Consolidated Plan regulations at 24 CFR Part 91 provide the citizen participation and
consultation requirements for the development of the Consolidated Plan. Chief among
those requirements is the need to consult with the Continuum of Care (CoC) to address
homelessness, Public Housing Authorities (PHA), business leaders, civic leaders, and public
or private agencies that address housing, health, social service, victim services,
employment, or education needs of low-income individuals and families, homeless
individuals and families, youth and/or other persons with special needs. Information
supplied by these community stakeholders, together with the data supplied by HUD
resulted in a well-informed planning document that reflects the housing and community
development needs and priorities for the City of Santa Ana over the next five years.
In accordance with the City's Citizen Participation Plan (CPP), residents and stakeholders
were able to participate in the development of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan through
surveys, community meetings, and public hearings. Efforts were made to encourage
participation by low- and moderate-income persons, particularly those living in areas
where HUD funds are proposed to be used, and by residents of predominantly low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods. Efforts were made to encourage the participation of
EXHIBIT 1
8
minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities. The
consultation process included representatives of the CoC, PHA, and other specified groups
who completed surveys, provided local data, and assisted the City to ensure practical
coordination of strategies to maximize impact and to avoid duplication of effort.
Summary of public comments
TBD
Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting
them
TBD
Summary
The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan establishes a clear framework for the strategic use of
CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds to address high-priority community needs. All projects align
with at least one of the six Strategic Plan goals and their corresponding measurable
objectives.
In program year 2025-2026 the City will to allocate $4,190,178 of CDBG, $1,159,062 of
HOME, and $377,330 of ESG funds toward eligible activities designed to provide suitable
affordable housing and improve the quality of life of its low- and moderate-income
residents.
EXHIBIT 1
9
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies
Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and
those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.
The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and
those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator Santa Ana Community Development Agency
HOME Administrator Santa Ana Community Development Agency
ESG Administrator Santa Ana Community Development Agency
Table 2 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative
The Community Development Agency of the City of Santa Ana is the lead agency
responsible for the administration of the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs, and projects.
Policy and funding approvals are decided by the City Council, which consists of the Mayor,
who is elected at-large and five City Council Members from each of four council districts
and one at large. Decisions regarding implementation of activities within the Consolidated
Plan are based on staff recommendations and input from the residents.
The City contracted with MDG Associates, Inc. to prepare the 2025‐2029 Consolidated Plan.
In the development of this Consolidated Plan, the City and MDG Associates, Inc.
implemented a comprehensive citizen participation and consultation process and
conducted a needs assessment and market analysis to identify levels of relative need
regarding affordable housing, homelessness, special needs, and community development.
This information was gathered through consultation with stakeholders and community
meetings, review of demographic and economic data, and housing market analysis.
In the implementation of the 2025‐2029 Consolidated Plan and each of the five Annual
Action Plans, Community Development Agency staff shall be responsible for all grants
planning, management, and monitoring duties necessary to comply with HUD regulations
and City policy.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
David Flores, Housing Programs Manager
City of Santa Ana, Community Development Agency
dflores@santa-ana.org
714-647-6561
EXHIBIT 1
10
PR-10 Consultation
As part of the preparation of the Consolidated Plan the City reached out for consultation to
agencies, groups, and organizations involved in the development of affordable housing,
creation of job opportunities for low‐and moderate‐income residents, and/or provision of
services to homeless and non-homeless individuals with special needs. To facilitate this
consultation, the City solicited feedback through the following methods:
-Community Needs Survey (web‐based and paper‐surveys)
-Community and stakeholder meetings
-Public hearings
-Receipt of written or oral comments
The input received from these consultations helped establish and inform the objectives and
goals described in the Strategic Plan.
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance
coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and
governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)).
The City recognizes the importance of careful coordination and alignment among various
service providers to maximize the effectiveness of the CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs.
As a result, during the development of the Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with
organizations that provide assisted housing, health services, and other community-focused
programs. Outreach efforts included surveys, invitations to community meetings, and
follow-up interviews where appropriate. Outreach was made to over 100 organizations and
agencies including:
-Nonprofit services providers,
-Affordable and market rate housing developers,
-Housing advocates,
-Public agencies (such as the school district and Public Housing Authority)
-Economic development and employment organizations
-Community and neighborhood groups, and
-Neighboring cities and communities.
The City further recognizes the importance of continued coordination and alignment during
the upcoming five‐year planning period with these organizations and agencies and will
work to strengthen relationships over the next five years.
EXHIBIT 1
11
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the
needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and
persons at risk of homelessness
The Orange County Continuum of Care (CoC) is comprised of a network of public, private,
faith-based, for-profit, and non-profit service providers who utilize several federal, state,
and local resources to provide services for homeless people. The region’s municipalities,
including the City of Santa Ana, also provide resources for services that assist the homeless
and those at risk of becoming homeless. The non-profit and faith-based community plays
a key role in the current CoC system. Hundreds of agencies throughout the region provide
programs ranging from feeding the homeless on the street to creating permanent
supportive housing opportunities. These services are available to homeless families with
children, and single men and women. The non-profit and faith-based community also
serves special needs populations, such as victims of domestic violence, veterans, the
disabled, and youth.
The CoC guides the development of homeless strategies and the implementation of
programs to end homelessness throughout the region. The City regularly consults with the
CoC to identify needs in the jurisdiction and its objectives to address the needs of different
homeless populations, including chronically homeless families and individuals, families
with children, veterans, unaccompanied youth, and persons at risk of homelessness. The
City continues to coordinate with the CoC to clarify existing needs and objectives and
identify opportunities for collaboration during the five-year planning process.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction’s
area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards
and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the
administration of HMIS
The Orange County CoC consults with jurisdictions receiving ESG funds on an ongoing
basis. An ESG collaborative was formed in Orange County and quarterly meetings are held
with representatives of the ESG jurisdictions, the Cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa
Ana, and Santa Ana, and the CoC. During the meetings, funding priorities are determined
which are consistent with the current Countywide Plan to End Homelessness and the
Consolidated Plans of ESG jurisdictions.
The Orange County CoC’s performance standards and outcome evaluation methodology is
based on data collected from HMIS and Annual Performance Reports (APRs). This
information provides the CoC the extent to which each project has resulted in rapid return
to permanent housing and the cost of programs. These data elements are reviewed
annually.
EXHIBIT 1
12
Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the
process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service
agencies and other entities
Table 3 – Participation
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1 Agency/ Group/ Organization City of Anaheim
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing; Services-Housing;
Service- Children; Services-Elderly; Planning
Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-
Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
2 Agency/ Group/ Organization City of Costa Mesa
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing; Services-Housing;
Service- Children; Services-Elderly; Planning
Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-
Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
3 Agency/ Group/ Organization City of Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing; Services-Housing;
Service- Children; Services-Elderly; Planning
Organization; Services-Children; Services-
Employment; Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-
Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
13
4 Agency/ Group/ Organization City of Newport Beach
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing; Services-Housing;
Service- Children; Services-Elderly; Planning
Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-
Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
5 Agency/ Group/ Organization City of Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing; Services-Housing;
Service- Children; Services-Elderly; Planning
Organization; Services-Children; Services-
Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-
Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
6 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana City Council
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Anti-Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
7 Agency/ Group/ Organization City of Tustin
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing; Services-Housing;
Service- Children; Services-Elderly; Planning
Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Lead-Based Paint Strategy; Anti-
Poverty Strategy
EXHIBIT 1
14
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
8 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Board of Supervisors Districts 3 & 5
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Public Land Agency
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment; Homelessness
Strategy; Non-Homeless Special Needs; Economic
Development; Anti-Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
9 Agency/ Group/ Organization Los Angeles County Department of Health
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Health Agency
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homeless Strategy; Other-Non-Housing Community
Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
10 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Department of Housing &
Community Development
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Local Government; Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homeless Strategy; Other-Non-Housing Community
Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
HOMELESS/ VICTIMS/ VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
11 Agency/ Group/ Organization Casa Teresa
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
15
12 Agency/ Group/ Organization Colette's Children's Home
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
13 Agency/ Group/ Organization Families Forward
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
14 Agency/ Group/ Organization Family Assistance Ministries
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Services-Veterans
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
15 Agency/ Group/ Organization Family Promise of Orange County Inc
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
16 Agency/ Group/ Organization Family Solutions Collaborative
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
16
17 Agency/ Group/ Organization Friendship Shelter Inc
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
18 Agency/ Group/ Organization Goodwill Industries of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
19 Agency/ Group/ Organization Home on the Green Pastures
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
20 Agency/ Group/ Organization Human Options
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Services-Victims of Domestic
Violence; Services-Victims
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
21 Agency/ Group/ Organization Illumination Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-
Unaccompanied Youth; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
17
22 Agency/ Group/ Organization Laura's House
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Services-Victims of Domestic
Violence; Services-Victims
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-
Unaccompanied Youth; Anti-Poverty; Other: Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
23 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Asian and Pacific Islander
Community Alliance
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Service-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
24 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County United Way
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Continuum of Care;
Services-Homeless; Services-Children; Services-
Elderly; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
25 Agency/ Group/ Organization Power of One Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy, Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
26 Agency/ Group/ Organization New Beginning Outreach
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Service-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
EXHIBIT 1
18
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
27 Agency/ Group/ Organization Project Self Sufficiency
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Service-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
28 Agency/ Group/ Organization South County Outreach
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
29 Agency/ Group/ Organization StandUp For Kids
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-
Unaccompanied Youth; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
30 Agency/ Group/ Organization Tender Touch Ministries Inc
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs- Veterans;
Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
31 Agency/ Group/ Organization Thomas House Family Shelter
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
EXHIBIT 1
19
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
32 Agency/ Group/ Organization Trauma Intervention Program of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Services-Victims of
Domestic Violence; Services-Victims; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
33 Agency/ Group/ Organization To Stop Abuse Proactively
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Services-Victims of Domestic
Violence; Services-Victims
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other: Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
34 Agency/ Group/ Organization United Way of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
35 Agency/ Group/ Organization Volunteers of America
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-Veterans;
Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
36 Agency/ Group/ Organization Interval House
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Homeless/Formerly Homeless
Resident
EXHIBIT 1
20
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
37 Agency/ Group/ Organization Mercy House
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Homeless/Formerly Homeless
Resident
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
38 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Partnership
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Homeless/Formerly Homeless
Resident
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
39 Agency/ Group/ Organization WisePlace
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless; Homeless/Formerly Homeless
Resident
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
40 Agency/ Group/ Organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-Veterans;
Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
21
41 Agency/ Group/ Organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-Veterans;
Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
42 Agency/ Group/ Organization Semper Fi Fund
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-Veterans;
Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
43 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Veteran's Hub at the Tierney Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-Veterans;
Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
44 Agency/ Group/ Organization Casa Youth Shelter
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Homeless Needs-
Unaccompanied Youth; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
45 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Community Services
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Continuum of Care; Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
22
46 Agency/ Group/ Organization 2-1-1 Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Continuum of Care; Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
47 Agency/ Group/ Organization Homeless Intervention Services of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
48 Agency/ Group/ Organization Continuum of Care; Services-Homeless
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
49 Agency/ Group/ Organization
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
DISABILITIES & ELDERLY
50 Agency/ Group/ Organization ARC Mid-Cities
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services – Disabled; Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
23
51 Agency/ Group/ Organization Code the Spectrum
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services – Disabled; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Other Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
52 Agency/ Group/ Organization Dayle McIntosh Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disabled
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Housing Need
Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
53 Agency/ Group/ Organization Easter Seals Southern California
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disabled
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
54 Agency/ Group/ Organization Hope 4 Arts
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disability
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Non-Housing
Community Development; Housing Need
Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
55 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Asperger's Support Group
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disabled
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
24
56 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Autism Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disabled; Services-Children; Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
57 Agency/ Group/ Organization Pearl Transit
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disability; Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homeless Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
58 Agency/ Group/ Organization Southern California Alcohol and Drug Programs Inc
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disability; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
59 Agency/ Group/ Organization United Cerebral Palsy of Los Angeles, Ventura and
Santa Barbara Counties
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Disability
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
60 Agency/ Group/ Organization Abrazar, Inc.
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Elderly
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
25
61 Agency/ Group/ Organization Age Well Senior Services
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Elderly
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
62 Agency/ Group/ Organization Alzheimer's Association, Orange County Chapter
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Elderly
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Housing Need
Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
63 Agency/ Group/ Organization Asian American Senior Citizens Service Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Elderly
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Housing Need
Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
64 Agency/ Group/ Organization Council on Aging Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Elderly
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Housing Need
Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
65 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Evergreen Senior Association
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Elderly
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
26
CHILDREN
66 Agency/ Group/ Organization ALBI
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Service-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
67 Agency/ Group/ Organization America On Track
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homeless Needs-
Unaccompanied Youth
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
68 Agency/ Group/ Organization Assistance League of Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
69 Agency/ Group/ Organization Boys and Girls Club of Central Orange Coast
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
70 Agency/ Group/ Organization Cedar Tree
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
27
71 Agency/ Group/ Organization First 5 Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty
Strategy; Other-Non-Housing Community
Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
72 Agency/ Group/ Organization Fristers
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Civic Leaders
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty
Strategy; Other-Non-Housing Community
Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
73 Agency/ Group/ Organization Human-Works Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homeless Needs-
Veterans; Homeless Strategy; Anti-Poverty
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
74 Agency/ Group/ Organization Children’s Center of the Antelope Valley
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services – Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
75 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Children's Fund
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Education; Local
Government
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
EXHIBIT 1
28
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
76 Agency/ Group/ Organization Kids Stuff Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
77 Agency/ Group/ Organization KidWorks
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
78 Agency/ Group/ Organization Mary's Path
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Foster Care Agency/ Facility; Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
79 Agency/ Group/ Organization Miracles for Kids
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
80 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County YMCA
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Civic Leader
EXHIBIT 1
29
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
81 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County 4 Kids
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Foster Care Agency/ Facility
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
82 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Child Abuse Services Team
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Child Welfare Agency; Services-
Victims
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
83 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Children's Therapeutic Art Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
84 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orangewood Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Foster Care Agency/ Facility
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
EXHIBIT 1
30
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
85 Agency/ Group/ Organization Project Youth Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
86 Agency/ Group/ Organization Strong Families/Olive Crest
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
87 Agency/ Group/ Organization Team Kids
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
88 Agency/ Group/ Organization Teen Leadership Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
89 Agency/ Group/ Organization The All American Boys Chorus
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
EXHIBIT 1
31
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
90 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Eli Home
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
91 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Sheepfold
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
92 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Teen Project Inc
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
93 Agency/ Group/ Organization Upwards
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
32
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
94 Agency/ Group/ Organization Yuriko Hasegawa
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EDUCATION
95 Agency/ Group/ Organization Anatolia Cultural Centers
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty; Other-
Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
96 Agency/ Group/ Organization CEF
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Children; Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
97 Agency/ Group/ Organization California State University Fullerton Auxiliary
Services Corporation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Children; Public
Funded Institution; Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
98 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Childcare Project
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Publicly Funded Institution;
Local Government
EXHIBIT 1
33
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Anti-Poverty; Other-
Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
99 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Public Schools Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
100 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Unified School District
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Children; Services-
Disabilities; Services-Homeless; Publicly Funded
Institution
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
101 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Valley College
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Children; Services-
Homeless; Publicly Funded Institution
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
102 Agency/ Group/ Organization Korean American Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
EXHIBIT 1
34
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
103 Agency/ Group/ Organization Latina Geeks
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
104 Agency/ Group/ Organization Latino Communications Institute at California State
Fullerton
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Disabilities; Services-
Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
105 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Heritage Council
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
106 Agency/ Group/ Organization Pretend City Children's Museum
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
107 Agency/ Group/ Organization Templo Calvario CDC
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education
EXHIBIT 1
35
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
108 Agency/ Group/ Organization University of California Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Education; Services-Disabilities; Services-
Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Homelessness
Strategy; Anti-Poverty; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
ASSISTED HOUSING/ HOUSING/ FAIR HOUSING/ PHA
109 Agency/ Group/ Organization Affordable Housing Clearinghouse
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing; Services-Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
110 Agency/ Group/ Organization C & C Development
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
111 Agency/ Group/ Organization Chelsea Investment Co.
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
36
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
112 Agency/ Group/ Organization Delhi Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
113 Agency/ Group/ Organization Epicenter Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
114 Agency/ Group/ Organization Fair Housing Council of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
115 Agency/ Group/ Organization Fair Housing Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
116 Agency/ Group/ Organization Garden Grove Housing Authority
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type PHA
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Public Housing Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
37
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
117 Agency/ Group/ Organization Grandma's House of Hope
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
118 Agency/ Group/ Organization Innovative Housing Opportunities
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing; Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
119 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Community Land Trust
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
120 Agency/ Group/ Organization Jamboree Housing Corporation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing; Services-Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
121 Agency/ Group/ Organization Kennedy Commission
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
38
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
122 Agency/ Group/ Organization Mercy House Living Centers Inc
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
123 Agency/ Group/ Organization Omid Multicultural Institute for Development
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
124 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Community Housing Corporation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing; Assisted Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
125 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Eviction Diversion Collaborative
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
126 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Goes Solar
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Homelessness Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
39
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
127 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Housing Authority
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type PHA; Assisted Housing; Services-Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
128 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Housing Finance Trust
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
129 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Human Relations
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Assisted Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
130 Agency/ Group/ Organization Public Law Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
131 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Housing Authority
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type PHA; Assisted Housing; Services-Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
40
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
132 Agency/ Group/ Organization Tenants United Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
133 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Santa Ana Company
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing; Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
134 Agency/ Group/ Organization Thrive Stanta Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
135 Agency/ Group/ Organization Villa Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
136 Agency/ Group/ Organization Waymakers
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
41
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
137 Agency/ Group/ Organization WISE Place
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
138 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Michaels Organization
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Non-Homeless Special
Needs; Anti-poverty Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
HEALTH
139 Agency/ Group/ Organization Access to Prevention Advocacy Intervention &
Treatment
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-HIV/AIDS
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Housing Special Needs
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
140 Agency/ Group/ Organization Casa de la familia
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
141 Agency/ Group/ Organization Community Health Initiative of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
Strategy
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
EXHIBIT 1
42
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
142 Agency/ Group/ Organization For Families
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
143 Agency/ Group/ Organization Healthy Smiles of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
144 Agency/ Group/ Organization Hecht Trauma Institute
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
145 Agency/ Group/ Organization Hello Bloom
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health; Services-Disabilities
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
146 Agency/ Group/ Organization HERstory
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
43
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
147 Agency/ Group/ Organization County of Los Angeles Health Department
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Health Agency; Publicly Funded Institution
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development; Lead
Paint
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
148 Agency/ Group/ Organization HOAG Center for Healthy Living & Hospital
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
149 Agency/ Group/ Organization Hurtt Clinic
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
150 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Adult Day Health Services
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health; Services-Disabilities
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
151 Agency/ Group/ Organization Latino Health Access
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health; Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
44
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
152 Agency/ Group/ Organization Mental Health Association of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
153 Agency/ Group/ Organization Mercy Health
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
154 Agency/ Group/ Organization MOMS Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
155 Agency/ Group/ Organization Nogales Psychological
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
156 Agency/ Group/ Organization Norooz Clinic
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
45
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
157 Agency/ Group/ Organization Oak Health Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
158 Agency/ Group/ Organization Providence
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
159 Agency/ Group/ Organization Radiant Health
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health; Services-HIV/AIDS
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
160 Agency/ Group/ Organization St. Jude Neighborhood Health Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health; Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
161 Agency/ Group/ Organization Straight Talk Counseling
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
EXHIBIT 1
46
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
REGIONAL PLANNING, EMERGENCY & FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, OTHER, WATER
DISTRICT AGENCY
162 Agency/ Group/ Organization California Culinary Coalition
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Other: Community Group
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
163 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Ranch Water District
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Water District/ Agency Regional Organization;
Planning Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
164 Agency/ Group/ Organization OneOC
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Other: Community Group
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
165 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Emergency Management Bureau
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Emergency Management Agency; Regional
Organization; Planning Organization; Local
Government
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
47
166 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Fire Authority
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Emergency Management Agency; Regional
Organization; Planning Organization; Local
Government
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
167 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Public Works
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Floodplain Management Agency; Local Government
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
168 Agency/ Group/ Organization Regional Center of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Regional Organization; Planning Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
169 Agency/ Group/ Organization Southern California Association of Governments
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Regional Organization; Planning Organization
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Analysis; Homelessness Strategy
Non-Homeless Needs Assessment; Other-Non-
Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
170 Agency/ Group/ Organization St Vincent De Paul
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Other: Community Group
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
EXHIBIT 1
48
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
171 Agency/ Group/ Organization US Department of Housing & Urban Development
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Federal Government;
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Housing Need Assessment; Homeless Strategy;
Non-Homeless Special Needs; Other-Non-Housing
Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
BROADBAND ADVOCATE, BUSINESS LEADERS, CIVIC, EMPLOYMENT, ISP
172 Agency/ Group/ Organization 100 Black Men of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
173 Agency/ Group/ Organization 1736 Family Crisis Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
174 Agency/ Group/ Organization Access So Cal
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
175 Agency/ Group/ Organization Advanced Lumber Consultants
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
EXHIBIT 1
49
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
176 Agency/ Group/ Organization Afghans Empowered
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
177 Agency/ Group/ Organization Anita Coleman
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
178 Agency/ Group/ Organization Arise Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
179 Agency/ Group/ Organization Asian Business Association Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
180 Agency/ Group/ Organization Black Chamber of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
EXHIBIT 1
50
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
181 Agency/ Group/ Organization California Emerging Technology Fund
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Broadband Advocate
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
182 Agency/ Group/ Organization Charitable Ventures of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
183 Agency/ Group/ Organization Chinese Christian Herald Crusaders LA
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Other- Community Group
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
184 Agency/ Group/ Organization Church of Southland
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Other: Community Group
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
185 Agency/ Group/ Organization Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
EXHIBIT 1
51
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
186 Agency/ Group/ Organization Community Hub Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
187 Agency/ Group/ Organization Cooperacion Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
188 Agency/ Group/ Organization COR CDC
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Other-Community Group
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
189 Agency/ Group/ Organization Crece Urban Farms
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader; Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
190 Agency/ Group/ Organization Doing Good Works: Foster Greatness
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
EXHIBIT 1
52
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
191 Agency/ Group/ Organization Ektaa Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
192 Agency/ Group/ Organization Environmental Justice of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
193 Agency/ Group/ Organization Families Together of Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
194 Agency/ Group/ Organization Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Orange
County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
195 Agency/ Group/ Organization Filipino Influential Leaders And Mentors
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
EXHIBIT 1
53
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
196 Agency/ Group/ Organization GL Larson Insurance & Financial Solutions
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
197 Agency/ Group/ Organization Greater Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
198 Agency/ Group/ Organization Hope Builders
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
199 Agency/ Group/ Organization Hopkinscarley
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
200 Agency/ Group/ Organization H Park Law
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
EXHIBIT 1
54
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
201 Agency/ Group/ Organization International Sanctuary
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
202 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Korean Adult League
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
203 Agency/ Group/ Organization KC Matthews
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
204 Agency/ Group/ Organization Korean American Chamber of Commerce
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
205 Agency/ Group/ Organization Korean and Chinese Social Services
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
EXHIBIT 1
55
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
206 Agency/ Group/ Organization Korean and Chinese Social Services
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
207 Agency/ Group/ Organization Linh Truonga
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
208 Agency/ Group/ Organization Love Santa Ana
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
209 Agency/ Group/ Organization NAACP OC
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
210 Agency/ Group/ Organization National Hispanic Business Women Association
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
EXHIBIT 1
56
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
211 Agency/ Group/ Organization Oasis Center International
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
212 Agency/ Group/ Organization One Step Ministry
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
213 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Chinese American Chamber of
Commerce
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
214 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Council Boy Scouts
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
57
215 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Education Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
216 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Iranian Chamber of Commerce
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
217 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Justice Fund
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
218 Agency/ Group/ Organization Orange County Rescue Mission
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
219 Agency/ Group/ Organization Parentis Health Foundation
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader; Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
58
220 Agency/ Group/ Organization Sacheena Osornio
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
221 Agency/ Group/ Organization Santa Ana Handball
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
222 Agency/ Group/ Organization SCORE Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
223 Agency/ Group/ Organization SHIP
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
224 Agency/ Group/ Organization Small Business Diversity Network
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
59
225 Agency/ Group/ Organization South Coast Chinese Cultural Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
226 Agency/ Group/ Organization Spectrum
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type ISP
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development;
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
227 Agency/ Group/ Organization Steven Damigella
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
228 Agency/ Group/ Organization The Priority Center
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
229 Agency/ Group/ Organization Vecindario Lacy en Accion
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
EXHIBIT 1
60
230 Agency/ Group/ Organization Vietnamese American Chamber of Commerce of
Orange County
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Business Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
231 Agency/ Group/ Organization Vocational Visions
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Employment
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
232 Agency/ Group/ Organization Working Wardrobes
Agency/ Group/ Organization Type Services-Employment; Civic Leader
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation?
Other-Non-Housing Community Development;
Economic Development
How was the Agency/ Group/
Organization consulted and what
are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
needs and priorities within the community, the
Consolidated Plan process included consultation
and engagement with City residents, service
providers, and selected departments through
surveys, meetings, and email.
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting
The City maintains a list of agencies, organizations and other stakeholders that have
expressed an interest in City’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG programs and invited
representatives from each entity to participate at multiple points in the planning process.
All agencies were strongly encouraged to attend the Community Meetings and participate
in surveys. If an agency did not attend meetings or participate in surveys, it was done so
by the agency’s choice.
EXHIBIT 1
61
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the
Plan
Table 4– Other local / regional / federal planning efforts
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
Continuum of
Care
Orange County Community
Resources
Consultation with the CoC indicates that the
City’s Consolidated Plan goals are consistent
with the CoC’s strategies.
2021-2029
Housing Element City of Santa Ana
The goals included in the Consolidated Plan
are consistent with the Housing Element
policies and objectives.
Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the
State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation
of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l))
City of Santa Ana departments, adjacent units of government, the CoC, and Santa Ana
Public Housing Authority were consulted with on the development and implementation of
the Consolidated Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
62
PR-15 Citizen Participation
Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen
participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal setting
The City of Santa Ana conducted a comprehensive citizen participation process to ensure
the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan reflects community needs and priorities. The public
engagement process was designed in accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan
(CPP) and HUD regulations (24 CFR 91.105), ensuring residents, local organizations, and
community stakeholders had meaningful opportunities to participate in shaping the City's
housing and community development strategies.
The Community Development Agency led outreach efforts, emphasizing broad public
engagement, particularly among low- and moderate-income residents, individuals with
disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, non-English-speaking populations, and public
housing residents. The City also actively consulted with local and regional institutions,
businesses, developers, non-profit and faith-based organizations, the Continuum of Care
(CoC), and philanthropic entities to ensure a coordinated and holistic approach to
addressing housing and community development needs.
To identify and prioritize community needs, the City developed and distributed a survey to
gather input on housing, community, and economic development needs. The survey was
available in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese online and in paper format at various public
facilities. The survey received 103 responses. A summary of the survey and responses is in
Appendix B.
In the Fall of 2024, five publicly noticed meetings were held to obtain the views of the
community on the City’s housing and community development needs. The first public
hearing was held on October 22, 23 and 24, 2024, in the morning afternoon and evening at
four different locations throughout the City. A public hearing to adopt the Consolidated
Plan and first year Annual Action Plan is scheduled for June 3, 2025, at 5:00 PM, at City Hall.
Public notices for public hearings, meetings, the survey, and the 30-day comment period
were published in a medium of general circulation in the City. Additionally, the City used
social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram to advertise the opportunities to
participate. At each step in the process, the City was careful to ensure that low‐ and
moderate‐income residents, members of minority groups, agencies involved in the
provision of services to these populations, and others who are directly impacted by the
programs and activities supported by the Consolidated Plan programs had the opportunity
to be actively involved.
EXHIBIT 1
63
Table 5 - Citizen Participation Outreach
Outreach Summary
Mode Additional
Modes Target Content/ Attendance Comments
Comments
not
accepted
Newspaper
Ad
City
website;
Social
Media;
Flyers
Broad Community Public Meeting, October 22, 5:00 PM, at the South
West Senior Center, October 23, 2024, at 10:00 AM at
the Roosevelt Walker Community Center; October
24, 2024, at 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM, at the Salgado
Community Center, October 25, 2024, at 10:00 AM at
the El Salvador Community Center; Community
Needs Survey.
N/A N/A
Public
Meeting
Broad Community Public Hearing, October 22, 5:00 PM, at the South
West Senior Center. See Appendix B.
All comments
were
accepted
N/A
Public
Meeting
Broad Community Public Meeting, October 23, 2024, at 10:00 AM at the
Roosevelt Walker Community Center. See Appendix
B.
All comments
were
accepted
N/A
Public
Meeting
Broad Community Public Meeting, October 24, 2024, at 2:00 PM at the
Salgado Community Center. See Appendix B.
All comments
were
accepted
N/A
Public
Meeting
Broad Community Public Meeting, October 24, 2024, at 5:00 PM, at the
Salgado Community Center. See Appendix B.
All comments
were
accepted
N/A
Public
Meeting
Broad Community Public Meeting, October 25, 2024, at 10:00 AM and,
at the El Salvador Community Center. See Appendix
B.
All comments
were
accepted
N/A
Community
Needs
Survey
Broad Community See Appendix B All comments
were
accepted
N/A
Newspaper
Ad
Cityweb
site
Broad Community Substantially complete Draft 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan
30-day review period from May 5 to June 3, 2025,
and public hearing on June 3, 2025, 5:00 PM, at City
Hall.
N/A N/A
EXHIBIT 1
64
Outreach Summary
Mode Additional
Modes Target Content/ Attendance Comments
Comments
not
accepted
30-Day
Review
Broad Community Made available on website and in hard copy from
May 5 to June 3, 2025
TBD TBD
Public
Hearing
Broad Community Public hearing of Draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan
and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan on June 3, 2025,
5:00 PM, at City Hall.
TBD TBD
EXHIBIT 1
65
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
The Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment examines a range of needs, including housing,
homelessness, non-homeless special needs, and non-housing community development
needs. The housing needs assessment section evaluates household income, tenure (renter
or owner), housing cost as a function of household income, disproportionate need amongst
racial and ethnic groups, and public housing needs.
The homeless needs assessment examines the sheltered and unsheltered homeless
population in Orange County to inform the City’s strategy to address homelessness during
the next five years.
The non-homeless special needs assessment section evaluates the needs of people who
are not homeless, and due to various reasons need services. This population includes
people who are elderly, frail and elderly, have severe mental illness, including Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), developmental and physical disabilities, alcohol or other
drug addictions, and HIV/AIDS, victims and survivors of human trafficking and domestic
violence.
Lastly, the non-housing community development needs assessment section discusses the
need for public facilities, public infrastructure improvements and public services to support
low- and moderate-income residents.
Methodology
To assess community needs, the City examined data, held community meetings, conducted
a survey of residents and regional stakeholders, and consulted with experts and local
stakeholders. The Needs Assessment primarily relies on the sources of data which follow:
-American Community Survey (ACS) 2020 5-year estimates
-Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2016-2020
-2023 & 2024 Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Count
The 2020 ACS and CHAS 5-year estimates were the most recent complete datasets
available at the time the Consolidated Plan was prepared.
Consolidated Plan Survey for Residents and Stakeholders
Santa Ana and stakeholders had the opportunity to respond to surveys to rate the level of
need for public facilities, infrastructure, public and neighborhood services. The surveys
also gathered insights into residents’ internet access and disaster preparedness.
Stakeholders include agencies and businesses that work with residents of Santa Ana with
EXHIBIT 1
66
low- and moderate-incomes, special needs, and those experiencing, or at-risk or
experiencing homelessness. Survey results from 103 residents and 40 organizations can
be found in the following sections:
- Housing facility and service results – NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment, and
- Public facility, infrastructure, and service results – NA-50 Non-Housing and
Community Development Needs.
EXHIBIT 1
67
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment
Summary of Housing Needs
Santa Ana’s population fell by four percent between 2010 and 2020, decreasing from
324,528 to 310,277 (Table 6). During this same period, the number of households rose by
six percent from 74,381 to 79,142 and the median household income increased 32 percent
from $54,877to $72,406.
Over 66 percent of all households in Santa Ana earn up to 80 percent Area Median Income
(AMI). Figure 1 shows how many households are in each income category.
Figure 1 – Households
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
The Number of Households Table (Table 7) categorizes household types in the City by
income levels. Small family households consist of two-to-four family members, while large
family households have five or more people. Small family households are the most
common household type, representing 44 percent of all households in Santa Ana.
In this section there are eight tables of data which reference housing problems. Housing
problems are defined by HUD as:
1.Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household lacks a sink with piped water, a range
or stove, or a refrigerator.
2.Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household lacks hot and cold piped water, a
flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower.
3.Overcrowding / severe overcrowding: A household is overcrowded if there are more
than 1.01 people per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-
EXHIBIT 1
68
rooms. A household is considered severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5
people per room.
4.Cost burden / severe cost burden: A household is considered cost burdened if the
household pays more than 30 percent of its total gross income for housing costs. A
household is considered severely cost burdened if the household pays more than
50 percent of its total income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include
rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage,
taxes, insurance, and utilities.
The Housing Problems Table (Table 8) highlights that a housing cost burden exceeding 30
percent of income is the most common housing problem across renter and owner
households, with renter households most impacted by severe housing problems.
Approximately 40 percent of the 52,465 households earning at most 80 percent AMI
experience a housing cost burden over 30 percent of income. Approximately 73 percent of
households earning at most 80 percent AMI with one or more severe housing problem are
renters.
Housing Needs Summary Tables
Table 6 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics
Demographics Base Year: 2010 Most Recent Year: 2020 % Change
Population* 324,528 310,227 -4.4%
Households 74,381 79,142 6.4%
Median Income $54,877.00 $72,406.00 31.9%
Data Source: *2010 & 2020 Decennial Census, 2016-2020 ACS Estimates
Table 7 - Number of Households Table
0-30%
AMI
>30-50%
AMI
>50-80%
AMI
>80-100%
AMI
>100%
AMI
Total Households 17,335 16,010 19,120 9,525 17,150
Small Family Households 6,620 6,665 8,955 4,625 8,165
Large Family Households 3,990 5,750 5,675 2,695 4,110
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 3,370 2,950 4,395 2,070 4,010
Household contains at least
one-person age 75 or older 2,605 1,670 1,800 710 1,270
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or younger 4,660 4,565 4,995 5,015 2,740
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Table 8 - Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs)
EXHIBIT 1
69
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing 155 145 100 70 470 60 30 40 0 130
Severely
Overcrowded 2,775 1,960 1,785 545 7,065 250 340 625 345 1,560
Overcrowded 2,225 2,810 2,205 730 7,970 340 770 980 710 2,800
Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income
4,840 1,375 175 0 6,390 2,345 1,165 485 65 4,060
Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income
1,225 2,650 2,560 360 6,795 495 1,300 2,360 815 4,970
Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above problems)
520 0 0 0 520 160 0 0 0 160
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Table 9 - Housing Problems (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks
kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or more
of four housing
problems
9,995 6,290 4,265 1,345 21,895 2,995 2,310 2,125 1,120 8,550
Having none of
four housing
problems
2,605 3,725 6,240 2,400 14,970 1,740 3,685 6,495 4,665 16,585
Household has
negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
520 0 0 0 520 160 0 0 0 160
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
EXHIBIT 1
70
Table 10 - Cost Burden >30%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 4,920 3,335 1,620 9,875 980 1,190 1,660 3,830
Large Related 3,255 2,780 610 6,645 345 1,200 560 2,105
Elderly 1,635 475 188 2,298 1,460 500 725 2,685
Other 1,155 825 900 2,880 440 170 245 855
Total need by income 10,965 7,415 3,318 21,698 3,225 3,060 3,190 9,475
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Table 11 - Cost Burden > 50%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 3,760 770 35 4,565 770 565 245 1,580
Large Related 2,295 550 115 2,960 280 320 30 630
Elderly 1,265 180 8 1,453 1,195 260 185 1,640
Other 925 365 45 1,335 385 110 45 540
Total need by income 8,245 1,865 203 10,313 2,630 1,255 505 4,390
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
EXHIBIT 1
71
Table 12 - Crowding– More than one person per room
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single family
households 4,525 3,745 2,760 775 11,805 430 645 710 390 2,175
Multiple, unrelated
family households 425 940 1,120 255 2,740 160 455 900 650 2,165
Other, non-family
households 75 140 145 45 405 4 20 10 10 44
Total need by
income 5,025 4,825 4,025 1,075 14,950 594 1,120 1,620 1,050 4,384
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Table 13 - Households with children under the age of six
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Households with
children six years
of age or younger
present
3,985 3,535 3,370 10,890 675 1,030 1,625 3,330
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
EXHIBIT 1
72
Map 1 – Households with Extremely Low Incomes and Severe Cost Burden
Source: 2016-2020 CHAS Data
EXHIBIT 1
73
Map 2 - Households with Low Income and Severe Cost Burden
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Map 3 - Households with Moderate Income and Severe Cost Burden
EXHIBIT 1
74
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
EXHIBIT 1
75
Describe the number and type of single-person households in need of housing
assistance.
The precise number of single-person households that are elderly or low-income and in
need of housing assistance is not available. According to the 5-Year ACS Estimate there
were 10,496 single-person households in 2020, approximately six percent of which were
over 65 years of age. Typically, it is presumed that a household needs housing assistance
if they experience one or more housing problem and have incomes of at most 80 percent
AMI. Table 10 provides data on the types of households impacted by housing cost
burden. “Other” households are defined as nonfamily and nonelderly, which is inclusive
of single persons. Elderly households include elderly families with two or more persons
age 62 or older, as well as elderly nonfamilies with one or two individuals aged 62 or
older. CHAS 2016-2020 estimates find 4,983 elderly and 3,735 “other” households in this
income range spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. The
majority, 56 percent, of single-person households are renters.
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are
disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking.
Domestic and dating violence, assault, and stalking are not always reported. According to
the 2022 National Crime Victimization Survey, only 53 percent of all domestic violence
events and 21 percent of rapes/sexual assaults were reported to the Police. The State of
California Department of Justice maintains statistics on domestic violence calls to local law
enforcement statewide by jurisdiction (openjustice.doj.ca.gov). In 2022, 1,127 calls related
to domestic violence were made from Santa Ana. Of these incidents:
-107 involved a weapon
-Eight involved a firearm
-21 involved a knife or cutting instruments
-38 involved other dangerous weapons
-40 involved personal weapons (i.e., feet or hands)
There were at least 1,127 times during 2022 when a household needed some type of
domestic violence services. In households where physical violence occurred, it is possible
that at least one member of the household needed to relocate to escape recurring violence.
These households may include children. Victims of domestic violence suffer in many ways
including economically, which impacts access to safe and affordable permanent housing.
There is a need for emergency shelter and affordable permanent housing.
What are the most common housing problems?
The most common housing problem in the City is overcrowding and severe overcrowding.
Analysis of Housing Problems (Table 8) shows this affects 17,065 households with income
at or below 80 percent AMI. Of those households, 81 percent rent their homes. The second
EXHIBIT 1
76
most common housing problem is housing cost burden greater than 30 percent of income
which impacts 40 percent of households earning at most 80 percent AMI. Those affected
include 12,825 renter and 8,150 owner households.
Figure 2 – Most Prevalent Housing Problems
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these
problems?
Renter households are most impacted by housing problems. Among these, small related
households with low- and moderate- incomes are most impacted by housing cost burden
and single family renter households are particularly affected by crowding as detailed in
Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12. These households account for 21 percent of those
earning at or below 80 percent of the AMI and are the most impacted by crowded living
conditions.
Approximately 31 percent of households earning up to 80 percent AMI (16,470 households),
carry a housing cost burden of 30 to 50 percent of income. More than twice as many renter
households in this income range are impacted by this degree of housing cost burden as
homeowner households. Across renter and owner households the most impacted types of
households are small related, followed by large related, elderly, and “other.”
About 41 percent of households (31,173 households), earning at or below 80 percent AMI
carry a severe cost burden of over 50 percent of their income. More than twice as many
renters are living in these circumstances as owner-occupied households. Within impacted
renter households the most impacted types of households are small related, followed by
large related, “other”, and elderly. Within impacted owner households the most impacted
types of households are small related, followed by elderly, large related, and “other.”
EXHIBIT 1
77
Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families
with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are
at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered
91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and
individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the
termination of that assistance
Extremely low- and low-income households with one or more housing problem are
presumed to be unstably housed, putting them at risk of falling into homelessness. There
are 33,345 households in Santa Ana earning up to 50 percent AMI, representing 42 percent
of all households. Within this income range individuals and families with children are
highly sensitive to adverse events.
The greatest concentrations of unstably housed households are among renter households
with housing cost burden at or above 50 percent of their gross household income. Among
renters experiencing severe housing cost burden small-related households are most
impacted, followed by households that are large related, elderly, and “other.” Among
owners experiencing severe housing cost burden small-related households are most
impacted followed by elderly, large related, and “other.” Households in this income range
living in crowded conditions are also unstably housed. This condition impacts a much
smaller, but still significant, number of households than housing cost burden does, twenty-
five percent of renter households with incomes at or below 50 percent AMI are living in
crowded homes.
Figure 3 - Households With 30-50% & >50% Cost Burden
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
As described in the Market Analysis section of the Consolidated Plan, rental housing costs
have risen steadily over the past ten years – creating more pressure on extremely low-
EXHIBIT 1
78
income households. The ACS data shows the median contract rent in Santa Ana increased
32 percent from 2010 to 2020. As rental prices continue to rise throughout Orange County,
the pressure on extremely low-income households will continue to increase.
Rapid rehousing programs may help homeless individuals and families; however, unless
they secure a housing unit is within a subsidized affordable housing development, formerly
homeless families and individuals receiving rapid rehousing assistance face considerable
uncertainty with respect to their monthly housing costs and ability to remain stably housed
once the assistance contract ends. Near the termination of assistance, finding replacement
housing is difficult for the same reasons it was difficult before becoming homeless: high
housing cost and the possibility of an eviction record.
If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also
include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the
methodology used to generate the estimates:
The assessment of at-risk populations described in the foregoing paragraphs in this
Consolidated Plan is based on ACS and CHAS data using HUD definitions for household
types and housing problems, supplemented by available local data for certain groups
specified by HUD, such as households with children and victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability
and an increased risk of homelessness.
There are 10,110 renter households who earn up to 50 percent AMI and are severely cost
burdened, according to the CHAS data (Table 11). Of these households:
-4,530 are small related households with four or fewer members
-2,845 are large related households with five or more members
-1,445 are elderly households with one or more members over the age of 62
-1,290 are other households
These extremely low- and low-income households are considered the most at-risk of
becoming homeless.
Discussion
Of households with incomes at or below 50 percent AMI, 30 percent are cost burdened
renters, and 30 percent are overcrowded or severely overcrowded renters (Table 8). Of
households with incomes at or below 30 percent AMI, 35 percent are cost burdened renters
and 29 percent are overcrowded or severely overcrowded renters (Table 8). These
households are presumed to be most at-risk of becoming homeless. To the greatest extent
feasible, assistance options could make affordable housing accessible to severely cost
burdened and overcrowded renter households earning up to 50 percent AMI. This is one of
many ways to prevent homelessness.
EXHIBIT 1
79
NA-35 Public Housing
Introduction
The Santa Ana Housing Authority (SAHA) is a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) only entity.
It administers tenant- and project-based and special purpose vouchers. There are 10
project-based voucher sites. Special purpose vouchers include Mainstream Five-Year
(MS5) and Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing. Additionally, SAHA administers Foster
Youth to Independence and Emergency Housing Vouchers. SAHA’s mission is to “provide
affordable housing for the most vulnerable members of our community to use as a platform
to obtain self-sufficiency and independence from our assistance.”
The tables below reflect the data provided by HUD in the eConPlanning Suite. MS5 data is
included in the “Disabled” column in the tables in this section.
Table 14 - Public Housing by Program Type
Vouchers
Total Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher
VASH Disabled
Unit vouchers in use 1,793 1,713 2 78
Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Table 15 - Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type
Vouchers
Total Tenant -based
Special Purpose
Voucher
VASH
Average Annual Income 17,541 17,644 13767
Average length of stay 7 8 0
Average Household size 2 2 4
Homeless at admission 0 0 0
Elderly Program Participants
(>62) 773 768 1
Disabled Families 314 241 0
Families requesting
accessibility features N/A N/A N/A
HIV/AIDS program
participants No data No data No data
DV victims No data No data No data
Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
EXHIBIT 1
80
Table 16 - Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type
Vouchers
Total Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher
VASH Disabled
White 792 747 No data 45
Black/ African American 60 52 2 6
Asian 919 895 No data 24
American Indian/
Alaska Native 18 15 No data 3
Pacific Islander 4 4 No data No data
Other No data No data No data No data
Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Table 17 - Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type
Ethnicity
Vouchers
Total Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher
VASH Disabled
Hispanic 625 602 23
Not Hispanic 1,168 1,111 2 55
Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants
and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability in
any program or activity that is conducted by federal agencies or that receives financial
assistance from a federal agency. A housing provider may not deny or refuse to sell or rent
to a person with a disability and may not impose application or qualification criteria, rental
fees, or sales prices and rental or sales terms or conditions that are different than those
required of or provided to persons who are not disabled. Further, housing providers may
not require people with disabilities to live only on certain floors, or to all live in one section
of the housing. Housing providers may not refuse to make repairs and may not limit or
deny someone with a disability access to recreational and other public and common use
facilities, parking privileges, cleaning or janitorial services or any services that are made
available to other residents.
When possible, SAHA fulfills reasonable accommodation requests. Accommodations can
be requested at any time. The tenant-based HCV waitlist was open from May 2, 2022, to
May 31, 2022. This resulted in a 7,500-household long waitlist. Priority was given to U.S.
veterans and families that live or work in Santa Ana. As of September 30, 2024, waitlist was
down to 6,710 households. Households on the waitlist are mostly families with children (54
percent), elderly households represent 28 percent and disable households represent 18
percent. A households may be both disabled and elderly.
EXHIBIT 1
81
Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice
voucher holders.
The most pressing need for HCV holders is affordable housing. This is evidenced by the
fact that some households have been waiting for housing for almost three years as of the
completion of this Consolidated Plan.
Beyond the need for affordable housing, resident may also need additional access to
service programs such as:
- Job training and placement,
- Youth employment and educational programs,
- Childcare services,
- Transportation, and
- Medical facilities near affordable housing.
How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large?
The needs experienced by SAHA residents are similar to the needs of very low-income and
low-income households throughout the City of Santa Ana.
Discussion
The SAHA implements a variety of strategies to address the need for affordable housing.
The core strategies include maximizing affordable housing opportunities through
continuous program and management improvement and leveraging CDBG and HOME
resources.
EXHIBIT 1
82
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment
Introduction
There are four federally defined categories under which individuals and families are
considered homeless:
1)Literally Homeless – An individual or family:
a.Living unsheltered on the streets;
b.Living in a vehicle or other place not meant for habitation;
c.Living in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program, including a
motel/hotel paid by a charitable organization or government program; or
d.Exiting an institution (resided 90 days or less and previously resided in one of
the two items listed above).
2)Imminent Risk of Homelessness – An individual or family imminently losing their
housing:
a.Housing will be lost within 14 days; and
b.Has no subsequent residence; and
c.Lacks the resources and support network.
3)Homeless Under other Federal Statutes – An unaccompanied youth under the age of 25
or families with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under
this definition, but who do meet all of the following:
a.Are defined as homeless under Section 387 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act (42 U.S.C. 5732a), Section 637 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9832), Section
41403 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043e-2), Section
330(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(h)), Section 3 of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012), Section 17(b) of the Child Nutrition Act
of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)), or Section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a);
b.Have not had a lease, ownership interest, or occupancy agreement in permanent
housing at any time during the 60 days immediately preceding the date of
application for homeless assistance;
c.Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two or more moves
during the 60-day period immediately preceding the date of applying for
homeless assistance; and
d.Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time
because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health
conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood
abuse (including neglect), the presence of a child or youth with a disability, or
two or more barriers to employment, which include the lack of a high school
degree or General Education Development (GED), illiteracy, low English
EXHIBIT 1
83
proficiency, a history of incarceration or detention for criminal activity, and a
history of unstable employment.
4)Fleeing or Attempting to flee Domestic Violence – An individual or family:
a.Fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence situation, dating violence, sexual
assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions that relate to
violence against the individual or a family member; and
b.Has no subsequent residence; and
c.Lacks the resources and support network.
According to the 2024 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, during
the Point in Time (PIT) Count in January 2024, California had the highest number and rate
of unsheltered homeless population in the country. Twenty-eight percent of the nation’s
homeless population was reported in California. More than half of all the nation’s homeless
individuals are concentrated in three states: California (24 percent), New York (20 percent),
and Washington (four percent). The rate of homelessness in California increased three
percent from 2023 to 2024, and 35 percent from 2007 to 2024.
In Orange County, homelessness is addressed regionally by the Orange County Continuum
of Care (CoC), an umbrella organization that brings together government agencies and
community-based nonprofit organizations in a coordinated effort to meet the urgent needs
of those who have become homeless or are in imminent danger of becoming homeless.
The County of Orange Health Care Agency is the collaborative applicant, and 2-1-1 OC is
the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) lead agency.
The Orange County CoC conducts a PIT Count, to create a census of unsheltered and
sheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. It conducts a sheltered PIT Count
annually and an unsheltered PIT Count every-other-year. From 2022 to 2024, in Orange
County the number of
-homeless residents rose from 5,718 to 7,322 individuals,
-unsheltered residents rose from 3,057 to 4,173, and
-sheltered residents rose from 2,661 to 3,149.
In Santa Ana, from 2022 to 2024, the number of
-homeless residents rose from 990 to 1,428,
-unsheltered residents rose from 508 to 871, and
-sheltered residents rose from 482 to 557.
Since 2020, the rate of child homelessness (under the age of 18) decreased by 26 percent
from 933 children to 691 children. Homelessness among transition-aged youth (18 – 24)
rose 10 percent, while for adults over 24 it increased 10 percent, from 5,765 to 6,323.
EXHIBIT 1
84
Figure 4 - Overall Homelessness By Age
Data Source: HUD 2020-2024 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs
Homeless Populations and Subpopulations
Table 18 - Homeless Needs Assessment
Population
Homeless on a given night Homeless each year Days of
homeless
-ness Sheltered Unsheltered Experiencing Becoming Exiting
Persons in
households with
adults and
children
948 180 4,806 3,612 877 221
Persons in
households with
only children
2,195 3,993 562 554 126 292
Persons in
households with
only adults
6 0 15,323 11,531 1,414 1,526
Chronically
homeless
individuals
877 1,600 7,090 5,092 722 2,325
Chronically
homeless
families
3 18 556 395 94 466
Veterans 80 248 651 480 225 1,337
Unaccompanied
Child 6 0 1,602 1,405 207 729
Persons with
HIV/AIDS 175 92 326 247 36 1,111
Data Source: 2024 Orange County Homeless Count & Survey Report
Data Source Comments: HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless
Populations and Subpopulations PIT count
Jurisdiction Has No Rural Homeless
EXHIBIT 1
85
Table 19 - Nature and Extent of Homelessness
Race/ Ethnicity Sheltered Unsheltered (optional)
American Indian, Alaska Native, or
Indigenous 36 75
Asian or Asian American 103 164
Black, African American, or African 329 223
Hispanic/Latina/e/o Only 37 1,509
Middle Eastern or North African 1 40
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 53 45
White 1,120 1,772
Hispanic and One or More Race 1,419 268
Non-Hispanic and Multiple Race 51 77
Data Source: HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations
and Subpopulations
If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and
exiting homelessness each year" and "number of days that persons experience
homelessness", then describe these categories for each homeless population
type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth).
Data is provided in Table 18as the “number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness
year” and the “number of days that persons experience homelessness”.
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for
families with children and the families of veterans.
According to the 2024 PIT Count in Orange County, there were 1,128 people in households
with at least one adult and one child, comprised of 948 sheltered and 180 unsheltered
people in urgent need of housing assistance.
The 2024 PIT Count revealed in Orange County 80 sheltered veterans and 248 unsheltered
veterans. It is unclear how many unique families are represented in these numbers. In the
universe of homeless individuals, it is not clear how many are families of deceased or
estranged veterans.
Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.
The 2024 PIT Count showed that most people experiencing homelessness identified as
White, followed by Hispanic and One or More Race; Hispanic/Latino Only; Black, African
EXHIBIT 1
86
American, or African; Asian or Asian American; Non-Hispanic and Multiple Races;
American Indian, Alaska Native, and Indigenous; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;
and, Middle Eastern or North African.
Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.
The 2024 PIT Count shows that on January 24, 2024, throughout Orange County most
people experiencing homelessness were unsheltered. Of the 7,322 homeless individuals,
57 percent were unsheltered. Unsheltered chronically, homeless people accounted for 22
percent of all homeless individuals. Among those who were reported as being homeless
and unsheltered (4,173 individuals), 49 percent were living with chronic substance abuse;
30 percent faced severe mental health issues; and ten percent had experienced domestic
violence.
Discussion
The January 24, 2024 PIT Count results indicate that approximately 7,322 people were
homeless in Orange County on any given night, with 20 percent (1,428 individuals) living
in Santa Ana.
EXHIBIT 1
87
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment
Introduction
Special needs populations consist of persons who are not homeless, but due to various
reasons they need services and supportive housing. Persons with special needs include the
elderly, frail elderly, severely mentally ill, developmentally disabled, physically disabled,
persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS, and victims of
domestic violence. The City of Santa Ana will consider allocating CDBG to public services
for special the needs populations indicated, as well as victims of human trafficking and
those with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or other needs.
Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community.
Elderly and Frail Elderly
HUD defines elderly as a person who is 62 years of age or older. A frail elderly person is an
elderly person who is unable to perform at least three “activities of daily living” including
eating, bathing, grooming, or home management activities. Generally, elderly people have
lower incomes than the population at large. Based on 2016-2020 CHAS data of the 24,850
households containing at least one elderly person in Santa Ana, 68 percent, 16790
households, earn less than 80 percent of the AMI and may require public services to
continue to live independently. ACS data from the same period shows 11,814 residents of
Santa Ana aged 65 and above have a disability. Of those people, 59 percent have
ambulatory difficulty, 50 percent have independent living difficulty, and 34 percent have
hearing difficulty.
Persons with Disabilities
HUD defines a disabled person as having a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activity. The main obstacle to independent living
for these adults is not only their disability, but also the lack of financial resources, often due
to limited employment opportunities. Additionally, persons with disabilities have high
health care costs, are dependent on supportive services, and may require accessibility
modifications to accommodate their disability. Based on the 2021, 1-year ACS estimate, of
the total Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population age 18 and to 64 in Santa Ana, an
estimated 5,477 people are employed and have a disability; 699 are unemployed and have
a disability; and 6,501 have a disability and are not part of the labor force.
Alcohol and Other Drug Addictions & Mental Illness
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is the
federally-funded institution established to disseminate information on mental disorders,
including data on prevalence. Prevalence data is collected through the National Survey on
Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and is calculated for a two-year period. Unfortunately, the
EXHIBIT 1
88
pandemic disrupted the method of survey delivery, which has disrupted the data series.
The most recent data set for the 2021-2022 period is only available at the state level.
Since the pandemic, rates of substance use disorder, mental illness, serious mental illness,
and receipt of mental health treatment have increased among Californians ages 18-25 and
26 and over. The younger age group (18-25) shows a higher prevalence of these issues
compared to the older group (26+). Any mental illness and serious mental illness do not
include developmental, or substance use disorders. Survey results from 2021-2022 show
the following.
18-to 25-year-olds
-34.35 percent had any mental illness
-12.08 percent had serious mental illness
-21.56 percent received mental health treatment in the past year
-27.24 percent had substance use disorder
26-year-olds and over
-20.31 percent had any mental illness
-4.66 percent had serious mental illness in the past year
-17.08 percent received mental health treatment in the past year
-16.58 percent had substance use disorder
HIV/AIDS
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) weakens the immune system by destroying
important cells that fight disease and infection. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS) is the final stage of HIV. The Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Atlas Plus program
reported 257 new HIV diagnoses during 2022 in Orange County
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/index.htm, accessed January 2025). New HIV diagnoses
were most concentrated among people aged 25-34. For persons living with HIV/AIDS,
access to affordable housing, supportive services, and quality health care is important to
maintaining their health and well-being.
Victims of Domestic Violence
Domestic violence, assault, and stalking are not always reported. According to the 2022
National Crime Victimization Survey, only 53 percent of all domestic violence events and
21 percent of rapes/ sexual assaults were reported to the police. Domestic violence
includes, but is not limited to, felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a
current or former spouse of the victim or by a person who is cohabitating with or has
cohabited with the victim. In 2022, a total of 1,127 calls related to domestic violence were
made from Santa Ana (openjustice.doj.ca.gov, accessed November 2024). Of those 107
incidents involved a weapon.
EXHIBIT 1
89
Those incidents breakdown as follows:
-eight were with a firearm;
-21 were with a knife or cutting instruments;
-38 were with other dangerous weapons; and
-40 were with personal weapons.
What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and
how are these needs determined?
Supportive services required for special needs populations include case management,
medical or psychological counseling and supervision, childcare, transportation, and job
training provided for the purpose of facilitating a person’s stability and independence. To
determine the level of need and types of services needed by special needs populations, the
City conducted a survey, consulted with local service providers, and reviewed ACS data.
In housing, accessibility modifications to accommodate persons with mobility disabilities
may include, but are not limited to, wider doorways, no-step thresholds, installation of
ramps, grab bars, lowered countertops, and accessible hardware. The needs of residents
with sensory disabilities are different from those with mobility disabilities. Individuals with
hearing disabilities require visual adaptations for such items as the telephone ringer, the
doorbell and smoke alarms. Residents who are blind may require tactile marking of
changes in floor level and stair edges and braille markings on appliances and controls.
People with low vision may require large print markings and displays, contrasting colors
to distinguish changes in level or transition from one area to another, proper lighting, and
reduced glare from lighting and windows.
For persons with special needs, the high cost of living in Orange County makes it difficult
to maintain a stable residence. Often these segments of the population rely on support
services from various Orange County nonprofit organizations to avoid becoming homeless
or institutionalized.
Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their
families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area.
According to the CDC, at the end of 2022, 1.2 million people in the United States had HIV,
and 35,716 people had been newly diagnosed in 2021 and increased to 37,601 new
diagnoses in 2022 (cdc.gov, accessed January 2025). In Orange County CDC data show, the
number of persons living with HIV has increased from 6,855 in 2018 to 7,325 in 2022. Of
those diagnosed with HIV, 69 percent were in receipt of medical care and 64 percent had
reached viral suppression. Viral load is an indicator of health and adherence to medication.
A high viral load is indicative of illness. Viral load suppression (less than 200 copies/ml) is
suggestive of improved health.
EXHIBIT 1
90
In 2022, there were 257 new HIV diagnoses in Orange County. People aged 25-34 accounted
for 37 percent, the greatest concentration of new cases. Of the newly diagnosed, 89 percent
were male of whom most identified racially/ ethnically as Hispanic/ Latino.
Discussion
In addition to the elderly, frail elderly, severe mentally ill, developmentally disabled,
physically disabled, persons with alcohol and other drug addictions, persons with
HIV/AIDS, and victims of domestic violence described above, two other subpopulations
with special needs in Orange County include victims of human trafficking and individuals
with PTSD.
Victims of Human Trafficking
Human trafficking is a crime that involves the forceful, fraudulent, or coercive methods of
entrapping a person, real or perceived, to exploit them for financial gain. The exploitative
nature can come in the form of labor services, involuntary servitude, enslavement, debt
bondage or commercialized sex acts. Human trafficking is extremely difficult to track; there
is no recent or reliable prevalence rate to report. In 2023, in California, the National Human
Trafficking Hotline identified 1,128 cases of human trafficking which involved 2,045 victims
(https://humantraffickinghotline.org/ accessed January 2025). The most common type of
human trafficking reported in California was sex trafficking.
The U.S. Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report published in July 2022, reports
victims of human trafficking are found in every state in the country and trafficked from
every country in the world. Victims of human trafficking in the United States are most
frequently trafficked from within the United States, Mexico, and Honduras. Trafficking in
Persons reports “Traffickers often target those who experience compounding forms of
discrimination (such as discrimination because of one’s racial or ethnic group, gender
identity, disability, or sexual orientation), experience violence (such as intimate partner or
domestic violence) or interact with government run programs (such as the criminal justice
system, runaway and homeless youth services, foster or institution care, and the
immigration enforcement system.”
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) explains Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) can “develop after exposure to a potentially traumatic event that is beyond a typical
stressor” and potential inducing events may include, but are not limited to, “violent
personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, combat, and other forms
of violence.” Symptoms of PTSD can be debilitating. The U.S. Department of Veteran’s
Affairs National Center for PTSD recognizes the disorder impacts populations inside and
outside of the military including families, children, and non-combatants. The National
Center reports an estimated six percent of the population, eight percent of women and four
EXHIBIT 1
91
percent of men, will have PTSD at some point in their lives. “Women are more likely to
develop PTSD than men in part due to the types of traumatic events that women are more
likely to experience – such as sexual assault—compared to men.”
Challenges these special needs populations and subpopulations face include low-income
and high housing cost. This segment of the population also struggles for a decent quality
of life that includes access to necessities, adequate food, clothing, and medical care.
Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)
COVID-19 caused a global pandemic. Its widespread impact on the United State began in
March 2020. In the ensuing years, lives changed dramatically, from the impact of measures
to prevent the spread of the disease – including stay-in-place orders, social distancing,
mask wearing and vaccination – to death. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic
Security (CARES) Act allocated funds to respond to the public health emergency through
HUD. The City of Santa Ana was awarded $6,894,836 CDBG-CV and $13,325,845 ESG-CV
funds to assist low- and moderate-income individuals and families impacted by COVID-19.
The national and global public health emergency status was lifted in May 2023; however,
the virus is still present and active around the world.
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities.
Santa Ana continues to invest in new public facilities and the maintenance and
improvement of existing facilities. Facilities constructed during the 1070s and 1980s require
rehabilitation to meet evolving community needs, modernization of amenities, and
compliance with the American with Disabilities Act.
CDBG public facility projects that meet CDBG eligibility requirements, align with a Strategic
Plan goal, and address a CDBG National Objective will be considered for funding in the five
Annual Action Plans. The Strategic Plan includes a goal to improve public facilities.
Facilities may require improvement during the next five years include, but are not limited
to, parks and recreational and parking facilities and childcare, youth and community
centers.
How were these needs determined?
The need for public facility improvements was determined through community meetings,
the Community Needs Survey, stakeholder meetings, the Stakeholder Survey, and review
of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
92
Figure 5 – Accessibility and Condition of Public Facilities and Infrastructure
Source: Community Needs Survey
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements.
Santa Ana works to improve and construct public infrastructure to meet the needs of
residents. The Capital Improvement Program includes projects in the areas of street, traffic,
utility, drainage and lighting improvements. Eligible projects will be considered for CDBG
funding.
How were these needs determined?
The need for public infrastructure improvements was determined through community
meetings, the Community Needs Survey, stakeholder meetings, the Stakeholder survey,
and review of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services.
Residents and stakeholders in Santa Ana appreciate the availability and quality of public
services and express the view that continued support for services is needed. Approximately
66 percent of households in Santa Ana have income at or below 80 percent AMI. The
provision of services at reduced or no cost expands choices available to residents with low-
and moderate-incomes.
Pursuant to CDBG regulations, only 15 percent of the City’s annual grant allocation and any
prior year program income may fund public service-type activities. The City proposes to
focus funds on households with lower incomes to establish, improve, and expand access
to existing public services, such as services for families with children, youth, workforce
development, mental health, and neighborhood clean-ups.
EXHIBIT 1
93
How were these needs determined?
The need for public services was determined through community meetings, the
Community Needs Survey, stakeholder meetings, the Stakeholder Survey, and
consultation with the Community Development Agency.
Figure 6 – Availability and Quality of Social Services
Source: Community Needs Survey
EXHIBIT 1
94
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview
This section of the Consolidated Plan evaluates housing market conditions in Santa Ana
including housing supply, demand, condition, and cost. The data shows that that are single
detached-structures a are most prominent representing 47 percent of all structures. The
housing stock is relatively dated, 80 percent of units were constructed before 1980.
The data shows the housing market in Santa Ana is relatively tight and many households,
especially renters, are experiencing a housing cost burden. From 2020 to 2024 the median
value for homes in Santa Ana increased 41 percent, according to the Zillow Home Value
Index. ACS data shows median contract rent increased 32 percent over the last 10 years.
While CHAS data shows there are enough housing units affordable to people with incomes
up to 80 percent AMI the surplus of units is minimal. There are only 652 more units
affordable to households with income up to 80 percent AMI than there are households at
that income level. There is no assurance as to which unit a household occupies. This
situation is not new. For many years monthly rent increased at a faster rate than household
income. CHAS data shows 20 percent of households earning at or below 80 percent AMI
experience a housing cost burden greater than 50 percent of income.
Figure 7 – Change in Median Rent and Income
Source: 2016-2020 ACS
EXHIBIT 1
95
MA-10 Number of Housing Units
Introduction
According to 2016-2020 ACS data, 47 percent of the City’s housing stock is comprised of
single detached-structures. Structures with 20 or more units make up 16 percent, while
mobile homes comprise the smallest portion at two percent. According to the 2016-2020
ACS estimates, the gross number of housing units in the city increased by 4,140 from
77,156 in 2015 to 81,296 in 2020.
Most rental and ownership housing units in Santa Ana have two or three bedrooms (60
percent). Less than one percent of all units are ownership units that have no-bedroom and
four percent of all units are rentals with four or more bedrooms. Table 20 and Table 21
illustrate the number of residential properties in the City by property type, unit size, and
tenure.
Table 20 - Residential Properties by Unit Number
Property Type Number %
1-unit detached structure 38,605 47%
1-unit, attached structure 6,409 8%
2-4 units 7,303 9%
5-19 units 12,560 15%
20 or more units 12,617 16%
Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc. 3,802 5%
Total 81,296 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 21 - Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
No-bedroom 628 2% 4,063 10%
1 bedroom 1,153 3% 11,660 27%
2 or 3 bedrooms 23,564 64% 23,647 56%
4 or more bedrooms 11,247 31% 3,180 7%
Total 36,592 100% 42,550 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
EXHIBIT 1
96
Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units
assisted with federal, state, and local programs.
The City tracks the affordability status of 5,018 affordable housing units, which were
constructed, rehabilitated, or supported with HOME, Housing Set-Aside, Housing Bond, or
tax credit funds, HCVs and other public sources, according to the City’s 2021-2029 Housing
Element.
Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing
inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.
HUD requires the City to analyze federal, state and locally assisted housing units that may
be lost from the City’s affordable housing stock. The expiration of affordability restrictions
on government assisted rental units is the typical reason that affordable units convert to
market rate and are “lost.” Much of the housing at-risk of conversion from affordable
housing to market rate housing is predominantly reserved for lower income households.
Use restrictions, as defined by state law, means any federal, state, or local statute,
regulation, ordinance, or contract that as a condition of receipt of any housing assistance,
including a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy, or mortgage insurance, to an assisted
housing development, establishes maximum limitations on tenant income as a condition
of eligibility for occupancy.
Conversion Risk
According to the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, there are 500 publicly assisted
affordable rental units at risk of converting to market rate units in 2025.
Preservation and Replacement Options
To maintain the existing affordable housing stock, the City may either preserve the existing
assisted units or facilitate the development of new units. Each negotiation to preserve
affordable units is unique, as project ownership interests and economic vary and City
resources may be insufficient to preserve all units when covenants expire. Depending on
the circumstances, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units.
Preservation options typically include: 1) transfer of units to nonprofit ownership; 2)
providing rental assistance to tenants using other funding sources; and 3) purchasing
extended affordability covenants. For replacement, the most direct option is the
development of new affordable units with long-term covenants.
Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population?
There is a significant need for additional rental housing units of all sizes affordable to
households earning up to 80 percent AMI, especially smaller units such as no-bedroom and
one-bedroom units and larger units such as those with four or more bedrooms t.
EXHIBIT 1
97
Determining the exact number and size of units is challenging, as there is no guarantee
regarding the size of the housing unit a household occupy.
Describe the need for specific types of housing.
ACS data indicates that in 2020 there were 10,496 single-person households in Santa Ana
–4,598 renters and 5,898 owners. Table 21 shows 17,504 no-bedroom and one-bedroom
units in the City, 15,723 rental, 1,781 owner. The data suggests a potential need for more
opportunities to purchase small housing units. CHAS data shows that in 2020 there were
18,110 large family households with more than four family members and 14,427 housing
units with four or more bedrooms. This may indicate a potential need for more large units.
Table 10 reports cost burden and illustrates the number and approximate size of
households with incomes at or below 80 percent AMI living in housing units that are
beyond their financial means. Elderly and “other” types include single-person
households and large related households include more than four people. In Santa Ana
there are
-2,298 renter and 2,685 owner elderly households;
-2,880 renter and 855 “other” households; and
-6,645 renter and 2,105 owner large related households.
This data also indicates there may be a need for more opportunities to purchase small
housing units and rent large housing units..
Discussion
For decades, California’s housing market has been among the most expensive in the
country, and those conditions persist today. Not only is renting expensive, but purchasing
a home is also largely out of reach. To afford median market rent for a two-bedroom unit
in Santa Ana a household must earn $63 per hour or work over 156 hours per week at
minimum wage of $16 per hour, which equates to about four full time jobs. These
calculations were made using the same method as the National Low Income Housing
Coalition in the Out if Reach series and using market rate rent from Zumper. Market rate
rents are significantly higher than fair market rents and more accurately reflect the
experience low- and moderate-income households are facing.
EXHIBIT 1
98
Figure 8 – Minimum Wage Affordability
Data Source: 2022 Zumper Research & CA Minimum Wage Data
EXHIBIT 1
99
MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing
Introduction
One of the most important factors in evaluating a community’s housing market is the cost
of housing and whether the housing is affordable to households who live there or would
like to live there. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, a
correspondingly high prevalence of housing cost burden and overcrowding will typically
occur.
Table 23 indicates the median home value and contract rent (not including utility or other
associated costs). These values are self-reported by residents through the ACS Survey and
the data reflects the 5-Year Estimate for 2016-2020. Looking to more current housing sales
and rental market data it becomes clear the cost of housing is growing rapidly. ACS data
shows median contract rent increased 32 percent from 2010 to 2020. In 2020, according to
ACS data, median home values in Santa Ana rose 26 percent greater than in 2010, during
the mortgage-backed securities housing foreclosure crisis. According to the Zillow home
value index, value increased 41 percent from $594,064 in November 2020 to $834,377 in
November 2024.
Figure 9 - Median Home Value
Data Source: 2021-2023 Zillow Home Value Index Research
Table 25 indicates the number of units currently affordable to households at different levels
of income. It is important to note that simply because a unit is affordable to residents at
that income level, it does not necessarily mean that a household at that income level is
occupying the unit.
EXHIBIT 1
100
Table 22 - Rental Housing Costs
Rental Housing Cost by
Bedroom 2022 ($) 2023 ($) 2024 (%) Change
1-bedroom 2,250 2,107 2,190 -2.7%
2-3 bedrooms 2,900 2,954 2,998 3.4%
4 or more -bedrooms 3,450 3,686 4,200 21.7%
Data Source: Zumper Research
Table 23 - Cost of Housing
Cost of Housing 2010 ($) 2020 ($) Change
Median Home Value 417,400 525,900 26%
Median Contract Rent 1,231 1,626 32%
Data Source: 2010, 2016-2020 ACS (Most Recent Year)
Table 24 - Rent Paid
Rent Paid Number %
Less than $500 1,090 2.61%
$500-999 2,942 7.03%
$1,000-1,499 13,337 31.88%
$1,500-1,999 14,095 33.69%
$2,000 or more 10,372 24.79%
Total 41,836 100%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 25 - Housing Affordability
Units affordable to
Households at: Renter Owner
30% HAMFI 12,595 4,760
50% HAMFI 10,189 6,049
80% HAMFI 10,885 8,639
100% HAMFI 4,044 5,938
Total 37,713 25,386
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
EXHIBIT 1
101
Table 26 - Monthly Rent
Bedrooms Efficiency/ No
Bedroom ($) 1 ($) 2 ($) 3 ($) 4 ($)
Fair Market 1,716 1,905 2,324 3,178 3,674
High HOME 1,523 1,633 1,961 2,257 2,498
Low HOME 1,186 1,270 1,525 1,761 1,965
Data Source: 2022 HUD FMR and HOME Rents
Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels?
CHAS data indicates the number of units affordable to each income group, from below 30
percent AMI to 100 percent AMI. The data shows there are more units affordable to
households at each income level than there are households. The number of extra units
declines with household incomes. According to the data there are 20 more units affordable
to households with incomes at or below 30 percent AMI and 248 units affordable to
households with incomes at or below 50 percent AMI.
Determining the number of additional affordable housing units needed to eliminate or
significantly reduce cost burden is complex. A key challenge is that households of a
particular income level do not always occupy a unit that aligns with their income level, even
when such units are available in the open marketplace. This is evident in the data, which
shows there are enough units affordable to all households, still 40 percent of households
earning up to 80 percent AMI experience a housing cost burden spending more than 30
percent of their income on housing.
Figure 10 - Units Affordable to Households By Income Range
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS Data
EXHIBIT 1
102
How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home
values and/or rents?
Rental housing costs have increased steadily over the past ten years – creating more
pressure on extremely low-income households. Median market rate rents exceed the Fair
Market Rents for Orange County and represent a significant burden for low- and moderate-
income households struggling to remain housed. Similarly, according to home value data
supplied by Zillow, median home sales increased 41 percent from $594,064 in 2020 to
$834,377 in 2024. Based on this information and barring significant regional and national
changes in economic conditions, the price of housing in Santa Ana is forecast to continue
increasing during the period of the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan.
How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How
might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing?
In 2022 there was significant variation in low HOME, fair market, market rate, and median
contract rents. This variance makes it difficult to identify viable affordable housing projects
to support and reduces the number of affordable housing units that become available.
Figure 11 - Rent Differentials
Data Source: 2022HOME Rates, 2016-2020 5—estimates ACS, 2022Zumper Research
Discussion
Economic expansion over the last decade and a lag in production of new housing units in
Southern California have created a housing economy that is overburdened.
Homeownership is out of reach to many Santa Ana households and a single person earning
minimum wage cannot reasonably afford a two-bedroom rental apartment. A household
would need to earn about $177,840 annually to reasonably afford a $730,205 home, which
was the median home value in Santa Ana reported November 2022 per the Zillow Home
EXHIBIT 1
103
Value Index. The median household income in Santa Ana in 2022 was less than half that,
$84,210. A household would need to earn about $116,000 annually to afford a two-bedroom
rental in the City. A full-time minimum wage employee will gross approximately $30,000
annually.
Figure 12 – Rental & Ownership Housing Income
Data Source: 2022 Zumper Research, Zillow Home Value Index & Mortgage Calculator, CA
Minimum Wage Data, Freddie Mac 30 Year Fixed Interest Rate Mortgage Data
Note: Housing income was calculated based on 30 percent of market rate housing costs, HUD area
median income, and Freddie Mac reporting of average 30-year fixed mortgage rates.
EXHIBIT 1
104
MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing –
91.210(a)
Introduction
Assessing the age and physical condition of housing in Santa Ana forms the basis of
strategies to maintain and improve housing quality for low- and moderate-income
residents. For this assessment, the ACS defines a “selected condition” as owner- or renter-
occupied housing units with at least one of the following conditions: 1) lacking complete
plumbing facilities; 2) lacking complete kitchen facilities; 3) more than one occupant per
room; and 4) selected monthly housing costs greater than 30 percent of household income.
Approximately half of both renter- and owner-occupied units have one or two selected
conditions.
Definitions
Substandard housing is housing that does not meet the minimum standards contained in
the State Housing Code (i.e., does not provide shelter, endangers health, safety or well-
being of occupants). A substandard condition is one that adversely affects habitability of
the housing unit. As defined by California Health and Safety Code, a substandard condition
exists to the extent that it endangers the health and safety of its occupants or the public.
Such conditions include:
- Inadequate sanitation
- Structural hazards
- Any nuisance that endangers the health and safety of the occupants or the public
- All substandard plumbing, wiring, and/or mechanical equipment, unless it
conformed to all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and has been
maintained in a good and safe condition
- Faulty weather protection
- The use of construction materials not allowed or approved by the health and safety
code
- Fire, health and safety hazards (as determined by the appropriate fire or health
official)
- Lack of, or inadequate fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems as
required by the health and safety code, unless the construction and/or systems
conformed to all applicable laws in effect at the time of construction and/or
installation and adequately maintained
- Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces
- Buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining
purposes that were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies
EXHIBIT 1
105
-Inadequate maintenance that causes a building or any portion thereof to be declared
unsafe
Standard housing condition in Santa Ana is defined as housing that meets the minimum
standards of the State Housing Code. For the purposes of the CDBG program, a unit in
substandard condition is considered suitable for rehabilitation provided the unit is
structurally sound, and the cost of rehabilitation is considered economically warranted.
Table 27 - Condition of Units
Condition of Units
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With one selected Condition 14,315 39.1% 20,778 14,315
With two selected Conditions 1353 3.7% 8,968 1353
With three selected Conditions 30 0.1% 80 30
With four selected Conditions 5 0.0% 0 5
No selected Conditions 20,889 57.1% 12,724 20,889
Total 36,592 100.0% 42,550 36,592
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 28 - Year Unit Built
Year Unit Built
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or later 1,515 4.1% 2,585 6.1%
1980-1999 3,240 8.9% 8,485 19.9%
1960-1979 15,770 43.1% 20,040 47.1%
1940-1959 13,000 35.5% 8,665 20.4%
Before 1939 3,070 8.4% 2,775 6.5%
Total 36,595 100.0% 42,550 100.0%
Data Source: 2016-2020 CHAS
EXHIBIT 1
106
Table 29 - Risk of Lead-Based Paint
Risk of Lead-Based Paint
Hazard
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
Units Built Before 1980 31,840 31,480
with children under the age of
six present 4,405 13.8% 8,420 26.7%
Units Built Before 1980 with
households <80% AMI 16,720 52.5% 24,685 78.4%
with children under the age of
six present 2,905 9.1% 7,825 24.9%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Total Units) 2016-2020 CHAS (Units with Children present)
Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation
The age and condition of Santa Ana’s housing stock is an important indicator of potential
rehabilitation needs. Housing over 30 years of age can be presumed to need some form of
major rehabilitation, such as roof replacement, foundation work and plumbing systems.
Housing over 20 years of age will generally exhibit deficiencies in terms of paint,
weatherization, heating/air-conditioning systems, hot water heaters and finish plumbing
fixtures. Housing values in Santa Ana have increased significantly over a relatively short
period of time. Longtime homeowners, especially the elderly and disabled, are more likely
to have fixed and limited incomes and may have difficulty maintaining their homes.
The housing stock in Santa Ana is dated; 80 percent of housing units were constructed
before 1980 according to 2016-2020 CHAS data. About 15 percent of owner- and renter-
occupied housing in Santa Ana was built 30 to 40 years ago between 1980 and 1999. There
are 24,850 households with at least one member over the age of 62 and 16,790 of whom
have household incomes at or below 80 percent AMI, according to 2016-2020 CHAS data.
There are approximately 12,148 people aged 18 to 64 with disabilities, according to 2016-
2020, ACS 5-Year estimates. These households may be presumed to have fixed incomes. It
is reasonable to anticipate a significant number of housing units in need of repair and a
significant number of households will need financial assistance to complete those repairs.
Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low- or Moderate-Income
Families with LBP Hazards
Any housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. If ingested, lead may cause
severe damage to young children including decreased growth, learning disabilities,
impaired hearing, hyperactivity, nerve and brain damage. Lead attacks the central nervous
system, the neurological system, and can cause brain damage, IQ reduction, learning
disabilities, decreased attention span, hyperactivity, growth inhibition, comas, seizures,
and in some cases, death. Fetuses may also experience significant adverse effects through
prenatal exposure. Children are more susceptible to the effects of lead because their
EXHIBIT 1
107
growing bodies absorb more lead, and young children often put their hands and other
objects in their mouths. Most children do not have any symptoms, even if a blood test
shows that they have an elevated blood lead level. If a child does have symptoms, the
symptoms may be mistaken for the flu or other illnesses.
Most of the housing stock in Santa Ana was built before 1979 and is presumed to contain
lead paint. The 2016-2020 CHAS data shows 7,825 low- and moderate-income renter
households with children under the age of six were living in housing constructed before
1980, and 2,905 owner-occupied households meet the same conditions.
Number of Children with Elevated Blood Levels of Lead
The State of California mandates lead screening for all children who participate in publicly
funded health programs. In California, screening typically occurs at ages one and two
years. A blood level of 10 µg/dL or higher was previously referred to as an “elevated blood
level (EBL).” However, as it is now recognized there is no safe level of lead, and adverse
effects occur at levels below 10 µg/dL, an “elevated” blood lead level is no longer defined
at a specific cut-off point. Of Orange County children under the age of six whose blood lead
level has been fully tested 1.46 percent have levels greater than 3.5 mcg/Dl.
Discussion
Preservation of the physical and functional integrity of existing housing units occupied by
low- and moderate-income households is a cost-effective way to invest limited resources
to retain existing housing units already affordable to low- and moderate-income
households in the community. Many different types of housing services are needed. As
required by HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, the City’s housing rehabilitation programs will
include appropriate safety measures such as testing and abatement for projects involving
units constructed prior to 1978.
EXHIBIT 1
108
MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing
Introduction
As indicated in section NA-35, SAHA administers HUDs Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV).
Table 30 reflects the data provided by HUD in the eConPlanning Suite and the Disabled
column includes MS5 data.
Table 30 - Total Number of Units by Program Type
Vouchers
Total Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher
VASH Disabled
Unit/vouchers
available 2658 No data 0 31
Accessible units N/A N/A N/A N/A
Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)
Describe the supply of public housing developments.
There are no public housing developments in Santa Ana. There are 10 projects assisted by
the SAHA.
Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction,
including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan
There are no public housing developments in Santa Ana. All housing assistance is
conveyed through HVCs. SAHA monitors units to ensure they are in adequate condition.
Public Housing Condition
Table 31 - Public Housing Condition
Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the
jurisdiction.
There are no public housing developments in Santa Ana. SAHA uses Housing Quality
Standards for the inspection of all voucher units.
Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living
environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing.
The SAHA administers the Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) program. This is a voulntary
program available to families in recipet of a HCV program to households become economic
independent through financial literacy. The Housing Authority also support a resident
adviosry board.
EXHIBIT 1
109
MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services
Introduction
Regionally, there are numerous facilities and services to support residents at-risk of
becoming homeless and experiencing homelessness. These include a range of emergency
shelters, transitional shelters, and permanent supportive housing options. HUD uses the
following definitions for these three facility types:
-Emergency Shelter (ES): Any facility with the primary purpose of providing a
temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the
homeless and which does not require occupants to sign leases or occupancy
agreements.
-Transitional Housing: Transitional housing (TH) is designed to provide homeless
individuals and families with interim stability and support to successfully move to
and maintain permanent housing. Transitional housing may be used to cover the
costs of up to 24 months of housing with accompanying supportive services.
Program participants must have a lease (or sublease) or occupancy agreement in
place when residing in transitional housing.
-Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) is designed to quickly move individuals and families out of
homelessness and into permanent housing through the provision of up to 24
months of rental assistance and supportive services.
-Permanent Supportive Housing: Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is defined as
community-based housing paired with supportive services to serve households in
which at least one member has a disability. Housing does not have a designated
length of stay in which formerly homeless individuals and families live as
independently as possible. Under PSH, a program participant must be the tenant on
a lease (or sublease) for an initial term of at least one year that is renewable and is
terminable only for cause.
Table 32 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households
Facilities and Housing
Targeted to Homeless
Households
Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional
Housing Beds
Permanent Supportive
Housing Beds
Year-Round
Beds
(Current &
New)
Voucher /
Seasonal /
Overflow
Beds
Current & New Current
& New
Under
Development
Adults and Children 645
0
624 1,313
N/A
Only Adults 2,365 217 1,677
Chronically Homeless N/A N/A 795
Veterans 2 81 1,186
Unaccompanied Youth 45 63 14
Data Source: 2024 Housing Inventory Count
EXHIBIT 1
110
Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment
services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted
to homeless persons
In California, the primary programs for assisting families in poverty are CalWORKS,
CalFresh, and Medi-Cal. These programs provide clients with employment assistance,
discounted food, medical care, childcare, and cash payments to meet basic needs, such as
housing and transportation.
The California Work Opportunities for Kids (CalWORKs) program provides financial
assistance and Welfare-to-Work services to California families with little to no cash.
Through this program these families may be eligible to receive immediate short-term help
with housing, food, utilities, clothing, or medical care. Childcare is also available through
this program.
CalFresh, formerly the Food Stamp Program, is a nutritional assistance program that
provides Electronic Benefit Transfer Cards to people receiving public assistance to
purchase food and other essential items.
The Medi-Cal program provides health coverage for people with low-income and limited
ability to pay for health coverage, including seniors, those with disabilities, young adults
and children, pregnant women, persons in a skilled nursing or intermediate care home, and
persons in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program (BCCTP). People receiving
federally-funded cash assistance programs, such as CalWORKs (a state implementation of
the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program), the State
Supplementation Program (SSP) (a state supplement to the federal Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) program), foster care, adoption assistance, certain refugee assistance
programs, or In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), are also eligible.
CDBG, HOME, and ESG Funded Activities
Congress designed the CDBG programs to serve low-income people, some of which may
meet the federal poverty definition. The City of Santa Ana received funding to run CDBG,
HOME, and ESG programs. At least 70 percent of all CDBG funds must be used for activities
that are considered under program rules to benefit low- and moderate-income persons.
Additionally, every CDBG activity must meet one of three national objectives: benefit low-
and moderate-income persons (at least 51 percent of the beneficiaries must be low- and
moderate-income); address slums or blight; or meet a particularly urgent community
development need. CDBG programs assist the homeless and those at-risk-of homelessness
directly and indirectly.
Under the HOME program, households must earn no more than 80 percent of the AMI,
adjusted for household size, to be eligible for assistance. Furthermore, 90 percent of the
EXHIBIT 1
111
allocation that is invested in affordable rental housing must be directed to assist
households earning no more than 60 percent AMI.
The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program provides homeless persons with basic
shelter and essential supportive services. It can assist with the operational costs of the
shelter facility, and for the administration of the grant. ESG also provides short-term
homeless prevention assistance to persons at imminent risk of losing their own housing
due to eviction, foreclosure, or utility shutoffs.
List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless
persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services
and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and
services specifically address the needs of these populations.
Table 33 - Homeless Service Providers for the City of Santa Ana
Provider Location Description
2-1-1 Orange County Orange County Homeless services
Human Options Orange County ES, TH, RRH
Families Forward Orange County RRH
Radiant Health Centers Orange County ES
South County Outreach Orange County Homeless services and housing
assistance
StandUp For Kids Orange County Homeless services and housing
assistance
OCAPICA Orange County Homeless services and housing
assistance
American Family Housing Orange County ES, PSH, Other Permanent
Housing (OPH)
APAIRT Orange County ES
Casa Teresa Orange County ES, TH
Casa Youth Shelter Orange County ES
City Net Orange County ES
Covenant House California Orange County ES, RRH
Family Assistance Ministries Orange County ES, TH
Family Promise of Orange County Orange County ES
Friendship Shelter Orange County ES, PSH, RRH
Grandma’s House of Hope Orange County ES, TH
HIS-OC Orange County ES, TH, RRH
Illumination Foundation Orange County ES, PSH, RRH, OPH
Interval House Orange County ES, TH, RRH, OPH
Jamboree Orange County ES, PSH
Last Is First Philanthropies Orange County ES, TH, OPH
Laura’s House Orange County ES, TH
Mercy House Orange County ES, PSH, RRH, OPH
EXHIBIT 1
112
Provider Location Description
OC Rescue Mission Orange County ES, TH
PATH Orange County ES, RRH
Pathways of Hope Orange County ES, PSH
Project Kinship Orange County ES
Radiant Futures Orange County ES, TH, RRH
Salvation Army Orange County ES, RRH
The Eli Home Inc Orange County ES
VOALA Orange County ES
Waymakers Orange County ES
WISEPlace Orange County ES, TH, RRH
Colette’s Children’s Home Orange County ES
The Orangewood Foundation Orange County TH
Thomas House Orange County TH
Health Care Agency – Behavioral Health Orange County PSH
Orange County Housing Authority Orange County PSH, OPH
1736 Family Crisis Center Orange County RRH
SPIN Orange County RRH
US Veterans Initiative Orange County RRH
Housing for Health Orange County Orange County OPH
EXHIBIT 1
113
MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services
Introduction
Special needs populations include people who are not homeless but need services and
supportive housing. The City will consider allocating CDBG public service funding to
programs that provide services to special needs populations, including but not limited to
those serving the elderly, frail elderly, people with disabilities including mental, physical,
and alcohol or substance abuse, PTSD, HIV/AIDS, veterans, and survivors and victims of
domestic violence and human trafficking or other needs.
Elderly is defined under the CDBG program as a person who is aged 62 and older. A frail
elderly person is an elderly person who is unable to independently perform at least three
“activities of daily living” including eating, bathing, grooming or home management
activities. Based on 2016-2020 CHAS data, of the 24,850 households containing at least one
elderly person in Santa Ana, 16,790 households, earn up to 80 percent of the AMI and may
require public services to continue to live independently. ACS data from the same period
shows 11,814 residents of Santa Ana aged 65 and older have a disability. Of those people,
59 percent have independent living difficulty, 50 percent have hearing difficulty, and 34
percent have hearing difficulty.
People with disabilities defined as having a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, generally rely on supportive services
to perform activities of daily living. In Santa Ana, the Civilian Noninstitutionalized
Population aged 18 to 64 includes 213,771 individuals, an estimated 5.7 percent
experiencing a disability (ACS, 5-year estimates). Among those with disabilities:
-44 percent have ambulatory difficulty;
-41 percent have cognitive impairments;
-37 percent have independent living difficulties;
-24 percent have a vision difficulty;
-19 percent a hearing impairment; and
-19 percent have difficulty with self-care.
Drug abuse or substance abuse is defined as the use of chemical substances that lead to
an increased risk of problems and an inability to control the use of the substance.
Substance abuse can be indicative of addiction disorder and may stem from physical and
mental health issues. SAMHSA conducted the National Survey on Drug Use and Health
and found in California the prevalence of substance use disorder over the last year among
the population over the age of 11 was 8.27 percent in 2013-2014 and was 17.12 percent in
2021-2022.
EXHIBIT 1
114
HIV is a virus that weakens the immune system by destroying important cells that fight
diseases and infection. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is the final stage of HIV.
The Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Atlas Plus program reported an estimated 7,325
persons living in Orange County with HIV disease at the end of 2022. Of that number, 257
had been newly diagnosed during that year (https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/atlas/index.htm,
accessed January 2025). New HIV diagnoses were most concentrated among those aged
25 to 34.
Domestic violence includes, but is not limited to, felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence
committed by a current or former spouse of the victim or by a person who is cohabitating
with or has cohabited with the victim. In 2022, 1,127 calls related to domestic violence were
made from Santa Ana (openjustice.doj.ca.gov, accessed November 2024). Of these
domestic incidents, 107 involved a weapon and 1,020 did not.
Human trafficking is a crime that involves the forceful, fraudulent, or coercive methods of
entrapping a person, real or perceived, to exploit them for financial gain. The exploitative
nature can come in the form of labor services, involuntary servitude, enslavement, debt
bondage or commercial sex acts. Human trafficking is extremely difficult to track; there is
no recent or reliable prevalence rate to report. In 2023, in California, the National Human
Trafficking Hotline identified 1,128 cases of human trafficking, which involved 2,045 victims
(https://humantraffickinghotline.org/ accessed January 2025). The most common type of
human trafficking reported in California was sex trafficking The U.S. Department of State
Trafficking in Persons Report published in July 2022, reports victims of human trafficking
are found in every state in the country and trafficked from every country in the world.
Victims of human trafficking in the United States are most frequently trafficked from within
the United States, Mexico, and Honduras.
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) explains PTSD can “develop after exposure
to a potentially traumatic event that is beyond a typical stressor” and potential inducing
events may include, but are not limited to, “violent personal assaults, natural or human-
caused disasters, accidents, combat, and other forms of violence.” Symptoms of PTSD can
be debilitating. The U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs National Center for PTSD reports
an estimated six percent of the population, eight percent of women and four percent of
men, will have PTSD at some point in their lives.
Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical,
developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with
HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories
the jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing needs.
To determine the level of need and types of services needed by special needs populations,
the City conducted the Community Needs Survey, consulted with local service providers,
and reviewed data from the ACS, CHAS, CDC, State of California Department of Justice,
EXHIBIT 1
115
U.S. Department of State, and NIMH. Supportive services required for special needs
populations include case management, medical or psychological counseling and
supervision, childcare, transportation, and job training for the purpose of facilitating a
person’s stability and independence.
In housing, accessibility modifications to accommodate persons with mobility disabilities
may include, but are not limited to, wider doorways, no step thresholds, installation of
ramps, grab bars, lowered countertops, and accessible hardware. The needs of residents
with sensory disabilities are different from those with mobility disabilities. Individuals with
hearing disabilities require visual adaptations for such items as the telephone ringer, the
doorbell and smoke alarms. Residents who are blind may require tactile marking of
changes in floor level and stair edges and braille markings on appliances and controls.
People with low vision may require large print markings and displays, contrasting colors
to distinguish changes in level or transition from one area to another, proper lighting, and
reduced glare from lighting and windows.
Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical
health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing
A lack of supportive housing combined with inadequate discharge planning and
coordination contributes to homelessness when individuals are released from public
institutions or public systems of care without having access to appropriate housing
options. Coordinated discharge planning is considered a best practice for those exiting
foster care, healthcare, mental health treatment, and correctional facilities. The state
mandates discharge planning policy for these systems to help ensure a smoother transition
into stable housing.
For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction
plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive
services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons
who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals.
Santa Ana identified access to and supply of public services as a priority need in the City.
It set the goal of providing access to and supply of public services Work with local and
regional nonprofits and service providers to ensure the provision of critical services and
activities to low- and moderate-income residents and special needs populations
throughout the City. During the first year of this Consolidated Plan cycle the City will
allocate $628,527 to public services activities which it anticipates will benefit approximately
1,480 households with low- and moderate-income.
EXHIBIT 1
116
MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing
Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential
Investment
A barrier to affordable housing is a public policy or nongovernmental condition that
constrains the development or rehabilitation of affordable housing, such as land use
controls, property taxes, state prevailing wage requirements, environmental protection,
cost of land and availability of monetary resources. Barriers to affordable housing differ
from impediments to fair housing choice in that barriers are legally permissible, whereas
impediments to fair housing choice are typically unlawful.
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an identification and prioritization of
significant contributing factors that impede fair housing and/or result in disproportionate
housing needs. Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates,
community feedback, and the assessment of fair housing included in the Housing Element,
the City identified the following fair housing issues:
-Displacement risk
-Lack of safe and sanitary housing
-Housing overcrowding
-Low household incomes
-Exposure to environmental hazards
-Lack of quality education and job training
The primary factor contributing to these housing issues is the limited availability of
resources to subsidize housing development to the point that units are affordable to low-
and moderate-income households. The elimination of local Redevelopment Agencies by
the State of California resulted in the loss of a crucial resource for the development and
preservation of affordable housing. This was the most significant public policy change
impacting affordable housing and residential investment. While there are mechanisms
whereby certain affordable housing assets tied to the former Redevelopment Agencies may
be utilized today, these resources are finite and scarce.
EXHIBIT 1
117
MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets
Introduction
During the implementation of the 2025-2029 Strategic Plan, the City will use CDBG funds
to address these needs and provide a suitable living environment for low- and moderate-
income people.
Economic Development Market Analysis
Table 34 - Business Activity
Business Activity by Sector
Number
of
Workers
Number
of Jobs
Share of
Workers
Share
of Jobs
Jobs less
Workers
Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas 2,568 69 1.5% 0.1% -1.5%
Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 21,888 9,109 13.2% 6.6% -6.5%
Construction 13,014 8,386 7.8% 6.1% -1.7%
Education and Health Care Services 25,872 28,035 15.6% 20.4% 4.8%
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 8,539 9,903 5.1% 7.2% 2.1%
Information 2,064 1,059 1.2% 0.8% -0.5%
Manufacturing 23,668 18,813 14.2% 13.7% -0.6%
Other Services 11,169 3,283 6.7% 2.4% -4.3%
Professional, Scientific, Management 23,970 13,797 14.4% 10.0% -4.4%
Public Administration 4,029 24,234 2.4% 17.6% 15.2%
Retail Trade 18,668 12,759 11.2% 9.3% -1.9%
Transportation and Warehousing 6572 1,594 4.0% 1.2% -2.8%
Wholesale Trade 4253 6,485 2.6% 4.7% 2.2%
Total 166,274 137,526 1 1 0
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS (Workers), 2020 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs)
Table 35 - Labor Force
Labor Force Statistics Number of People
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 175,219
Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 166,274
Unemployment Rate 5.1%
Unemployment Rate for Aged 16-24 12.7%
Unemployment Rate for Aged 25-65 4.2%
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
EXHIBIT 1
118
Table 36 - Occupations by Sector
Occupations by Sector Number of People
Management, business and financial 15,595
Farming, fisheries, and forestry occupations 1,916
Service 44,589
Sales and office 35,199
Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair 11,617
Production, transportation, and material moving 30,505
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 37 - Travel Time
Travel Time to Work People Percent
< 30 Minutes 97,008 63%
30-59 Minutes 47,884 31%
60 or More Minutes 10,228 7%
Total 155,120 1
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 38 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older)
Educational Attainment In Labor Force Not in Labor
Force Civilian Employed Unemployed
Less than high school graduate 46,144 1,844 17,752
High school graduate & equivalent 31,432 1929 9,020
Some college or Associate degree 32,658 1,396 6,138
Bachelor's degree or higher 26,669 876 3,416
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Table 39 - Educational Attainment by Age
Educational Attainment by Age Age in years
18–24 25–34 35–44 45–65 65+
Less than 9th grade 864 3,675 8,370 24,185 12,464
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 3,601 7,051 9,397 13,062 3745
High school graduate, GED, or
alternative 12,084 14,236 11,657 16,495 5,437
Some college, no degree 15,748 13,880 6,503 10,868 4,789
Associate degree 1814 3,911 2222 2,829 1566
Bachelor's degree 2706 11,555 5,743 5,769 3,009
Graduate or professional degree 95 2795 2528 2,581 1,635
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
EXHIBIT 1
119
Table 40 - Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months by Educational Attainment
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Less than high school graduate $ 25,351
High school graduate (includes equivalency) $32,002
Some college or Associate degree $38,258
Bachelor's degree $56,152
Graduate or professional degree $75,328
Data Source: 2016-2020 ACS
Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment
sectors within your jurisdiction?
According to 2020 Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, the top four
major private employment sectors by number of jobs were Education and Health Care
Services (28,872 jobs), Public Administration (24,234 jobs), Manufacturing (18,813 jobs),
Professional, Scientific, and Management (13,797 jobs).
Figure 13 - Top Industry Sectors By Jobs
Data Source:ACS 2016-20205-Year Estimates, 2020 Longitudinal Employer and
Household Dynamics
Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community
The business community in Santa Ana relies largely on a skilled and educated workforce,
starting with the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) and over 40 nearby colleges
and universities and continuing with City and County employers. Santa Ana is the Orange
EXHIBIT 1
120
County seat. Employers across the top sectors, and especially those that are a destination
location or part of a larger logistics chain such as manufacturing, depend on well-
functioning roads and transportation system and amenities.
Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as
planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that
have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the
planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business
support or infrastructure these changes may create.
Santa Ana continues to be directly impacted by the Orange County and metro-region’s
economic conditions and changes.
Three primary trends that are impacting the region’s economy are as follows:
1.Technological advances, such as social media, e-commerce, and automation, are
currently disrupting many traditional industries.
2.A surging housing market representing tremendous economic growth while
simultaneously creating affordability concerns for many residents.
3.Near record-low unemployment rates and significant employment growth in
traditional and emerging industry sectors.
How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to
employment opportunities in the jurisdiction?
An estimated 41 percent of Santa Ana’s population aged 18-64 has some post-secondary
education, 26 percent of whom have some college or an Associate degree. Generally, the
skills and education of the current workforce correspond to the employment opportunities
in Santa Ana. Table 35 indicates that the number of workers exceeds the available jobs in
the following industry sectors: Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas, Arts, Entertainment,
Accommodations, Construction, Information, Manufacturing, Other Services, Professional,
Scientific, Management, Retail Trade, and Transportation and Warehousing. Most.
Additionally, most of the working population in Santa Ana travels less than 30 minutes to
work.
Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by
Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations.
Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.
There are many workforce training initiatives available to qualified Santa Ana residents.
The Orange County Workforce Development Board (OCWDB) together with the County
Board of Supervisors oversees regional economic development activities and programs,
including OC Workforce Solutions.
EXHIBIT 1
121
OC Workforce Solutions is part of the nationwide system of American Job Centers
Workforce Centers. Orange County Workforce Solutions encompasses core programs
services for both job seekers and businesses at no cost. OC Workforce Solutions helps
residents with career services, vocational training, job search, referrals, childcare and
transportation assistance. OC Workforce Solutions partners with local community colleges,
nonprofits, educators and the private sector to help assist and guide its programs to ensure
a strong job pipeline where employer needs and employee skills match up.
The City’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Youth funded program
provides a range of services to young adults including career guidance, educational
attainment support, skills training, and career pathways or enrollment in post-secondary
education.
Orange Workforce Alliance is a regional planning unit that collaborates with local workforce
boards and partners to develop and deploy innovative strategies that meet current and
emerging labor gaps for employers.
The Senior Community Service Employment Program of Orange County is a program that
trains, retains and prepares low-income workers, aged 55 and older, for entry or reentry
into the workforce.
Cal State Fullerton hosts the Orange County/ Inland Empire Small Business Development
Center (SBDC), which focuses on assisting businesses to grow and thrive through a blend
of training and technical assistance. Services include training, access to resources, and one-
on-one consulting services related to business development and operations.
The Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce, Santa Ana Business Council and Downtown
Business Inc. represent and support businesses and entrepreneurs throughout the City via
training, coordinated events and advocacy.
The Santa Ana Chamber provides training with funding via the State’s Employment
Training Panel. This includes a range of continuing education courses for businesses to
provide to employees focused on quality management and business skills.
Santa Ana College’s Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs include 35 areas of
study with offerings totaling 59 degree options and 101 certificates. All of the CTE
programs are developed and designed to meet the needs of the local labor market.
The Orange County Community Foundation’s OC Workforce Development Initiative
leverages relationships between academia and industry leaders to create a pipeline of
qualified candidates for in-demand middle-skills jobs. It has granted over $1.6 million to
seven collaborative projects, including initiatives focused on helping graduating high
school seniors enrolling in community colleges, disconnected youth seeking additional
training, and underemployed young adults seeking career advancement.
EXHIBIT 1
122
Workforce development programs represent a significant opportunity for Orange County
to strengthen its labor market and competitive advantages and improve economic equity.
These programs have fewer barriers to entry than four-year college degrees and are thus
more accessible to lower-income residents, including those in Disinvested Communities,
and are a proven bridge to sustainable, gainful employment.
Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS)?
Yes
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be
coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional
plans or initiatives that impact economic growth.
The City participates in the preparation of the Orange County CEDS. The process is led by
the OCWDB. The most recent CEDS covers the period 2024 to 2029 and establishes six
goals. Goal number two is to “focus on residents living in disinvested communities.”
Disinvested communities are the top 25 percent of Census Tracts in Orange County based
on the economic, social, and environmental metrics of the CalEnviroScreen. In Santa Ana,
11 disinvested areas have been identified. Low- and moderate-income residents of these
areas may qualify for public service, housing and homeless assistance programs supported
with CDGB, HOME, and ESG funds.
Discussion
In the spring of 2020, unemployment rates in the United States reached the highest levels
since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began recording this data. According to the
BLS, national unemployment rates reached 23.5 percent in May 2020. Unemployment rates
remained at historically high levels for almost six months. As of May 2024, unemployment
rates had declined to 4.6 percent in Santa Ana and 4.5 percent in Orange County. In 2019,
prior to the pandemic, the unemployment rate in Santa Ana was 3.0 percent and 4.5 percent
in Orange County.
EXHIBIT 1
123
MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion
Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are
concentrated? (include a definition of “concentration”)
Concentrations of households with housing problems are defined as ten percent over the
rate at which severe housing problems occur throughout the City as a whole, based on
CHAS 2016-2020 data. Citywide, 21 percent of households have one or more severe
housing problem, thus the threshold for concentration is 31 percent. Map 4 illustrates areas
throughout the City where a concentration of households have severe housing problems.
Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-
income families are concentrated? (include a definition of “concentration”)
Low-income is recognized as up to 50 percent AMI. Concentrations are defined as areas
where these populations exceed the citywide rate by at least ten percent. Citywide, 46
percent of households have low incomes, so the threshold is 56 percent. Map 5 illustrates
areas throughout the City where a concentration of households have low incomes. Ther
are some areas of the City where concentration of severe housing problems and low
income intersect.
Pursuant to the Interim Final Rule: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions Federal
Register Volume 90, No. 40 – March 3, 2025 – Pages 11020-11025, HUD reconsidered the
racial or ethnic minority analysis. The Interim Final Rule, effective April 2, 2025, removed
this requirement formerly stated at 24 CFR 91.205(b)(2).
EXHIBIT 1
124
Map 4 - Households with Multiple Housing Problems
Source: 2016-2020 CHAS Data
EXHIBIT 1
125
Map 5 - Concentration of Households with Low-Income
Source: 2016-2020 CHAS & ACS Data
EXHIBIT 1
126
What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods?
There is a high frequency of housing cost burden in these areas.
Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods?
According to the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, Santa Ana residents tend to live in
closer proximity to jobs and have better access to those jobs through transit connections
when compared to the county as a whole.
Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas?
There are no readily apparent strategic opportunities to be addressed with CDBG, HOME,
or ESG funds specific to any of these neighborhoods.
EXHIBIT 1
127
MA-60 Broadband Needs
Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households,
including low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods.
All residences and small businesses in Santa Ana have access to fixed and mobile
broadband. Internet Service Providers (ISP) self-report to the Federal Communications
Commission on broadband availability throughout the county. Fixed broadband goes to
homes and small businesses using fiber, cable, DSL, satellite, and fixed wireless
technology. Mobile broadband is stationary coverage outdoors and mobile in-vehicle
coverage. The FCC National Broadband data shows, as of June 2023, fixed internet access
is available at six different download/ upload speeds ranging from 0.2/0.2 megabits per
second (Mbps) to 1,000/100 Mbps and mobile access is available at 4G 5/1 Mbps, 5G-NR
7/1and 35/3 Mbps.
The FCC’s Affordable Connective Plan, offered financial assistance to help households with
low-income afford access to the internet has been discontinued. This program was
available to new applicants from 2021 through February 2024. As of December 2023 35,509,
Sant a Ana households subscribed to this program. The state offers the California LifeLine
program that provides discounted home and cell phone services to eligible households. A
discounted phone line may defray household costs, reducing the impact of the cost of an
internet service provider. A high level of need for affordable broadband is indicated.
By far most residents who responded to the community needs survey has access to reliable
home internet as shown in the graph below.
Figure 14 – Community Need For Internet Reliability
Source: Community Needs Survey
Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one
broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.
According to the FCC there are four active fixed internet providers in Santa Ana. Charter
Communications, Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Viasat, Inc., and Space Exploration
Technologies Corp. that reach at least 80 percent of residences. There are four active
mobile internet providers. The main mobile internet providers are Verizon
Communications, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and AT&T Inc.
EXHIBIT 1
128
MA-65 Hazard Mitigation
Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate
change.
The Cit of Santa Ana prepared a Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2022. That process found the
City faces six main hazards that are considered a likely occurrence. Those hazards are
earthquake, flood, climate change, drought, extreme heat, and epidemic/Pandemic/Vector-
Borne Diseases.
Describe the vulnerability of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income
households to these risks.
Low- and moderate-income residents and special needs populations are especially
vulnerable to the risks of climate-related hazards. The residences of low- and moderate-
income households are more often in worse condition and thus are more susceptible to
external weather conditions such as extreme heat. Likewise, elderly residents are at a
greater risk during extreme weather events such as extreme heat events. Over 40percent
of resident who responded to the community needs survey identified as extremely or
somewhat prepared for a disaster, the remaining population feels unprepared to some
degree.
Figure 15 – Community Need For Disaster Preparedness
Source: Community Needs Survey
EXHIBIT 1
129
Strategic Plan
SP-05 Overview
The Strategic Plan is a guide for the City of Santa Ana to establish housing, community,
and economic development priorities, strategies, and goals for its investment of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME),
and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) allocations from HUD over the next five years:
beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2030. The priority needs and goals established
in this Strategic Plan are based on the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis of this
Consolidated Plan. The needs are goals are applicable citywide.
The priority needs listed below are established as part of this Strategic Plan.
-Expand the supply of affordable housing
-Preserve the supply of affordable housing
-Improve public facilities and infrastructure
-Increase access to and supply of homeless services and facilities
-Access to supply of public services
-Promote economic opportunity
EXHIBIT 1
130
Table 41 - Strategic Plan Summary
Goal Name Category Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 1: Affordable
housing development,
maintenance, and
preservation
Affordable Housing -Expand the supply of
affordable housing
-Preserve the supply of
affordable housing
CDBG $5,237,723
HOME $5,215,779
-Homeowner Housing
Rehabbed: 25 Household/
Housing Units
-Rental Housing Rehabbed:
40 Household/ Housing
Units
-Rental Housing Units
Constructed: 25 Housing
Units
-Homeownership Housing
Units Constructed: 8
Housing Units
-Direct Financial Assistance
to Homebuyers: 8
Households Assisted
-TBRA/RRH: 40 Households
Assisted
Goal 2: Code
enforcement
Non—Homeless Special
Needs; Non-Housing
Community
Development
Preserve the supply of
affordable housing
CDBG $2,933,125 Housing Code Enforcement:
10,440 Housing Units
Goal 3: Public Service
Programs
Non—Homeless Special
Needs; Non-Housing
Community
Development
Access to and supply of
public services
CDBG $3,142,633 Public services activities
other than for low-/mod-
income housing benefit:
7,400 Households
EXHIBIT 1
131
Goal Name Category Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 4: Homeless
services and facilities
Homeless Increase access to and
supply of homeless
services and facilities
ESG $1,745,151 TBRA/RRH:45 Households
Assisted
Homeless Person Overnight
Shelter:315 Persons
Assisted
Overnight/ES/TH Beds
Added: 15 beds
Homelessness Prevention:
55 Persons Assisted
Goal 5: Economic
development programs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Promote economic
opportunity
CDBG:
$209,509
15 businesses assisted
Goal 6 Public facility
and infrastructure
improvement
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Improve city public
facilities and
infrastructure
CDBG: $5,237,723 Public services other than
Low/ Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 7,000
persons assisted
EXHIBIT 1
132
SP-10 Geographic Priorities
Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the
jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA)
Investment in infrastructure improvements and public facilities will be focused primarily in
areas with a concentration of at least 51 percent low- and moderate-income population.
Investment in public facilities and services for special needs populations and primarily low-
and moderate-income persons will be made throughout the City prioritizing those areas
with a higher percentage of disabled residents. Housing assistance (including homebuyer
and rehabilitation assistance) will be available to income-qualified households citywide.
The City utilizes HUD regulations for verification of income in accordance with Title 24 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 5. Required income documentation may include tax records,
income statements, benefit statements, and verification of assets. For those programs that
benefit Santa Ana residents only, residency documentation may include a driver’s license,
utility bill, and/or lease agreement.
Table 42 - Geographic Priority Areas
Area Name
Citywide
EXHIBIT 1
133
SP-25 Priority Needs
Table 43 – Priority Needs Summary
1.Expand the supply
of affordable
housing
Priority Level High
Population
Income Levels
Extremely low
Low
Moderate
Family Types NA
Homeless NA
Non-homeless
Special Needs NA
Geographies
Affected Citywide
Associated
Goals
-Affordable housing, development,
maintenance, and preservation
-Planning, administration and fair housing
Description
CHAS data shows the most common housing
problem in the City is overcrowding and severe
overcrowding. Analysis of Housing Problems (Table
8) shows this affects 17,065 households with
income at or below 80 percent AMI. Of those
households, 81 percent rent their homes. The
second most common housing problem is housing
cost burden greater than 30 percent of income,
which impacts 40 percent of households earning at
most 80 percent AMI. Those affected include 12,825
renter and 8,150 owner households.
Extremely low- and low-income households with
one or more housing problem are presumed to be
unstably housed, putting them at risk of falling into
homelessness. There are 33,345 households in
Santa Ana earning up to 50 percent AMI,
representing 42 percent of all households. Within
this income range individuals and families with
children are highly sensitive to adverse events.
The greatest concentrations of unstably housed
households are among renter households with
housing cost burden at or above 50 percent of their
gross household income. Among renters
experiencing severe housing cost burden small-
related households are most impacted, followed by
households that are large related, elderly, and
“other.” Among owners experiencing severe
housing cost burden small-related households are
most impacted followed by elderly, large related,
and “other.” Households in this income range living
in crowded conditions are also unstably housed.
EXHIBIT 1
134
This condition impacts a much smaller, but still
significant, number of households than housing
cost burden does, twenty-five percent of renter
households with incomes at or below 50 percent
AMI are living in crowded homes.
Relative Basis
The development of additional affordable housing
units affordable for low- and moderate-income
households and individuals is a high priority due to
the number of severely cost burdened households.
Increasing the supply of affordable housing
includes the development of rental housing with
long-term affordability covenants and income
targeting. To the extent that resources may be
leveraged for supportive services, such
developments should follow permanent supportive
housing models determined to be a national best-
practice to address homelessness. Based on
responses to the Community Needs survey and data
examined, increasing the supply of affordable
housing and providing rental assistance will be
crucial tools of the City.
2.Preserve the
supply of
affordable housing
Priority Level High
Population
Income Levels
Extremely low
Low
Moderate
Family Types NA
Homeless NA
Non-Homeless Special
Needs NA
Geographies
Affected Citywide
Associated
Goals
-Affordable housing, development,
maintenance, and preservation
-Code enforcement
-Planning, administration and fair housing
Description
The age and condition of Santa Ana’s housing stock
is an important indicator of potential rehabilitation
needs. Housing over 30 years of age can be
presumed to need some form of major
rehabilitation, such as roof replacement, foundation
work and plumbing systems. Housing over 20 years
of age will generally exhibit deficiencies in terms of
paint, weatherization, heating/air-conditioning
systems, hot water heaters and finish plumbing
fixtures. Housing values in Santa Ana have
increased significantly over a relatively short period
of time. Longtime homeowners, especially the
EXHIBIT 1
135
elderly and disabled, are more likely to have fixed
and limited incomes and may have difficulty
maintaining their homes.
This housing stock in Santa Ana is dated; 80 percent
of housing units were constructed before 1980
according to 2016-2020 CHAS data. About 15
percent of owner- and renter-occupied housing in
Santa Ana was built 30 to 40 years ago between
1980 and 1999. There are 24,850 households with at
least one member over the age of 62 and 16,790 of
whom have household incomes at or below 80
percent AMI, according to 2016-2020 CHAS data.
There are approximately 12,148 people aged 18 to
64 with disabilities, according to 2016-2020, ACS 5-
Year estimates. These households may be
presumed to have fixed incomes. It is reasonable to
anticipate a significant number of housing units in
need of repair and a significant number of
households will need financial assistance to
complete those repairs.
Relative Basis
Preservation of the physical and functional integrity
of existing housing units occupied by low- and
moderate-income households is a cost-effective
way to invest limited resources to retain existing
housing units that are already affordable to low- and
moderate-income households in the community.
Expanding the stock of affordable housing by
supporting the construction of affordable units,
homebuyer and rental assistance programs are also
effective ways to make housing more affordable to
households. Based on responses to the Community
Needs survey and data examined, rehabilitation of
housing currently occupied by households with low
and moderate incomes is an efficient and effective
way to preserve affordable housing.
3.Improve public
facilities and
infrastructure
Priority Level Low
Population
Income Levels N/A
Family Types N/A
Homeless N/A
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-housing Community
Development
Geographies
Affected Low- and moderate-income census tracts
Associated
Goals
-Public facility and infrastructure improvement
-Planning, administration, and fair housing
Description
There is need for rehabilitation, modernization and
upgrades to existing public facilities and
neighborhood amenities such as parks, recreational
EXHIBIT 1
136
facilities and community centers to maintain an
equivalent or better level of quality to other newer
facilities in areas of the City that were developed
more recently. Additionally, Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements are necessary
in certain facilities as the City continues to
modernize public facilities constructed more than 40
years ago. In the allocation of resources for the
rehabilitation of public facilities, priority shall be
given to facilities that primarily benefit low- income
people or address homeless or special needs
populations, particularly those facilities with
critically needed renovation or demonstrated need
for expansion to accommodate the needs of low-
income residents.
Relative Basis
The need for public facility and infrastructure
improvements are informed by the results of the
Needs Assessment Survey, input received during
the Community Meeting, and the City’s on-going
assessment of critical infrastructure.
4.Increase access to
and supply of
homeless services
and facilities
Priority Level: High
Population
Income Levels Extremely Low
Low
Family Types NA
Homeless
Chronic Homelessness
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance
Abuse
Veterans
Unaccompanied Youth
Non-homeless Special
Needs
Geographies
Affected Citywide
Associated
Goals
-Homeless services and facilities
-Planning, administration, and fair housing
Description
The age and condition of Santa Ana’s housing stock
is an important indicator of potential rehabilitation
needs. Housing over 30 years of age can be
presumed to need some form of major
rehabilitation, such as roof replacement, foundation
work and plumbing systems. Housing over 20 years
of age will generally exhibit deficiencies in terms of
paint, weatherization, heating/air-conditioning
systems, hot water heaters and finish plumbing
fixtures. Housing values in Santa Ana have
increased significantly over a relatively short period
of time. Longtime homeowners, especially the
elderly and disabled, are more likely to have fixed
EXHIBIT 1
137
and limited incomes and may have difficulty
maintaining their homes.
This housing stock in Santa Ana is dated; 80 percent
of housing units were constructed before 1980
according to 2016-2020 CHAS data. About 15
percent of owner- and renter-occupied housing in
Santa Ana was built 30 to 40 years ago between
1980 and 1999. There are 24,850 households with at
least one member over the age of 62 and 16,790 of
whom have household incomes at or below 80
percent AMI, according to 2016-2020 CHAS data.
There are approximately 12,148 people aged 18 to
64 with disabilities, according to 2016-2020, ACS 5-
Year estimates. These households may be
presumed to have fixed incomes. It is reasonable to
anticipate a significant number of housing units in
need of repair and a significant number of
households will need financial assistance to
complete those repairs.
The 2024 PIT Count shows that on January 24, 2024,
throughout Orange County most people
experiencing homelessness were unsheltered. Of
the 7,322 homeless individuals, 57 percent were
unsheltered. Unsheltered chronically, homeless
people accounted for 22 percent of all homeless
individuals. Among those who were reported as
being homeless and unsheltered (4,173 individuals),
49 percent were living with chronic substance
abuse; 30 percent faced severe mental health
issues; and ten percent had experienced domestic
violence.
Relative Basis
Priority Need
The City of Santa Ana considers ending and
preventing homelessness a high priority and will
support activities that help prevent and shorten
periods of homelessness and that provide a
structured path to stable housing for individuals
and families who become homeless.
5.Access to and
supply of public
services
Priority Level High
Population
Income Levels
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Family Types Elderly
Families with Children
Homeless
Chronic Homelessness
Mentally Ill
Chronic Substance Abuse
Veterans
Unaccompanied Youth
Non-homeless
Special Needs Frail Elderly
EXHIBIT 1
138
Geographies
Affected Citywide
Associated
Goals
-Public service programs
-Planning, administration, and fair housing
Description
Households with low- and moderate-incomes, living
below the poverty line, and experiencing or at-risk
of falling into homelessness are most in need of
public services to defray the cost of living and
ameliorate the impacts of poverty. CHAS 2016-2020
data shows 66 percent of households in Santa Ana
have incomes at or below 80 percent AMI (see Table
1). ACS data for the same period shows 13 percent
of the population of Santa Ana is living below the
federal poverty level (FPL), accounting for 43,975
residents. Among these residents 16,437 are
children under the age of 18 and 4,275 are elderly
aged 65 and over.
Relative Basis
Consistent with the results of the Needs
Assessment and Market Analysis sections of this
plan, including the results of the Community Needs
and Stakeholder surveys, the provision of a wide
range of public services for Households with low-
and moderate-incomes, living below the poverty
line, and experiencing or at-risk of falling into
homelessness is a priority need for the City of Santa
Ana.
6.Promote economic
opportunity
Priority Level Low
Population
Income Levels
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Family Type
Homeless
Non-homeless
Special Needs
Non-housing Community
Development
Geographies
Affected Citywide
Associated
Goals
-Economic development programs
-Planning, administration, and fair housing
Description
To address unemployment and underemployment
in the community and activate commercial
corridors City supports the development and
expansion of qualified small local businesses. This
approach fulfills several needs in the community,
including addressing employment opportunities,
supporting business to expand and update aged
and dilapidated commercial buildings, offering a
wide range of products and services to residents
and in creating the sales tax base.
EXHIBIT 1
139
Relative Basis
Consistent with the results of the Needs
Assessment and Market Analysis sections of this
plan, including the results of the Community Needs
and Stakeholder surveys, the provision of a wide
range of economic development activities meeting
a national objective is a priority needs of the City.
In establishing five-year priorities for assistance, the City has taken several concerns into
consideration:
-Those categories of extremely low, low- and moderate-income households most in
need of housing and community development assistance;
-Which activities will best meet the needs of those identified households; and
-The extent of federal and other resources available to address these needs.
Priority needs were determined on the basis of analytical research and the input received
through outreach and consultation; four of the six priority needs are identified as high.
The City will implement projects in each five-year Action Plan that address the Priority
Needs. Pursuant to CDBG regulations, projects must meet one of three national objectives
set forth by HUD: (1) Benefit low- and moderate-income households, (2) Aid in the
elimination/ prevention of slum and blight, or (3) Meet an urgent need (catastrophic events).
Pursuant to HOME regulations, HOME funds are specifically focused on affordable housing
activities and may be used to develop and support affordable rental housing and
homeownership opportunities for households earning up to 80 percent of the AMI citywide.
EXHIBIT 1
140
SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions
Table 44 – Influence of Market Conditions
Affordable
Housing Type
Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for
housing type
Tenant Based
Rental Assistance
(TBRA)
The City may use a portion of its HOME funds to provide TBRA. CHAS data
shows the most common housing problem in the City is overcrowding and
severe overcrowding. Analysis of Housing Problems (Table 8) shows this
affects 17,065 households with income at or below 80 percent AMI. Of those
households, 81 percent rent their homes. The second most common
housing problem is housing cost burden greater than 30 percent of income
which impacts 40 percent of households earning at most 80 percent AMI.
Those affected include 12,825 renter and 8,150 owner households.
Extremely low- and low-income households with one or more housing
problem are presumed to be unstably housed, putting them at risk of falling
into homelessness. There are 33,345 households in Santa Ana earning up
to 50 percent AMI, representing 42 percent of all households. Within this
income range individuals and families with children are highly sensitive to
adverse events.
The greatest concentrations of unstably housed households are among
renter households with housing cost burden at or above 50 percent of their
gross household income. Among renters experiencing severe housing cost
burden small-related households are most impacted, followed by
households that are large related, elderly, and “other.” Among owners
experiencing severe housing cost burden small-related households are
most impacted followed by elderly, large related, and “other.” Households
in this income range living in crowded conditions are also unstably housed.
This condition impacts a much smaller, but still significant, number of
households than housing cost burden does, twenty-five percent of renter
households with incomes at or below 50 percent AMI are living in crowded
homes.
TBRA for Non-
Homeless Special
Needs
The City may use a portion of its HOME funds to provide TBRA. Included
among those eligible to apply for TBRA are special non-homeless special
needs populations.
New Unit
Production
The most common housing problem in the City is overcrowding and severe
overcrowding. Analysis of Housing Problems (Table 8) shows this affects
17,065 households with income at or below 80 percent AMI. Of those
households, 81 percent rent their homes. The second most common
housing problem is housing cost burden greater than 30 percent of income
which impacts 40 percent of households earning at most 80 percent AMI.
Those affected include 12,825 renter and 8,150 owner households.
Based on funding availability and allocations, the City may allocate a
portion of the HOME funds to increase the supply of safe, decent, affordable
housing for lower-income households (including extremely low-income
households, and low- and moderate-income households), such as seniors,
those with disabilities, and those experiencing and/ or at risk of
experiencing homelessness.
EXHIBIT 1
141
Affordable
Housing Type
Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for
housing type
Rehabilitation This housing stock in Santa Ana is dated; 80 percent of housing units were
constructed before 1980 according to 2016-2020 CHAS data. This indicates
a significant need for rehabilitation. The City will aid rehabilitation of
residential housing units. Preservation of the physical and functional
integrity of existing housing units occupied by low- and moderate-income
households is a cost-effective way to invest limited resources to retain
existing housing units that are already affordable to low- and moderate-
income households in the community. Addressing substandard housing
conditions through housing preservation activities provides that all
economic segments of the community have the means to ensure that their
property meets local standards.
Acquisition,
including
preservation
As the Needs Assessment and Market Analysis in this document have
clearly shown, thousands of Santa Ana households are crowded,
overcrowded, and cost burdened and likely eligible for newly acquired and
rehabilitated affordable housing units. This is a relatively cost-effective way
to make incremental increases affordable rental and homeownership
housing stock. As funding is available to properly support this type of
project the City will invest in acquisition rehabilitation.
EXHIBIT 1
142
SP-35 Anticipated Resources
During the five-year period of the Consolidated Plan from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2030,
the City of Santa Ana anticipates investing an estimated $20,950,890 CDBG, $5,795,310
HOME and $1,886,650 ESG funds (over the 5-year period) to support the goals of this
Strategic Plan. The annual allocations are subject to federal appropriations and changes in
demographic data used in HUD formulas for each respective program. The City’s Fiscal
Year 2025 Action Plan will lay out the use of the annual allocations to address the priority
needs and achieve the goals defined in the Strategic Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
143
Table 45- Anticipated Resources
Program Uses of Funds
Expected Amount Available for 5-Years Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder of
Con Plan
Narrative
Description Annual
Allocation:
Program
Income:
Prior Year
Resources:
Total:
CDBG
Acquisition
Admin and Planning
Economic Development
Housing
Public Improvements
Public Services
$4,190,178 $0 $176,300 $4,366,475 $16,760,712
Based on
2024 FY
allocation
from HUD.
HOME
Acquisition
Homebuyer assistance
Homeowner rehab
Multifamily rental new
construction
Multifamily rental rehab
New construction for
ownership
TBRA
$1,159,062 $0 $0 $ 1,159,062 $5,795,310
Based on
2024 FY
allocation
from HUD.
ESG
Conversion and rehab
for transitional housing
Financial Assistance
Overnight shelter
Rapid re-housing (rental
assistance)
Rental Assistance
Services
Transitional housing
$377,330 $0 $0 $377,330 $1,886,650
Based on
2024 FY
allocation
from HUD.
EXHIBIT 1
144
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state,
and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be
satisfied.
The City is expected to receive HOME funding which can be leveraged with CDBG funding
if used for affordable housing and housing rehabilitation. The City will leverage HOME
funding if future projects are presented during the next five years. The HOME program
requires a 25 percent match based on fund expenditure, unless a jurisdiction meets the
thresholds to have the match requirements reduced. The threshold conditions are: 1) Fiscal
distress; 2) Severe fiscal distress, and 3) Presidentially declared major disasters covered
under the Stafford Act. The City was identified by HUD as a fiscally distressed jurisdiction
and has been granted a 50 percent match reduction for Fiscal Year 2023. The
determinations for 2024 have not been made public as of January 23, 2025. The City
anticipates this designation will continue into the 2025 Consolidated Plan period.
Given the limited size of the CDBG and HOME annual allocations, the City may consider
pursuing new Section 108 loans within the five-year Consolidated Plan period to support
large-scale public improvements or housing projects.
Depending on the financing structure of a given activity, it may be advantageous for the
City to use CDBG funds to leverage appropriate state, local, and private resources,
including but not limited to those listed below.
Federal Resources:
-Continuum of Care (CoC) Program
-HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH)
-Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202)
-Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811)
-Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
-YouthBuild
-Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
-Project Based Housing Choice Vouchers
State Resources:
-Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
-Tax-Exempt Bond Financing
-Permanent Local Housing Allocation
-Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN)
-CalHome Program
-Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
-Homekey
-CalHFA Single and Multi-Family Program
EXHIBIT 1
145
-Mental Health Service Act (MHSA) Funding
-Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program
Local Resources:
-San Diego County CoC
-San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC)
-California Home Finance Agency
-City of Santa Ana In Lieu Fees
-Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (Successor Housing Agency)
Private Resources
-Federal Home Loan Bank, Affordable Housing Program
-Community Reinvestment Act Programs
-United Way
-Private Contributions
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the
jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan.
Santa Ana will comply with state requirements under AB1486 and AB1255 to inventory and
support developers to access and utilize surplus municipal and state land for the
construction of affordable housing. If such sites are identified, the City will consider the use
of HUD funding or other resources to assist with site preparation and/ or development. At
this time, no publicly owned land or property is expected to be used to address the needs.
Discussion
Assuming continued level funding, the City expects to utilize over $28,632,850 in CDBG,
HOME, and ESG funds during the five-year period beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June
30, 2030, to achieve the goals of the Strategic Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
146
SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure
Table 46 provides an overview of the institutional structure through which the City will
carry out its Consolidated Plan including private industry, nonprofit organizations, and
public institutions.
Table 46- Institutional Delivery Structure
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type Role Geographic Area
Served
Santa Ana
Government Economic
Development
Homelessness
Non-homeless
special needs
Ownership
Planning
Rental
Neighborhood
improvements
Public facilities
Public services
Jurisdiction
Orange County CoC CoC Homelessness Region
Santa Ana Housing
Authority
Government Public Housing Jurisdiction
Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System
The institutional delivery system in Santa Ana is high-functioning and collaborative—
particularly the relationship between local government and the nonprofit sector comprised
of a network of capable nonprofit organizations that are delivering a full range of services
to residents. Strong City departments anchor the administration of HUD grant programs
and the housing, community, and economic development activities that are implemented
by the City.
EXHIBIT 1
147
Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and
mainstream services
Table 47 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary
Homelessness Prevention
Services
Available in the
Community
Targeted to
Homeless
Targeted to People
with HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X X X
Legal Assistance X X X
Mortgage Assistance X X X
Rental Assistance X X X
Utilities Assistance X X X
Street Outreach Services
Law Enforcement X X X
Mobile Clinics X X X
Other Street Outreach
Services
X X X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X X
Child Care X X X
Education X X X
Employment and
Employment Training
X X X
Healthcare X X X
HIV/AIDS X X X
Life Skills X X X
Mental Health Counseling X X X
Transportation X X X
EXHIBIT 1
148
Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the
services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly
chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans
and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
There are multiple pathways to access the services available in Santa Ana to individuals
and households experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. The CoC and the
recipients of homeless funding from HUD and Homeless Housing, Assistance and
Prevention (HHAP) Grant funds from the State of California utilize the Coordinated Entry
System (CES) system to match clients to appropriate services.
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs
population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited
to, the services listed above.
As the seat of Orange County government many public and private resource providers are
located in Santa Ana. The City is committed to making a difference by coordinating with
County partners, including the CoC, local businesses, community faith groups, and
nonprofit partners to meet the needs of residents with special needs and those
experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Despite the many resources
available and the contributions of community partners, there is still not enough funding to
provide the level of services needed for long-term assistance for clients on fixed or
extremely limited incomes. The City supports services for special needs populations and
individuals experiencing homelessness with CDBG and ESG funds.
Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional
structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address
priority needs.
To address the lack of resources necessary to fully address the needs of special needs
populations and persons experiencing homelessness, the City will continue allocating the
maximum allowable amount of CDBG funds to public services. The City will work to
leverage its HOME funds, including CHDO Set-Aside and Low Moderate Income Housing
Asset (LMIHAF) funds, with other state, federal, and local resources to address its priority
needs.
EXHIBIT 1
149
SP-45 Goals Summary
Table 48 – Goals Summary
Goal Name Time
Period Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 1: Affordable
housing
development,
maintenance, and
preservation
2025 –
2029
Affordable
Housing
Citywide -Expand the
supply of
affordable
housing
-Preserve the
supply of
affordable
housing
CDBG
$5,237,723
HOME
$5,215,779
-Homeowner Housing Rehabbed:
25 Household/ Housing Units
-Rental Housing Rehabbed: 40
Household/ Housing Units
-Rental Housing Units
Constructed: 25 Housing Units
-Homeownership Housing Units
Constructed: 8 Housing Units
-Direct Financial Assistance to
Homebuyers: 8 Households
Assisted
-TBRA/RRH: 40 Households
Assisted
Provide funding for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation and provision of affordable
rental and ownership housing.
Goal 2: Code
enforcement
2025 –
2029
Non—
Homeless
Special Needs;
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Preserve the
supply of
affordable
housing
CDBG
$2,933,125
Housing Code Enforcement:
10,440 Housing Units
Support code enforcement activities to ensure residential properties are safe and suitable for
habitation.
Goal 3: Public
service programs
2025 –
2029
Non—
Homeless
Special Needs;
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Access to and
supply of
public
services
CDBG
$3,142,633
Public services activities other
than for low-/mod-income
housing benefit: 7,400
Households
Work with local and regional nonprofits and service providers to ensure the provision of
critical services and activities to low- and moderate-income residents and special needs
populations throughout the City.
EXHIBIT 1
150
Goal Name Time
Period Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 4: Homeless
services and
facilities
2025 –
2029
Homeless Citywide Increase
access to and
supply of
homeless
services and
facilities
ESG
$1,745,151
TBRA/RRH:45 Households
Assisted
Homeless Person Overnight
Shelter:315 Persons Assisted
Overnight/ES/TH Beds Added: 15
beds
Homelessness Prevention: 55
Persons Assisted
Together with local and regional stakeholders, Santa Ana will continue to promote the
implementation of a cohesive and coordinated homeless system. In doing so, the City will
invest in projects that ensure that homeless households from all sub-populations are
supported to return to permanent housing as quickly as possible; receive strength-based
services that emphasize recovery, as needed; receive only what they need to be returned to
housing quickly and to be as self-reliant as possible; and are assisted in preventing homeless
from occurring in the first place. If and when necessary, Santa Ana will use HUD funding to
address urgent issues and conditions impacting the health and safety of homeless residents
and those at risk of becoming homeless.
Goal 5: Economic
development
programs
2025 –
2029
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Promote
economic
opportunity
CDBG:
$209,509
15 businesses assisted
Support workforce training and development and business assistance via training, technical
assistance and general support to microbusinesses operating in Santa Ana.
Goal 6 Public
facility and
infrastructure
improvement
2025 --
2029
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Improve city
public
facilities and
infrastructure
CDBG:
$5,237,723
Public services other than Low/
Moderate Income Housing
Benefit: 7,000 persons assisted
In collaboration with other city agencies, rehabilitate public facilities and streets to increase
ADA accessibility, improve facilities and infrastructure to better meet the needs of residents,
and implement measures to mitigate and reduce vandalism and graffiti in the City.
EXHIBIT 1
151
Goal Name Time
Period Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 7: Planning,
administration,
and fair housing
2025 --
2029
Program
administration
N/A All CDBG:
$4,190,178
HOME:
$579,531
ESG:
$141,499 Other: 5
Description: These funds will be used to comply with federal statutes and regulations
pertaining to the CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs. Affirmatively further fair housing choice
through the provision of fair housing education, counseling, anti-discrimination and
landlord-tenant mediation services.
Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the
jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2)
Approximately 146 extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income households will benefit from the City’s affordable housing
activities.
EXHIBIT 1
152
SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement
Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504
Voluntary Compliance Agreement)
The SAHA does not have a Section 504 Compliance Agreement.
Activities to Increase Resident Involvement
The SAHA administers the FSS program. This is a voulntary program available to families
in recipet of a HCV program to households become economic independent through
financial literacy. The Housing Authority also support a resident adviosry board.
Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902?
SAHA is not designated as troubled.
Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation
Not applicable
EXHIBIT 1
153
SP-55 Barriers to Affordable Housing
Barriers to Affordable Housing
A barrier to affordable housing is a public policy or nongovernmental condition that
constrains the development or rehabilitation of affordable housing, such as land use
controls, property taxes, state prevailing wage requirements, environmental protection,
cost of land and availability of monetary resources. Barriers to affordable housing differ
from impediments to fair housing choice in that barriers are legally permissible, whereas
impediments to fair housing choice are typically unlawful.
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an identification and prioritization of
significant contributing factors that impede fair housing and/or result in disproportionate
housing needs. Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates,
community feedback, and the assessment of fair housing included in the Housing Element,
the City identified the following fair housing issues:
-Displacement risk
-Lack of safe and sanitary housing
-Housing overcrowding
-Low household incomes
-Exposure to environmental hazards
-Lack of quality education and job training
The primary factor contributing to these housing issues is the limited availability of
resources to subsidize housing development to the point that units are affordable to low-
and moderate-income households. The elimination of local Redevelopment Agencies by
the State of California resulted in the loss of a crucial resource for the development and
preservation of affordable housing. This was the most significant public policy change
impacting affordable housing and residential investment. While there are mechanisms
whereby certain affordable housing assets tied to the former Redevelopment Agencies may
be utilized today, these resources are finite and scarce.
Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing
As described in the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City is taking several actions to remove
or ameliorate barriers to affordable housing. These actions are summarized below.
1.Facilitate construction of 723 ADUs between 2021-2029 by publishing preapproved
ADU plans and publicizing ADU program through dedicated web page in various
languages to facilitate ADU construction.
2.Enforce the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, known as the Affordable Housing
Opportunity & Creation Ordinance (AHOCO), to require eligible housing
development projects of five or more units, including condominium conversions, to
include at least 15 percent of the units as affordable to low-income households; or
EXHIBIT 1
154
10 percent of the units affordable to very low-income households; or 5 percent to
extremely low-income households; or a minimum of 10 percent available affordable
households with five (5)5 percent to low- income, 3 percent to very low-income, and
2 percent to extremely low-income households, for rental housing. Require 5
percent of the units as affordable to moderate-income households for for-sale
housing.
3.Establish guidelines as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update for new
housing development projects to include a variety of unit sizes, including units for
large families, that are affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income
families.
4.Annually monitor the status of at-risk housing projects, specifically the Warwick
Square, Highland Manor, and other projects that may come due. Contact owners of
properties at risk of conversion within one year of expiration to discuss City’s desire
to preserve projects as affordable housing.
5.Assist low-income households with down payment assistance loans of up to
$120,000 and moderate-income households with loans of up to $80,000.
6.Create, assist, and support neighborhood associations, especially in R/ECAP and
TCAC Census Tracts, to collaborate on projects and sponsor and hold annual events.
7.Complete infrastructure improvements in residential neighborhoods consistent with
the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
8.Through the City’s RFP process for Affordable Housing Development, facilitate and
encourage the development in the Transit Zoning Code plan area of varied housing
types at a mix of affordability levels, including for lower income households using
appropriate incentives, such as awarding bonus points to developers whose
projects provide at least 75% or more for the units for extremely low-income families
at 30% Area Median Income.
9.Implement the City’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance for
tenants facing housing instability, including ongoing outreach and education, a
program monitor system, and a schedule of penalties that may be imposed for
noncompliance. Provide tenant protections beyond state mandates.
10.Provide housing assistance payments to eligible households participating in the
Housing Choice Voucher Program and adhere to policies and procedures in the
federal regulations and the Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Plan.
Administer 100 percent of the funding provided to the Housing Authority annually
for eligible households. This includes Special Purpose Vouchers including the
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program; Mainstream Voucher Program;
Foster Youth to Independence Program; and Emergency Housing Voucher Program.
The objectives are to: 1) Utilize 100 percent of the Annual Budget Authority provided
by HUD for each CY; 2) Apply for new funding opportunities for additional vouchers;
3) Retain High Performer SEMAP status; 4) Communicate on a regular basis with
active landlords by providing information on key program updates.
EXHIBIT 1
155
11.Contract with a local nonprofit organization (currently Habitat for Humanity) to
implement the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program. Provide grants for
the repair and rehabilitation of single-family and mobile homes, prioritizing
applicants in R/ECAP and TCAC Census Tracts and low-income households.
12.Enhance local preferences program for residents working and living in Santa Ana
who are seeking affordable housing. Explore a right-of-first-refusal ordinance for
mobile home parks and publicly supported multifamily residential properties to
minimize tenant displacement and preserve affordable housing stock. Evaluate and
pursue collective ownership models for mobile home parks as a tool to prevent
displacement.
EXHIBIT 1
156
SP-60 Homelessness Strategy
The needs of individuals experiencing homelessness and persons with special needs are
complex and require a wide range of specialized services. Numerous agencies are involved
in the care of these individuals, providing distinct services such as housing, mental health
counseling, employment training, and case management services. The City funds multiple
activities to assist individuals experiencing homelessness and other special needs
populations. Overall, these services address the high priority of reducing homelessness
and the threat of becoming homeless, as well as providing necessary supportive services.
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and
assessing their individual needs
Santa Ana will continue to invest HUD and non-HUD funding to engage individuals and
households experiencing homelessness, assessing their needs, and connecting them to
appropriate resources. street outreach and emergency shelter. In previous years ESG has
supported private providers of street outreach and emergency shelter. The City anticipated
continuing these efforts during the next five years.
The Santa Ana Police Department (SAPD) implements proactive policing and engagement
with residents experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The Quality of Life Team (QOLT)
comprises members from various City Departments, including Public Works, the Police
Department, Code Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, the Community Development
Agency, Homeless Services, and the City’s street outreach and engagement team. The
team works collaboratively to implement a coordinated response to community service
requests related to the impacts of homelessness. The SAPD’s Homeless Evaluation
Assessment Response Team (HEART) provides immediate assistance, long-term solutions,
and connections to services such as shelter, mental health support, and housing programs.
Other City programs that reach out to unsheltered homeless individuals are Coordinated
Entry and Family Reunification, Psychological Emergency Response Team (PERT), and the
Santa Ana Multi-Disciplinary Response Team (SMART). The Coordinated Entry and Family
Reunification program, which is privately funded, assesses the needs of residents and
connects them to the appropriate resources. Resources may include emergency shelter,
transitional or permanent supportive housing, and reconnecting with social networks.
PERT is a partnership with the Orange County Health Care Agency that pairs mental health
clinicians with officers to assist individuals with mental health or substance abuse issues.
SMART is a contracted service provided by CityNet. SMART addresses non-emergent
situations with a focus on connecting unhoused individuals to shelter, critical services, and
mental health and medical treatment.
EXHIBIT 1
157
Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
The 2024 PIT Count recorded 3,149 sheltered and 4,173 unsheltered individuals
experiencing homelessness. Of the sheltered and homeless population 80 percent were
residing in emergency shelter and 20 percent in transitional housing. The 2024 Housing
Inventory Count reported 645 emergency shelter beds and 624 transitional housing beds
for household with adults and children, 2,365 emergency shelter beds and 217 transitional
housing beds for households with only adults.
The Santa Ana Navigation Center opened in June 2022 as a 24-hour homeless shelter
serving men, women, and families with minor children. The shelter has 200 beds in five
dormitories and family rooms, including full bathroom facilities, a commercial kitchen, a
children's playroom, and more. In addition to the Navigation Cetner the City may directing
ESG funds to support private homeless service providers’ emergency shelter efforts.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied
youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living,
including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience
homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to
affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again.
To achieve housing stability whether individuals and families need access to housing which
they can reasonably afford. The City anticipates directing ESG resources to to funding rapid
rehousing and homelessness prevention activities. Furthermore, the City may leverage
CDBG, HOME, PLHA and other funds to expand the supply of affordable housing.
Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially
extremely low-income individuals and families who are likely to become
homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of
care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that
address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth
needs.
The City approaches assisting low-income individuals and families, especially those
existing a publicly funded institution, to avoid homelessness from multiple angles. SAHA
administers Mainstream 5, VASH, Foster Youth to Independence, and Emergency Housing
Vouchers. These may assist individuals and households exiting hospitals, shelters, foster
care, and other publicly funded institutions to secure stable housing. The Coordinated Entry
and Family Reunification Program described above is another resource the City provides.
The City anticipates directing ESG resources to In addition to funding rapid rehousing and
homelessness prevention activities. Furthermore, the City may leverage CDBG, HOME,
PLHA, HOME-ARP, and other funds to expand the supply of affordable housing.
EXHIBIT 1
158
SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP
hazards.
The Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X) emphasizes
prevention of childhood lead poisoning through housing-based approaches. This strategy
requires the City to implement programs that protect children living in older housing from
lead hazards.
The housing stock in Santa Ana is dated; 80 percent of housing units were constructed
before 1980 according to 2016-2020 CHAS data. Units constructed prior to January 1, 1978,
are presumed to have the potential to contain lead-based paint (LBP). In these units, the
best way to have reasonable assurance that lead-based paint hazards are not present is to
have the painted surfaces tested.
To reduce lead-based paint hazards, the City takes the following actions:
-Include lead testing and abatement procedures, as required, in all residential
rehabilitation activities for units built prior to January 1, 1978.
-Educate residents on the health hazards of lead-based paint through brochures and
encourage screening children for elevated blood-lead levels.
-Disseminate brochures about lead hazards through the City’s residential
rehabilitation activities.
How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and
hazards?
Over time, through testing and abatement, monitoring of public health data, and through
public education, the public will have greater awareness of the hazards of lead-based paint
to children. This will prompt homeowners, landlords, and parents of young children, to
proactively address unsafe housing conditions in pre-1978 units where children may
potentially be exposed to lead-based paint hazards.
How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and
procedures?
In accordance with federal regulation, the City of Santa Ana has established policies
regarding the identification of LBP hazards. Housing built prior to 1978 must undergo lead-
based paint testing prior to receiving funding for rehabilitation. If deteriorated lead-based
paint surfaces are found, they must be stabilized during the rehabilitation of the property.
As required, abatement must be performed by a certified lead-based paint assessor prior
to the issuance of the Notice of Completion. The City will continue to maintain policies and
procedures to increase access to housing without LBP hazards. CDBG and HOME funding
is not provided until it is determined properties are free of LBP hazards.
EXHIBIT 1
159
SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy
Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-
Level Families.
Poverty continues to be a significant challenge in Santa Ana. According to the 2016-2020
ACS,13 percent of residents live below the FPL, among those are 16,437 children under the
age of 18 and 4,275 elderly aged 65 and over. To meaningfully address this challenge, each
of the goals included in the Strategic Plan supports activities to promote the availability of
affordable housing and the provision of essential services that directly benefit low- and
moderate-income residents. In the implementation of the Strategic Plan, the City will
prioritize funding for activities that most effectively address these goals over the next five
years. This strategy will emphasize using CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds to help individuals
and families rise out of poverty to long-term self-sufficiency.
The Consolidated Plan goals strive to reduce the number of poverty-level families. Those
goals are:
-Affordable housing development, maintenance, and preservation
-Code enforcement
-Public services programs
-Homeless services and facilities
-Economic development programs
-Public facilities and infrastructure improvements
In addition to these local efforts, mainstream state and federal resources also contribute to
reducing the number of individuals and families in poverty. Federal programs, such as the
Earned Income Tax Credit and Head Start, offer a pathway out of poverty for families who
are ready to pursue employment and educational opportunities. In California, the primary
programs that assist families in poverty are CalWORKS, CalFresh (formerly food stamps)
and Medi-Cal. Together, these programs provide individuals and families with employment
assistance, subsidy for food, medical care, childcare, and cash payments to meet basic
needs such as housing, nutrition and transportation.
How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies
coordinated with this affordable housing plan?
The goals of this Strategic Plan are aligned to benefit low- and moderate-income residents
to reduce the number of poverty-level families. For example, activities completed under the
affordable housing development, maintenance, and preservation goal will increase the
housing stock accessible to extremely low- and low-income households transitioning out
or at risk of homelessness. Implementation of this goal may reduce a household housing
cost burden thereby increasing disposable income and enabling opportunity to pursue
previously inaccessible choices.
EXHIBIT 1
160
SP-80 Monitoring
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor
activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term
compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority
business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements
To ensure that HUD funds are used efficiently and in compliance with applicable
regulations, the City provides technical assistance to all subrecipients at the beginning of
each program year and monitors subrecipients throughout the program year.
Technical Assistance
To enhance compliance, the City provides an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
workshop to review Consolidated Plan goals, program requirements and available
resources. Subsequent to the approval of the Annual Action Plan, a mandatory subrecipient
workshop is held to review program regulations in detail, provide useful forms and
resources for documenting compliance, and review the compliance procedures and
requirements. Individualized technical assistance is provided on an as-needed basis.
Activity Monitoring
All activities are monitored, beginning with a detailed review upon receipt of an application
to determine eligibility, conformance with a National Objective and conformance with a
Plan goal. This review also examines the proposed use of funds, eligibility of the service
area, eligibility of the intended beneficiaries and likelihood of compliance with other federal
requirements. Subrecipients are required to submit an audit and other documentation to
establish their capacity, and any findings noted in the audit are reviewed with the applicant.
Eligible applications are then considered for funding. Once funded, desk monitoring
includes ongoing review of required quarterly performance reports. For CDBG public
service activities, an on-site monitoring is conducted once every two (2) years, or more
frequently as needed to ensure compliance. These reviews include both a fiscal and
programmatic review of the subrecipient’s activities. The reviews determine if the
subrecipient is complying with the program regulations and City contract. Areas routinely
reviewed include overall administration, financial systems, appropriateness of program
expenditures, program delivery, client eligibility determination and documentation,
reporting systems, and achievement toward achieving contractual goals. Following the
monitoring visit, a written report is provided delineating the results of the review and any
findings of non-compliance and the required corrective action. Subrecipients normally
have 30 days to provide the City with corrective actions taken to address any noted findings.
Individualized technical assistance is provided, as noted above, as soon as compliance
concerns are identified. For CDBG capital projects, monitoring also includes compliance
with regulatory agreement requirements
EXHIBIT 1
161
Annual Action Plan
AP-15 Expected Resources
Annual allocations are subject to federal appropriations and changes in demographic data
used in HUD’s formulas for the programs. During the first year Annual Action Plan
from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026, the City will invest $4,366,475 in CDBG, $1,159,062 in
HOME, and $377,330 in ESG funds to support the goals of the Strategic Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
162
Table 49- Expected Resources –PY 2025
Program Uses of Funds
Expected Amount Available for 5-Years Expected
Amount
Available
Remainder of
Con Plan
Narrative
Description Annual
Allocation:
Program
Income:
Prior Year
Resources:
Total:
CDBG
Acquisition
Admin and Planning
Economic Development
Housing
Public Improvements
Public Services
$4,190,178 $0 $176,300 $4,366,475 $16,760,712
Based on
2025 FY
allocation
from HUD.
HOME
Acquisition
Homebuyer assistance
Homeowner rehab
Multifamily rental new
construction
Multifamily rental rehab
New construction for
ownership
TBRA
$ 1,159,062 $0 $0 $ 1,159,062 $4,636,248
Based on
2025 FY
allocation
from HUD.
ESG
Conversion and rehab for
transitional housing
Financial Assistance
Overnight shelter
Rapid re-housing (rental
assistance)
Rental Assistance
Services
Transitional housing
$377,330 $0 $0 $377,330 $1,886,650
Based on
2054 FY
allocation
from HUD.
EXHIBIT 1
163
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state
and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be
satisfied.
The extent of need in Santa Ana far exceeds the available funding from CDBG, HOME, and
ESG. Most activities into which these funds are invested will leverage a variety of additional
sources including, but not limited to, public and private grants, capital development and
general funds, public financing, and private donations. The City has been awarded HUD
HOME American Rescue Plan (ARP) and state Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
funds to further address extremely low- and low-income housing needs including the
needs of residents experiencing and at risk of experiencing homelessness. The City has
Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Funds (LMIHAF) which may be used to
supplement homeless services provided to residents. The City encourages the use of Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits to fund construction, substantial rehabilitation, or acquisition
or affordable housing.
The HOME program requires a 25 percent match based on fund expenditure, unless a
jurisdiction meets a threshold to have the match requirements reduced; those threshold
conditions are: 1) Fiscal distress; 2) Severe fiscal distress, and 3) Presidentially declared
major disasters covered under the Stafford Act. The City was identified by HUD as a fiscally
distressed jurisdiction and has been granted a 50 percent match reduction for fiscal year
2023, as of the preparation of this Action Plan neither the fiscal year 2024 or 2025 reductions
have been published. The City expects the 2023 designation will continue in fiscal year
2025.
ESG requires a 100 percent match.
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the
jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan.
The City will not use any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction to
address the needs identified in this plan.
Discussion
The City shares overall responsibility for meeting the priority needs identified in the
Strategic Plan with many other organizations and is solely responsible for using CPD
entitlement funds to address the needs of low- and moderate-income residents.
EXHIBIT 1
164
AP-20/ AP-23 Annual Goals and Objectives
Table 50 - Goals and Objectives
Goal Name Time
Period Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 1:
Affordable
housing
development,
maintenance,
and
preservation
2025 –
2029
Affordable
Housing
Citywide -Expand the
supply of
affordable
housing
-Preserve the
supply of
affordable
housing
CDBG
$1,382,961
HOME
$1,043,155
-Homeowner Housing
Rehabbed: 5 Household/
Housing Units
-Rental Housing Rehabbed: 8
Household/ Housing Units
-Rental Housing Units
Constructed: 25 Housing Units
-Direct Financial Assistance to
Homebuyers: 3 Households
Assisted
Provide funding for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation and provision of affordable
rental and ownership housing.
Goal 2: Code
enforcement
2025 –
2029
Non—Homeless
Special Needs;
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Preserve the
supply of
affordable
housing
CDBG
$825,000
Housing Code Enforcement:
2,088 Housing Units
Support code enforcement activities to ensure residential properties are safe and suitable for
habitation.
Goal 3: Public
Service
Programs
2025 –
2029
Non—
Homeless
Special Needs;
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Access to and
supply of
public services
CDBG
$628,527
Public services activities other
than for low-/mod-income
housing benefit: 1,480
Households
Work with local and regional nonprofits and service providers to ensure the provision of critical
services and activities to low- and moderate-income residents and special needs populations
throughout the City.
EXHIBIT 1
165
Goal Name Time
Period Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 4:
Homeless
services and
facilities
2025 –
2029
Homeless Citywide Increase
access to and
supply of
homeless
services and
facilities
ESG
$349,031
TBRA/RRH:9 Households
Assisted
Homeless Person Overnight
Shelter:63 Persons Assisted
Overnight/ES/TH Beds Added:
3 beds
Homelessness Prevention: 11
Persons Assisted
Together with local and regional stakeholders, Santa Ana will continue to promote the
implementation of a cohesive and coordinated homeless system. In doing so, the City will
invest in projects that ensure that homeless households from all sub-populations are supported
to return to permanent housing as quickly as possible; receive strength-based services that
emphasize recovery, as needed; receive only what they need to be returned to housing quickly
and to be as self-reliant as possible; and are assisted in preventing homeless from occurring in
the first place. If and when necessary, Santa Ana will use HUD funding to address urgent issues
and conditions impacting the health and safety of homeless residents and those at risk of
becoming homeless.
Goal 5:
Economic
development
programs
2025 –
2029
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Promote
economic
opportunity
CDBG:
$100,000
3 businesses assisted
Support workforce training and development and business assistance via training, technical
assistance and general support to microbusinesses operating in Santa Ana.
Goal 6 Public
facility and
infrastructure
improvement
2025 --
2029
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Citywide Improve city
public
facilities and
infrastructure
CDBG:
$415,655
$176,300
FY23
Public services other than
Low/ Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 1,400
persons assisted
In collaboration with other city agencies, rehabilitate public facilities and streets to increase
ADA accessibility, improve facilities and infrastructure to better meet the needs of residents,
and implement measures to mitigate and reduce vandalism and graffiti in the City.
EXHIBIT 1
166
Goal Name Time
Period Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
Goal 7: Planning,
administration,
and fair housing
2025 --
2029
Program
administration
N/A All CDBG:
$838,035
HOME:
$115,906
ESG:
$28,299
Other: 1
Description: These funds will be used to comply with federal statutes and regulations
pertaining to the CDBG, HOME, and ESG Programs. Affirmatively further fair housing choice
through the provision of fair housing education, counseling, anti-discrimination and landlord-
tenant mediation services.
EXHIBIT 1
167
AP-35 Projects
To address the high priority needs identified in the Strategic Plan to the 2025-2029
Consolidated Plan, the City will invest CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds in projects that
preserve affordable housing, provide fair housing services, provide public services to low-
income residents, prevent homelessness, and improve businesses. Together, these
projects will address the housing, community, and economic development needs of Santa
Ana residents.
Table 51 - Project Information
2025 Projects
1.CDBG Administration
2.CDBG Code Enforcement
3.CDBG Economic Development
4.CDBG Public Services
5.CDBG Housing Rehabilitation
6.CDBG Down Payment Assistance
7.CDBG Fair Housing
8.CDBG Street Improvement
9.ESG Homeless Activities
10.HOME Program Administration
11.HOME Affordable Housing
12.HOME CHDO
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing
underserved needs.
As grant resources become increasingly scarce, it is important for the City to determine
areas and population segments with the greatest level of need for a particular program or
activity and to be able to invest federal, state, and local resources in high leverage
opportunities where data suggests that the City will be able to maximize the impact of every
dollar.
The 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan is a roadmap to guide the City’s housing, community,
and economic development investments during the next five years. All investments of HUD
funding are used to address the priority needs listed in the City’s five-year Consolidated
Plan.
The limited funding resources continue to provide challenges to fully address the level of
need identified in the Consolidated Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
168
AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information
Table 52 - Project Summary
1 Project Name CDBG Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported All
Needs Addressed All
Funding CDBG: $768,036
Description Program administration
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
1-plan
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Planning and administration of the CDBG Program.
2 Project Name CDBG Code Enforcement
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Code Enforcement
Needs Addressed Preserve the supply of affordable housing
Funding CDBG: $825,000
Description Code enforcement services
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Approximately 2,088 LMI households will be assisted
Location Description CDBG eligible areas
Planned Activities Code enforcement services
3 Project Name Economic Development
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Economic Development Programs
Needs Addressed Citywide
Funding CDBG: $100,000
Description Microenterprise grants to small businesses
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Approximately 5 qualified businesses will be assisted
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Provide economic development assistance to
microenterprise businesses, all of which will be CDBG
income qualified.
4 Project Name Public Services
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public Service Programs
Needs Addressed Access to and supply of public services
Funding CDBG: $628,527
Description Public service programs to eligible participants
Target Date 6/30/2026
EXHIBIT 1
169
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Approximately 1,480 LMI households will benefit.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities The City will provide funding for staff and nonprofit
organizations to provide and deliver a range of public
services and functions to low- and moderate-income
and special needs residents throughout the City.
5 Project Name CDBG Housing Rehabilitation
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Affordable housing development, maintenance, and
preservation
Needs Addressed Preserve the supply of affordable housing
Funding CDBG: $500,000
Description Housing rehabilitation for qualified households
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Approximately five LMI homeowner households will be
assisted.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Conduct critical rehabilitation to homeowners to ensure
properties are safe and suitable and meet federal
housing quality standards and health, safety and
applicable building standards.
6 Project Name CDBG Down Payment Assistance
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Affordable housing development, maintenance, and
preservation
Needs Addressed Expand the supply of affordable housing
Funding CDBG: $882,961
Description Homebuyer assistance
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Approximately three LMI households will benefit.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities Direct assistance to homebuyers
7 Project Name CDBG Fair Housing
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Program planning, administration, and fair housing
Needs Addressed Expand the supply of affordable housing; Preserve the
supply of affordable housing;
Funding CDBG: $70,000
Description Fair Housing Services
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Other: 1-year
Location Description Citywide
EXHIBIT 1
170
Planned Activities Provide funding for administrative and program staff to
complete fair housing education, tenant counseling,
and fair housing enforcement activities in Santa Ana.
8 Project Name CDBG Street Improvement
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Public facilities and infrastructure
Needs Addressed Improve City public facilities and infrastructure
Funding CDBG: $415,655
Description This project entails the rehabilitation of existing asphalt
concrete pavement for local streets. Minor concrete
repair to severely damaged or missing curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and wheelchair ramps will also be included.
After the road and concrete repairs within the public
right of way have been completed, the public will have
enhanced pedestrian and multi-modal mobility
throughout the improved neighborhood.
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the number and type
of families that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description Cedar Street
Planned Activities Rehabilitation of existing asphalt concrete pavement
9 Project Name ESG Homeless Activities
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Homeless Services and Facilities
Needs Addressed Increase access to and supply of homeless services
Funding ESG: $377,330
Description Homeless Services and Facilities
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the type and goal for
the proposed activities
Approximately 315 individuals and 45 households
experiencing homelessness and 55 individuals at risk of
experiencing homelessness will be assisted. It is also
anticipated that five emergency shelter or transitional
housing beds will be added.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities The City will fund the following eligible activities: Street
Outreach, Shelter Operations and Essential Services,
Homeless Prevention, Rapid Rehousing, HMIS, and
Program Administration
10 Project Name HOME Program Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Planning, administration, and fair housing
Needs Addressed Expand the supply of affordable housing
Funding HOME: $115,906
Description Planning and administration
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the type and goal for
the proposed activities
Other: 1-year
Location Description Citywide
EXHIBIT 1
171
Planned Activities Provide funding to staff and City agencies to overs and
manage HOME program to ensure compliance with
HUD rules and regulations.
11 Project Name HOME Affordable Housing
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Affordable housing development, maintenance, and
preservation
Needs Addressed Expand the supply of affordable housing; Preserve the
supply of affordable housing
Funding HOME: $869,296
Description Support affordable housing development and
preservation
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the type and goal for
the proposed activities
TBD
Location Description TBD
Planned Activities Through an RFP process, identify eligible new
construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation activities to
increase the supply of affordable housing within the
City of Santa Ana.
12 Project Name HOME CHDO
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Affordable housing development, maintenance, and
preservation
Needs Addressed Expand the supply of affordable housing; Preserve the
supply of affordable housing
Funding HOME: $173,859
Description Support affordable housing development and
preservation
Target Date 6/30/2026
Estimate the type and goal for
the proposed activities
TBD
Location Description TBD
Planned Activities In collaboration with an eligible CHDO, the City will
support the acquisition, development, or rehabilitation
or affordable rental housing.
EXHIBIT 1
172
AP- 50 Geographic Distribution
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-
income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed.
The City has not established specific target areas in which to focus the investment of CDBG
funds. For the 2025 Program Year, the City will invest 100 percent of non-administrative
funds to directly benefit low-and moderate-income individuals throughout the City.
Infrastructure improvements and public facilities will be focused on areas with a
concentration of residents with low- and moderate-incomes or sites that serve a presumed
group. Housing assistance will be made available to income-qualified households
throughout the City.
Table 53 - Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
Citywide 100%
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
HUD allows CDBG grantees to implement certain activities, such as initial construction or
expansion of community facilities and infrastructure that benefit certain neighborhoods,
but not the entire City, provided the service area for the facility or infrastructure is primarily
residential, and where at least 51 percent of residents are low- and moderate-income.
It is the City’s intent to fund activities in the areas and for the populations most directly
affected by the needs of low-income residents and those with other special needs. Where
appropriate the Annual Action Plan will direct investment to an area benefit neighborhood.
The area benefit category is the most used national objective for activities benefiting a
residential neighborhood. An area benefit activity is one that benefits all residents, where
at least 51 percent are low- and moderate-income. Public infrastructure improvements are
an area benefit activity when they are in a predominantly low- and moderate-income
neighborhood.
EXHIBIT 1
173
AP-55 Affordable Housing
The 2025-2029 Strategic Plan provides the framework for investing CDBG and HOME funds
in Santa Ana. The affordable housing development, maintenance, and preservation goal
identified in the Strategic Plan that will be addressed by the CDBG Housing Rehabilitation,
CDBG Down Payment Assistance, HOME Affordable Housing, and HOME CHDO projects.
Below is a summary of the City’s planned actions in the coming year.
Table 54 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement
One Year Goals for the Number of Households
to be Supported
Homeless 0
Non-Homeless 41
Special-Needs 0
Total 41
Table 55 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type
One Year Goals for the Number of Households
Supported Through
Rental Assistance 0
The Production of New Units 28
Rehab of Existing Units 5
Acquisition of Existing Units 3
Total 41
Discussion
Santa Ana residents have a significant need for high quality and affordable housing. In
Program Year 2025, the City anticipates assisting five owner occupied households to
rehabilitate their homes and three households to purchase a home. This assistance will be
provided to eligible households with low- to moderate-incomes.
EXHIBIT 1
174
AP- 60 Public Housing
SAHA is a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) only entity. It administers tenant- and project-
based and special purpose vouchers. There are 10 project-based voucher sites. Special
purpose vouchers include Mainstream Five-Year (MS5) and Veteran Affairs Supportive
Housing. Additionally, SAHA administers Foster Youth to Independence and Emergency
Housing Vouchers. SAHA’s mission is to “provide affordable housing for the most
vulnerable members of our community to use as a platform to obtain self-sufficiency and
independence from our assistance.”
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs of public housing.
Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in
management and participate in homeownership.
The SAHA administers the FSS program. This is a voulntary program available to families
in recipet of a HCV program to households become economic independent through
financial literacy. The Housing Authority also support a resident adviosry board.
If the Public Housing Authority (PHA) is designated as troubled, describe the
manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance.
The SAHA is not designated as troubled.
EXHIBIT 1
175
AP- 65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities
The City of Santa Ana places a high priority on assisting households experiencing or at risk
of experiencing homelessness, and households with other non-homeless special needs.
According to the results of the January 2024, PIT Count in approximately7,322 individuals
were experiencing homelessness. Analysis of available data and consultation with
organizations providing services for special needs populations revealed a need for a range
of services including but not limited to those concerned with disabled adults. The City
strives to meet these needs through the access to public housing, expanded access to
affordable housing, and public services and services specifically for individuals and
households experiencing and at risk of experiencing homelessness.
Describe the jurisdiction’s one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending
homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially
unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs.
Preventing and ending homelessness is a HUD priority addressed nationally through
coordination of regional strategies and carried out locally by government agencies and a
wide variety of community-based organizations and faith-based groups. Consistent with
this approach, the City supports the CoC and its member organizations that address
homelessness. In alignment with this strategy, the City established the homeless services
goal. The street outreach aspects of that goal will be implemented through the activities of
the Interval Housing, Covenant House, and SAPD HEART program
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless
persons
The City established the homeless services goal to address the need to increase access to
and the supply of homeless services and facilities. The emergency shelter aspects of that
goal will be implemented through the activities of the Interval Housing, Covenant House,
and SAPD HEART program.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied
youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living,
including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience
homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to
affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again
In alignment with the CoC strategy, the City established the homeless services goal. The
rapid rehousing and homelessness prevention aspects of that goal will be implemented
through the activities of the Volunteers of America Los Angeles, and WISEPlace.
EXHIBIT 1
176
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless,
especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are:
being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as
health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities,
and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public
or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment,
education, or youth needs.
The County in collaboration with the CoC maintains Discharge Coordination Policies for the
systems of care it administers, such as discharge from the Corrections, Foster Care, and
the Mental Health systems. The City supports the CoC’s advocacy for development of
consistent policy implementation by hospital administrators for best practices, such as
recuperative care, and co-location of health services near affordable housing
developments.
During the program year 2025 the City will direct ESG funds to Volunteers of America Los
Angeles and WISEPlace to provide rapid rehousing, and homelessness prevention
services to qualified households.
EXHIBIT 1
177
AP- 75 Barriers to Affordable Housing
A barrier to affordable housing is a public policy or nongovernmental condition that
constrains the development or rehabilitation of affordable housing, such as land use
controls, property taxes, state prevailing wage requirements, environmental protection,
cost of land and availability of monetary resources. Barriers to affordable housing differ
from impediments to fair housing choice in that barriers are typically lawful and
impediments to fair housing choice are usually unlawful.
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an identification and prioritization of
significant contributing factors that impede fair housing and/or result in disproportionate
housing needs. Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates,
community feedback, and the assessment of fair housing included in the Housing Element,
the City identified the following fair housing issues:
-Displacement risk
-Lack of safe and sanitary housing
-Housing overcrowding
-Low household incomes
-Exposure to environmental hazards
-Lack of quality education and job training
The primary factor contributing to these housing issues is the limited availability of
resources to subsidize housing development to the point that units are affordable to low-
and moderate-income households. The elimination of local Redevelopment Agencies by
the State of California resulted in the loss of a crucial resource for the development and
preservation of affordable housing. This was the most significant public policy change
impacting affordable housing and residential investment. While there are mechanisms
whereby certain affordable housing assets tied to the former Redevelopment Agencies may
be utilized today, these resources are finite and scarce.
Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies
that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies
affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth
limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment.
As described in the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the City is taking several actions to address
the contributing factors to fair housing issues and affirmatively further fair housing
throughout the city. These actions are summarized below.
To address the housing overpayment/burden and the risk of displacement or homelessness
that new development and overpaying for housing may cause, the City plans to pursue the
following strategies:
EXHIBIT 1
178
Housing Stabilization. Implement the rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances
to preserve affordable housing through regulating rent increases and establishing just
cause eviction regulations.
-Housing Opportunity Ordinance. Require eligible rental and ownership housing
projects to include affordable units.
-Housing Priority. Administer local preference for affordable housing created under
the AHOCO or with City funding.
-Community Land Trusts and Collective Ownership. Partner with community-based
organizations to support a community land trust program and pursue collective
ownership models to promote ownership options and opportunities.
-Shelters and Support Services. Provide funding for creation and/or the provision of
shelters, permanent supportive housing, and services for those experiencing
homelessness or that are at risk of becoming homeless.
To address the issues of safe and sanitary housing, the City plans to pursue the following
strategies:
-Tenant Protections. Provide resources to residential tenants regarding landlord-
tenant laws and responsibilities to ensure units are being maintained and up to
code, and if not, tenants are aware of their rights and options for recourse.
-Code Enforcement. Enforce building and property maintenance standards and
remove blight and unhealthy or dangerous housing conditions, and work with
County Health Department to identify violations and streamline resolutions.
-Home Rehabilitation Grant Program. Provide grants to assist in the repair and
rehabilitation of single- and multi-family homes as well as mobile homes for lower-
income households.
-Emergency and Transitional Housing. Continue providing funding and services for
providers of emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and support
services for those at risk of becoming homeless.
To address the housing overcrowding issue, the City plans to pursue the following
strategies:
-Overcrowding Conditions. Facilitate development of accessory dwelling units and
additions to existing homes to alleviate overcrowded housing conditions.
-Diverse Housing Types. Facilitate diverse types, prices, and sizes of housing for the
different needs in the community.
-Affordable Component. Continue applying AHOCO to include affordable units as
part of new housing developments.
To address the issues of housing access and affordability created by lower household
incomes the City plans to pursue the following strategies:
EXHIBIT 1
179
-Affordable Housing Production. Provide financial assistance to support the
production and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing for extremely low-, very low-
, and low-income families.
-Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction. Adopt a rent stabilization ordinance(s)
to preserve affordable housing through regulating rent increases and establishing
just cause eviction regulations.
-Down Payment Assistance. Assist low-income households with down payment
assistance loans to facilitate ownership opportunities.
-Supportive Services. Allocate funding to agencies that provide services to people
experiencing homelessness or that are at risk of becoming homeless.
To address Environmental Justice (EJ) issues, the City underwent an extensive multiyear
engagement effort as part of its comprehensive General Plan update, with the last year
focusing on engaging EJ communities and listening to their experiences and issues
regarding environmental health and quality of life. The City has developed over 75 policies
and over 70 programs that are informed by the feedback received from the community and
that address pollution and population variables in the CalEnviroScreen model that are in
the upper quartile rank in the identified EJ areas. With the completion of the General Plan,
the City will begin the process of addressing the disproportionate environmental burden
that residents in these communities have experienced.
To address educational and economic opportunity barriers that lead to housing and
affordability issues, the City is including an Economic Prosperity Element in the updated
General Plan. The element includes programs for workforce development, small business
creation and retention, and incentives to hire local. In addition, the updated General Plan
includes an element called the Community Element. The Community Element includes
numerous policies and programs to directly address the education and jobs training issue.
For example, there are policies and programs to support parent participation programs to
increase high school and college graduation rates, expanding access to libraries and
learning centers, promoting skill- based education programs, and investing in lifelong
learning programs.
EXHIBIT 1
180
AP-85 Other Actions
In the implementation of the 2025 Annual Action Plan, the City will invest CDBG, HOME,
and ESG resources to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, reduce the number
of poverty-level families, develop institutional structure, and enhance coordination
between agencies. Priority needs established in the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan form the
basis for establishing objectives and outcomes in the Action Plan. Those needs are as
follows:
-Expand the supply of affordable housing
-Preserve the supply of affordable housing
-Improve public facilities and infrastructure
-Increase access to and supply of homeless services and facilities
-Access to supply of public services
-Promote economic opportunity
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs.
The primary obstacles to meeting the underserved needs of low- and moderate-income
people include lack of funding from federal, state, and other local sources, the lack of
availability of home improvement financing in the private lending industry, and the high
cost of housing. The City will continue to work to leverage public and private resources
through grant and partnership opportunities.
The City will continue to promote fair housing practices for sale and rental housing and to
facilitate community awareness of fair housing. The City of City will continue to use CDBG
funds to contract with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County for this program year to
provide fair housing and tenant/ landlord services to residents.
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing.
In the implementation of the 2025 Annual Action Plan, the City will invest CDBG and HOME
funds to preserve and maintain affordable housing through the CDBG Housing
Rehabilitation, CDBG Down Payment Assistance, HOME Affordable Housing, HOME CHDO,
and Fair Housing projects.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards.
To reduce LBP hazards, the City’s CDBG Housing Rehabilitation and CDBG Down Payment
Assistance projects will conduct LBP testing and risk assessments for each property
assisted that was built prior to January 1, 1978, and will incorporate safe work practices or
abatement into the scope of work reduce LBP hazards in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35.
EXHIBIT 1
181
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families.
The implementation of CDBG, HOME, and ESG activities meeting the goals established in
the Strategic Plan and this Annual Action Plan will help reduce the number of poverty-level
families by supporting:
-Affordable housing development, maintenance, and preservation
-Code enforcement
-Public service programs
-Homeless services and facilities
-Economic development programs
-Public facilities and infrastructure improvement
-Planning, administration and fair housing
In addition to these local efforts, mainstream state and federal resources also contribute to
reducing the number of individuals and families in poverty. Federal programs, such as the
Earned Income Tax Credit and Head Start, provide pathways out of poverty for families
who are ready to pursue employment and educational opportunities. Additionally, in
California, the primary programs that assist families in poverty are CalWORKS, CalFresh
(formerly food stamps), and Medi-Cal. Together, these programs provide individuals and
families with employment assistance, subsidy for food, medical care, childcare and cash
payments to meet basic needs such as housing, nutrition, and transportation.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure.
The institutional delivery system in Santa Ana is highly functioning and collaborative,
particularly the relationship between local government and the nonprofit sector, which is
comprised of a network of capable organizations that are delivering a full range of services
to residents. Strong City departments anchor the administration of HUD grant programs,
housing, and community and economic development activities that are implemented by
the City support to enhance the institutional structure. The City will collaborate
interdepartmentally, with residents, and with nonprofit agencies receiving CDBG, HOME,
and ESG funds through the 2025 Annual Action Plan to ensure the needs of low-and-
moderate-income residents are met as envisioned within the 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing
and social service agencies.
City staff works closely with the other organizations to improve regulatory compliance,
monitoring, cooperation and partnerships among agencies and technical capacity of
organizations involved in project delivery. To enhance coordination between public and
private housing and social service agencies, the City will continue consulting with and
inviting the participation of a wide variety of agencies and organizations involved in the
delivery of housing and supportive services to low- and moderate-income residents in
upland—particularly the CDBG low- and moderate-income areas.
EXHIBIT 1
182
AP- 90 Program Specific Requirements
In the implementation of programs and activities under the 2025 Annual Action Plan, the
City will follow all HUD regulations concerning the use of program income, forms of
investment, and overall low-and-moderate-income benefit for the CDBG program.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR
91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified
in Table 64. Table 68 identifies program income that is available for use that is included in
projects to be carried out.
Table 56 - CDBG Requirements
1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the
next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $0
2. The amount of proceeds from Section 108 loan guarantees that it will be used during the
year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic
plan.0
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use
has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: $0
Table 57 - Other CDBG Requirements
1. The amount of urgent need activities 0
2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities
that benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A
consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that
a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons
of low- and moderate-income. Specify the years covered that include this
Annual Action Plan.70%
3. Overall benefit period 2024, 2025, 2026
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)
1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in
Section 92.205 is as follows:
The City of Santa Ana does not use HOME funds in any other manner other than those
described in Section 92.205(b).
2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds
when used for homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows:
The City incorporates a recapture requirement into written agreements and long-term
affordability covenants for homebuyer assistance activities administered by the City as
EXHIBIT 1
183
required by 24 CFR 92.254. For any homebuyer assistance activity implemented by
subrecipients or CHDOs, this recapture requirement shall also be used.
HOME affordability requirements are imposed based on the amount of direct HOME
subsidy pursuant to HUD regulations as follows:
Assistance under $25,000: 5-year affordability period
Assistance between $25,000 - $50,000: 10-year affordability period
Assistance over $50,000: 15-year affordability period
The amount subject to recapture is the direct HOME subsidy received by the homebuyer.
Direct HOME subsidy includes the HOME investment that enabled the homebuyer to
purchase the property. This includes down payment assistance, closing costs, or other
HOME assistance provided directly to the homebuyer or the difference between the fair
market value of the property (as determined by appraisal) and a reduced sales price, but
excludes any HOME assistance provided to develop the unit.
The recapture provision ensures that the entire amount of the City's direct HOME subsidy
to homebuyers is recaptured if the housing does not continue to be the principal residence
of the family for the duration of the applicable period of affordability (e.g., the home is sold,
the home is foreclosed, the assisted owner is no longer residing in the assisted residence,
or for any other breach of the agreement with the City). The HOME-assisted homebuyer
may sell their unit at any time during the period of affordability, to any willing buyer, and
at the price the market will bear. The recapture provision requires that the City’s direct
HOME subsidy and any interest due under the HOME loan (that has not previously been
repaid) is returned to the City from net proceeds, subject to the limitation that if there are
no net proceeds or the net proceeds are insufficient to repay the HOME investment due,
the City may only recapture the net proceeds, if any. Net proceeds are defined as the sales
price minus superior loan repayment (other than HOME funds), and any closing costs.
In the event of a mortgage default, a provision in the written agreement and long-term
affordability covenant stipulates that the City has the right of first refusal before foreclosure
and may use additional HOME funds or other resources to acquire the housing in order to
preserve the housing’s affordability. The home then will be resold to an eligible buyer with
a new long-term affordability covenant that imposes a period of affordability in accordance
with the total HOME investment, including the direct homebuyer assistance provided to the
homebuyer at the initial sale, plus any additional HOME funds invested to purchase the
property out of foreclosure.
Recaptured funds will be used for any HOME eligible activity. If the funds were provided
as a grant or zero interest loan, then the recaptured funds will be receipted into IDIS and
treated like program income, except that no portion of the funds will be used for
administrative costs. If the recaptured funds were provided as an interest-bearing loan,
EXHIBIT 1
184
then the funds will be receipted (principal and interest) into IDIS as program income. Up
to ten percent of the program income may be used for administrative costs. These
recaptured funds are identified in the City’s accounting system by a unique recaptured
revenue object number. Any recaptured funds will be used by the City before committing
HOME funds from the City’s line of credit.
When the City uses a resale restriction, the City allows property sales to eligible income
households, provided the sales price does not exceed an affordable housing cost to the
proposed transferee ("Permitted Transfers"). If a homebuyer wishes to transfer the property
during the affordability period, they must notify the City beforehand by submitting a Notice
of Intent to Transfer. This notice should include the identity of the proposed transferee,
their household income, and the proposed sales price so that the City may determine that
the homebuyer’s household income and the sales price meet the affordable housing cost
criteria.
The term of the period of affordability is determined according to the amount of HOME
funds invested (see chart above under Recapture) and a long-term affordability covenant
will be recorded against the property in the County real estate records. The covenant will
impose a resale formula that provides a fair return on investment (including the
homeowner’s investment and cost of capital improvements) and ensure the housing will
remain affordable to a reasonable range of low-income homebuyers.
3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of
units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows:
See above
4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing
that is rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing
guidelines required that will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows:
Not applicable. The City will not be using HOME funds for this activity. If the City elects to
refinance existing debt, it will provide its policies and procedures as part of an amendment
to its Action Plan.
4. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR
576.405(a), the jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with
homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions
regarding facilities and services funded under ESG.
The City consults and works with the County and CoC homeless services staff as well as
local homeless service providers, advocacy groups, facilities and other stakeholders in
determining its strategic approach, policies and funding decisions. A previously homeless
individual participated on the ESG funding review panel. Individuals who were previously
homeless provide assistance in outreach and engagement services and provide feedback
EXHIBIT 1
185
to Staff. In addition, the CoC’s strategy reflects the participation of all 34 cities in Orange
County as well as individuals who are homeless or previously homeless, schools, and a
host of other organizations and stakeholders.
5. If applicable to a planned HOME TBRA activity, a description of the preference for
persons with special needs or disabilities. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2)(i) and CFR
91.220(l)(2)(vii)).
N/A
6. If applicable to a planned HOME TBRA activity, a description of how the preference for
a specific category of individuals with disabilities (e.g. persons with HIV/AIDS or chronic
mental illness) will narrow the gap in benefits and the preference is needed to narrow the
gap in benefits and services received by such persons. (See 24 CFR 92.209(c)(2)(ii) and
91.220(l)(2)(vii)).
N/A
7. If applicable, a description of any preference or limitation for rental housing projects.
(See 24 CFR 92.253(d)(3) and CFR 91.220(l)(2)(vii)). Note: Preferences cannot be
administered in a manner that limits the opportunities of persons on any basis prohibited
by the laws listed under 24 CFR 5.105(a).
N/A
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Reference 91.220(l)(4) 1
Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment)
ESG funds will be used for eligible activities under five program components: street
outreach, emergency shelter, homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing assistance, and
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) costs, as well as allowable
administrative costs and activities. ESG applications go through an open and transparent
proposal process. The Community Development Agency is responsible for ensuring that
the ESG program is implemented in accordance with all Federal rules and regulations.
2. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system
that meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment
system.
Orange County, in collaboration with the CoC and other ESG entitlement jurisdictions
including the City of Santa Ana will utilize assessment and evaluation instruments
developed in consultation with the HIMIS lead agency and previously funded HPRP
grantees. The County ensures ongoing coordination of program design and eligibly
standards. The City will provide funding for the administration of the HMIS data entry
system.
EXHIBIT 1
186
3. Identify the process for making sub-awards and describe how the ESG allocation
available to private nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based
organizations).
On November 20, 2024, the City of Irvine released a combined ESG Request for Proposals
(RFP) in partnership with the Cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Santa Ana to support
the Orange County Continuum of Care’s goal to end homelessness. This RFP was marketed
to nonprofit organizations (including community and faith-based organizations) operating
throughout Orange County. The RFP included four possible one-year renewals. Current
subrecipients awarded funding for renewal years will be required to submit a new budget
and program summary. the Collaborative reserves the right to redistribute funding and/or
issue a new RFP at its discretion.
5. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG.
The City utilizes the HUD Monitoring ESG handbook to monitor each program’s
performance to ensure that goals are on track and funds are used for eligible activities. On
a quarterly basis, invoices are reviewed to ensure program compliance. In addition, the
quarterly financial invoices are monitored by City Accounting staff. On-site monitoring of
non-profit organizations is done by staff and by consultants for both program and financial
records on an as-needed basis, or at least every three years. The City works closely with
the CoC and other ESG jurisdictions in the County to standardize processes and approaches
as much as possible.
Discussion
In the implementation of programs and activities under the 2025 Annual Action Plan, the
City will adhere to regulations set forth by the Community Planning and Development
(CPD) agency within HUD.
EXHIBIT 1
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION & PLANNING 838,036$
Administration and Planning 768,036$
Fair Housing Council of Orange County 70,000$
CODE ENFORCEMENT 825,000$
Community Preservation Code Enforcement 825,000$
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $ 100,000
New Business Start-Up/Micro Enterprise Grants $ 100,000
NONPROFIT PUBLIC SERVICES 628,527$
AIDS Services Foundation of OC (dba Radiant Health Centers)34,860$
America on Track 34,860$
Community Health Initiative Orange County 34,860$
Community Legal Aid SoCal (Domestic Violence Prevention Project)34,860$
Delhi Center (Teens Engaged in Learning and Leadership)62,053$
Girls Inc of Orange County (StrongHer)34,860$
Human Options 34,860$
Lutheran Social Services of SoCal 34,860$
MOMs OC 34,860$
Nati's House (dba Neutral Ground) Summer Night Lights 34,860$
OC Children's Therapeutic Arts Center (Willard)34,860$
Project Hope Alliance 43,574$
StandUP for Kids OC 34,860$
Staight Talk Clinic, Inc.34,860$
Templo Calvario Community Development Corporation 34,860$
United Cerebral Palsy Association of OC (dba Unlimited Possibilities)34,860$
WISEPlace 34,860$
628,527
CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 591,955$
Cedar Street Improvements 415,655$
Bristol-Tolliver Street Urban Greening Project 176,300$
HOUSING $ 1,382,961
Single Family Rehabilitation Program w/ Habitat for Humanity of OC 500,000$
Down Payment Assistance Program $ 882,961
-
TOTAL 4,366,478$
FY 2025-26 CDBG Funding Plan
EXHIBIT 2
FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Administration & Planning
Project Title Organization Funding Description
CDBG Program
Administration
City of Santa Ana
Community
Development
Agency (CDA)
$768,036
The program will provide for the overall administration of the CDBG
Program, to include: preparation and submission of required
contracts with HUD, submission of all reporting requirements,
provision of individual project oversight, monitoring of all project
implementation and ongoing completion, and fiscal management
and oversight. Program Administration is performed by a
combination of staff and professional consultants. Proposed
funding amount calculated based off 20% admin cap less Fair
Housing amount.
Santa Ana Fair
Housing Education,
Counseling &
Enforcement
Fair Housing
Council of Orange
County
$70,000
The program will provide fair housing education, landlord /tenant
counseling and enforcement services to combat housing
discrimination and city administrative support for the residents of
the City of Santa Ana. Funds will go toward administrative/program
staff and service contracts. A commitment to further fair housing is
a requirement of CDBG funding.
Economic Development
Project Title Organization Funding Description
Small Business
Incentive Program
City of Santa Ana
Community
Development
Agency (CDA) –
Economic
Development
$100,000
The program awards grants up to $5,000 to eligible microenterprise
businesses in the City. Grants will be awarded on a first-come/first-
serve basis and may be used to cover business expenses such as
rent, insurance costs, utility connections, advertising, inventory, or
other business-related needs. Funds will go towards grants and
program staff.
Code Enforcement
Project Title Organization Funding Description
Community
Preservation (Code
Enforcement & Legal
Services)
City of Santa Ana
Planning and
Building Agency
(PBA)
$825,000
The Community Preservation Division’s goal is to improve neighborhoods
through personalized neighborhood contact, education of codes and standards,
responsive and dedicated personnel, fair enforcement of laws and innovative
processes. The primary purpose of this enforcement is to address property
maintenance and life safety violations that contribute to the visual blight and
general decline of an area. Funds will go toward program staff and service
contracts (equipment rental, insurance and building rental).
EXHIBIT 3
FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Housing
Project Title Organization Funding Description
Single-Family
Housing
Rehabilitation
Program
Habitat for
Humanity of
Orange County
$500,000
CDBG funds will be used to rehabilitate properties to address code
violations, potential code violations, or unsafe living conditions. The
maximum amount of grant funds available for any qualified property
is $25,000 unless approved by City Council. Funding will go toward
rehabilitation and staff costs.
Down Payment
Assistance Program City of Santa Ana $882,961
The “My First Home Program” will offer down payment assistance
loans to first-time home buyers to aid in the purchase of a home in
the City of Santa Ana. Funds will be made available on a first-
come, first-served basis. A first-time home buyer may be eligible to
borrow up to $120,000 with a 0% interest rate.
City Capital Improvements
Project Title Organization Funding Description
Street Improvements
(Cedar Street) and
Greening Project
City of Santa Ana
Public Works
Agency (PWA)
$591,955 This project entails the rehabilitation of existing asphalt concrete
pavement of residential streets in the Cedar Neighborhood and
the Bristol-Tolliver Street Urban Greening Project.
EXHIBIT 3
FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Nonprofit Public Service (subject to 15% Public Service cap)
Project Title Organization Funding Description
AIDS Services
Foundation OC (dba
Radiant Health
Centers)
HIV Care Services $34,860
AIDS Services Foundation OC (dba Radiant Health Centers) will
provide low-income residents living with HIV in the City of Santa
Ana with wraparound HIV care services. Participants will receive
the support and resources needed to remain in medical care,
maintain their health, and achieve viral suppression.
America On Track
Brighter Futures
for Children of
Prisoners
$34,860
Children of prisoners deserve the chance to discover a brighter
future, which is why America On Track provides them with trained,
caring mentors, STEM workshops, a “College is For Me Too!”
camp, free books, and special outings, as well as nutrition seminars
and wraparound services for the families.
Community Health
Initiative Orange
County
Community Health
Access Program $34,860
CHIOC helps City of Santa Ana residents to access health and
social service programs by providing outreach, education,
enrollment, and case management services to vulnerable
populations. We strive to ensure that clients acquire, retain, and
utilize community resources effectively.
Community Legal
Aid SoCal
Santa Ana
Domestic
Violence
Prevention Project
$34,860
Community Legal Aid SoCal (previously known as The Legal Aid
Society of Orange County) will provide free, holistic legal
assistance to Santa Ana survivors of domestic violence to help
them escape abuse and break the cycle of violence. Priority is
given to service in the areas of family law, immigration, and
healthcare advocacy.
Delhi Center in
collaboration with
UCI
Teens Engaged in
Learning and
Leadership
$62,053
A leadership development program that trains teens to take an
active role in designing and implementing educational and team
building activities in their community that teach younger children
about gang prevention, problem solving, conflict resolution,
avoiding risk and making safe choices.
Girls Inc. of OC StrongHer
Together $34,860
StrongHer Together provides at-risk teen girls with the tools to live
a safe and healthy life. The program will serve 8th – 12th grade
girls during the school year and the summer. Program elements
include social and emotional learning, safe relationships, and
substance abuse prevention
EXHIBIT 3
FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Human Options
Promoting Safety
by Assisting
Domestic Violence
Victims
$34,860
The project will provide intensive case management services to
Santa Ana residents who self-report domestic violence or who are
referred by the Domestic Violence Response Team. Case
management services will include safety planning, assessment of
needs and linkages to needed resources.
Lutheran Social
Services of SoCal
Victims
Intervention
Program
$34,860
The Victims Intervention Project will provide women who are
victims of crime with evidence-based recovery services – direct
mental health services, rental assistance, hotel/motel vouchers,
intensive case management, transportation, life skills training and
other supportive services.
MOMs OC
Maternal Child
Health
Coordination
Program
$34,860
Santa Ana residents will be provided monthly prenatal and infant
home visitation, health education, and mental health support, that
measurebly improves the health status and birth outcomes of
mothers, fathers, and babies living in poverty.
Nati's House (dba
Neutral Ground)
Summer Night
Lights $34,860
Neutral Ground will provide Summer Night Lights for 5 nights
during the summer. Parks and recreation centers will be open late
so that families can enjoy safe spaces, meet neighbors, find new
opportunities and resources, and create relationships with the City
and County agencies that serve them.
Orange County
Children's
Therapeutic Arts
Center
Crime Prevention
and Intervention
Program
$34,860
OCCTAC comprehensive Crime Prevention & Intervention Program
will offer Santa Ana youth and parents’ arts enrichment, therapeutic
arts, youth and family counseling, parenting classes and crises
intervention.
Project Hope
Alliance
On-Site Case
Management
Program (for youth
experiencing
homelessness)
$43,574
The On-Site Case Management Program, for youth experiencing
homelessness will provide Santa Ana youth with resources and
support to sustain their academic path. Participants are provided
customized, wraparound support from case managers who are
available for them 24 hours a day.
StandUp for Kids
Orange County
On Campus
Mentoring $34,860
The program provides homeless students with a personalized path
to self-sufficiency. A trained StandUp for Kids case manager and
mentor meets with each youth at school, twice a week. They
receive basic services, adult mentorship, and tutoring in order to
graduate and become self-sufficient.
Straight Talk Clinic,
Inc.
Crisis Intervention
& Comprehensive $34,860 Straight Talk Clinic will offer free crisis intervention and
comprehensive mental health services and weekly one -hour
EXHIBIT 3
FY 2025-26 CDBG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Mental Health
Services
counseling to extremely low-income Santa Ana residents (seniors,
adults, teen, and children five years and older).
Templo Calvario
Community
Development
Corporation
Legado Academy $34,860
The Legado Academy seeks to break the cycle of poverty and
thereby decrease the risk of violence and crime by delivering
evidence-based parent training and financial education curriculum
that are designed to promote long-term family resiliency and
support generational financial stability.
United Cerebral
Palsy of OC (dba
Unlimited
Possibilities)
Safety Net Fund $34,860
Unlimited Possibilities long-running Safety Net Fund will provide
early intervention, pediatric therapy, and family support services to
uninsured and under-insured children and families with disabilities
residing in Santa Ana.
WISEPlace Steps to
Independence $34,860
Steps to Independence provides safe emergency shelter and rapid
rehousing for unaccompanied homeless women. Women are led
through the “WISEPlace Way” which includes comprehensive
trauma informed support, legal advocacy and housing placement
to help rebuild their lives and heal their traumas.
Total Funding $4,366,478
EXHIBIT 3
PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION 28,300$
EMERGENCY SHELTER & OUTREACH 176,885$
Interval House 80,000$
Covenant House 40,000$
Santa Ana Police Department HEART Program 56,885$
HOUSING RELOCATION & STABILIZATION SERVICES 114,000$
Volunteers of America Los Angeles (Rapid Rehousing)57,000$
WISEPlace (Rapid Rehousing)57,000$
HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 58,146$
Orange County United Way 58,146$
TOTAL 377,330$
FY 2025-26 ESG Funding Plan
EXHIBIT 4
FY 2025-26 ESG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Administration (7.5% cap)
Project Title Organization Funding Description
ESG Program
Administration
City of Santa
Ana
Community
Development
Agency
(CDA)
$28,300
The program will provide for the overall administration of the ESG Program, to
include: preparation and submission of required contracts with HUD,
submission of all reporting requirements, provision of individual project
oversight, monitoring of all project implementation and ongoing completion,
and fiscal management and oversight. Program Administration is performed
by a combination of staff and professional consultants. Proposed funding
amount calculated based off 7.5% admin cap.
Homelessness Shelter and Outreach Services (60% cap)
HEART
Program
Homelessness
Outreach &
Engagement
City of Santa
Ana Police
Department
$56,885
Santa Ana Police Department, in partnership with local service providers,
conducts proactive outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness.
Officers connect individuals to emergency shelters such as the Carnegie
Shelter and Yale Navigation Center, and coordinate transportation and mental
health services through the County PERT team. To reduce homelessness and
promote long-term stability, focused on a housing-first approach, efforts are
targeted in areas impacted by calls for service, community complaints, and
visible encampments.
Domestic
Violence
Homeless
Shelter
Interval
House $80,000
Interval House provides life-saving shelter and support to homeless victims of
domestic violence and their children from the most underserved communities
in Santa Ana. Interval House shelter programs offer a safe, caring, and
homelike environment for adults, adolescents, and children in life-threatening
situations who are left homeless as a result of domestic violence. Additional
specialized support services: Comprehensive counseling; legal; health and
wellness; financial management; employment counseling; permanent housing;
and other services as needed, provided by skilled counselors in over 70
languages.
Shelter for
Unhoused
Youth
Covenant
House $40,000
Covenant House operates a 20-bed emergency housing program for youth
aged 18-24 experiencing homelessness. All participants receive a
standardized assessment, case management, crisis intervention, meals,
physical and mental healthcare linkages, substance u se/recovery services,
and education/life skills curriculum.
EXHIBIT 5
FY 2025-26 ESG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Rehousing
Rapid Rehousing
(short term and
long-term rental
assistance/security
deposits)
Volunteers of
America Los
Angeles
$57,000
Volunteers of America Los Angeles (VOALA) serves people experiencing
homelessness in various areas throughout Orange County, including
Santa Ana. Target populations include: veterans, chronically homeless
individuals/families, families with children, survivors of domestic violence,
youth, elderly, families, and individuals with disabilities and/or substance
use disorders. Rapid Rehousing services include intake, and
individualized housing and service plan, and provision of case
management, housing navigation, and linkages to services and
resources. Navigation includes support in identifying access to affordable
units, negotiating rentals, reviewing lease agreements, and securing
habitable residences. In addition to navigation, VOALA provides rapid
rehousing recipients case management, budgeting, referrals to public
benefits, and overall post-move-in stabilization.
Rapid Rehousing
for
unaccompanied
homeless women
WISEPlace $57,000
WISEPlace provides trauma-informed care and services to
unaccompanied women experiencing homelessness. The organization
provides case management, employment support, and financial
empowerment to women from age 18 to 65 and older. The women serve d
include young women leaving foster care, those who have suffered from
domestic violence or human trafficking, those who experienced a
financial catastrophe, or women recovering from drug abuse, alcohol
abuse or incarceration. WISEPlace’s Rapid Rehousing services include
case management, financial empowerment curriculum, housing search
support and placement, financial support, such as deposit assistance,
security deposits, help with moving costs and utilities.
Data Collection HMIS (3%)
HMIS – Homeless
Management
Information
System
Orange County
United Way $58,146
Orange County United Way will facilitate HMIS coordination,
communication, training, and technical assistance of Santa Ana ESG
sub-recipients to ensure adherence to data quality, supporting the City's
efforts to fully comply with the HEARTH Act of 2009. Orange County
United Way will: provide user meetings, perform agency audits, provide
training/technical assistance, run data quality reports to post and make
available online, complete project set-ups, update the dashboard on a
monthly basis.
Total Funding $377,330
EXHIBIT 5
FY 2025-26 ESG Program Funding Plan
Program Summaries
EXHIBIT 5
OUDQJH&RXQW\5HJLRQDO
$VVHVVPHQWRI)DLU+RXVLQJ
EQUAL HOUSINGOPPORTUNITY
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County i 25-29 Regional AFH
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all individuals and organizations that contributed to the planning process,
including, but not limited to, the following:
The individuals and organizations (including Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope
Alliance, Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The
Cambodian Family, and Orange County Families Forward) who attended the in-person and
virtual community meetings.
The organizations that participated in the stakeholder interviews and focus groups,
including Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair Housing Foundation, Orange County
Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC,
National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas House Family S helter, Domus
Development, Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange
County.
Staff from all jurisdictions that participated in the planning effort, with additional thanks to
staff from:
• The Cities of Costa Mesa, La Habra, and Santa Ana, for hosting in-person community
meetings.
• The County of Orange and the Cities of Anaheim, Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Fountain
Valley, Fullerton, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San Clemente, Santa Ana, and
Rancho Santa Margarita for advertising the in-person and virtual community
meetings through various channels.
• The City of Santa Ana, which served as lead agency responsible for coordinating the
development of this report.
Document Version
Last updated: March 27, 2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County ii 25-29 Regional AFH
Cover Photo Credit
The cover photograph for this report was provided courtesy of C&C Development. The
photograph features Terraces at Santiago in the City of Santa Ana’s Station District.
Terraces at Santiago is an award-winning 36-unit urban infill transit-oriented multifamily
affordable rental housing development featuring a mix of two-, three-, and five-bedroom
apartments. In keeping with surrounding neighborhoods, this property was designed with
Spanish/Santa Barbara architectural influences. Exterior detailing accents include wrought
iron, decorative gables, wa ll sconces, decorative arches, decorative wood rafter rails,
decorative painted wood shutters, and recessed stucco elements with wrought iron lattice.
The building is LEED Gold Certified.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County iii 25-29 Regional AFH
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 1
II. Community Participation Process ...................................................................................... 3
A. Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................................................. 3
B. Community Meetings ....................................................................................................... 3
III. Fair Housing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 6
A. Demographic and Housing Summary ............................................................................ 6
B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration ................................................................ 38
C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) ............................... 60
D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity ............................................................................. 66
1. Education ..................................................................................................................... 66
2. Employment ................................................................................................................ 80
3. Transportation ............................................................................................................. 92
4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods ................................................................... 99
5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods ............................................ 112
6. Disability and Access ................................................................................................ 120
7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity ................................................... 124
E. Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................ 129
F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing .............................. 143
IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan .............................................................................. 146
A. Orange County Urban County ..................................................................................... 146
1. Unincorporated Orange County .............................................................................. 149
2. Brea ............................................................................................................................. 156
3. Cypress ....................................................................................................................... 159
4. Dana Point .................................................................................................................. 161
5. La Palma ..................................................................................................................... 165
6. Laguna Beach ............................................................................................................ 170
7. Laguna Hills ............................................................................................................... 174
8. Laguna Woods ........................................................................................................... 179
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County iv 25-29 Regional AFH
9. Los Alamitos .............................................................................................................. 182
10. Placentia ..................................................................................................................... 184
11. San Juan Capistrano ................................................................................................. 189
12. Seal Beach ................................................................................................................. 191
13. Stanton ....................................................................................................................... 193
14. Villa Park .................................................................................................................... 194
15. Yorba Linda ................................................................................................................ 196
B. Aliso Viejo ...................................................................................................................... 199
C. Anaheim ......................................................................................................................... 201
D. Buena Park ..................................................................................................................... 206
E. Costa Mesa .................................................................................................................... 209
F. Fountain Valley .............................................................................................................. 213
G. Fullerton ......................................................................................................................... 215
H. Garden Grove ................................................................................................................ 225
I. Huntington Beach ......................................................................................................... 228
J. Irvine ............................................................................................................................... 229
K. La Habra ......................................................................................................................... 240
L. Laguna Niguel ............................................................................................................... 244
M. Lake Forest ..................................................................................................................... 249
N. Mission Viejo.................................................................................................................. 251
O. Newport Beach .............................................................................................................. 253
P. Orange ............................................................................................................................ 255
Q. Rancho Santa Margarita............................................................................................... 258
R. San Clemente ................................................................................................................ 261
S. Santa Ana ....................................................................................................................... 264
T. Tustin .............................................................................................................................. 268
U. Westminster ................................................................................................................... 272
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 1 25-29 Regional AFH
I. Executive Summary
The Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) provides communities an opportunity to assess
their progress toward the goals of eliminating housing discrimination and promoting
access to housing opportunity for both current and future residents. Jurisdictions that
receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership s
Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds, complete an AFH at least
once every five years, consistent with the Consolidated Plan cycle, as part of their
obligations under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the Cranston -
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
As a fair housing planning document, t he AFH facilitates HUD grantee compliance with
statutory and regulatory requirement s to affirmatively further fair housing. Affirmatively
furthering fair housing entails taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating
discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities
free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The
duty to affirmatively further fair housing applies to all activities and programs within a
jurisdiction related to housing and urban development.
This AFH is a collaborative effort among the following jurisdictions:
• Orange County and the Urban County Program participating cities of Brea, Cypress,
Dana Point, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Los Alamitos,
Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Seal Beach, Stanton, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda.
• The HUD Entitlement Cities of Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa,
Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra,
Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, City of Orange, Rancho
Santa Margarita, San Clemente, Santa Ana, Tustin, Westminster.
To prepare the AFH, jurisdictions first must identify fair housing issues. A fair housing issue
refers to a condition within a specific geographic area that restricts fair housing choice or
limits access to opportunity. Fair housing issues may include ongoing local or regional
segregation/concentration or lack of integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas
of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and
evidence of discrimination or violations of civil rights law or regulations related to housing.
To identify fair housing issues, HUD recommends that jurisdictions gather and analyze
data. For this AFH, the jurisdictions analyzed data on the following topics:
• Demographics
• Segregation or Concentration/Integration
• Racially and/or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
• Disparities in Access to Opportunity
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 2 25-29 Regional AFH
• Housing Needs
• Discrimination Complaints
The data utilized in the analysis are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey (ACS), HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 , housing discrimination
complaint data provided by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO),
and information gathered through the community participation process (described below).
The ACS data utilized in the assessment are from the 2018-2022 five-year estimates, which
were the most current data across all participating jurisdictions at the time the analysis was
conducted.
After analyzing the data and identifying fair housing issues, jurisdictions then must identify
contributing factors. A contributing factor is any condition that creates, contributes to,
perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues. For each fair
housing issue and its contributing factors, jurisdictions must then develop fair housing
goals. A fair housing goal is a specific, meaningful action that can reasonably be expected
to create meaningful positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing by increasing
fair housing choice or reducing disparities in access to opportunity.
For the contributing factors and fair housing goals in this AFH, the jurisdictions built upon
the extensive work they have already done preparing their most recent Housing Elements,
which cover an eight-year planning period. As part of the state-mandated Housing Element,
California jurisdictions must conduct a fair housing assessment that includes an analysis
of fair housing issues, identification of factors that create and/or contribute to those issues,
and development of goals and meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
Progress toward reaching the goals identified in the Housing Element must then be
periodically reported to the state.
A summary of the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and fair housing
goals for each jurisdiction can be found in Section IV of this AFH.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 3 25-29 Regional AFH
II. Community Participation Process
To develop the AFH, information was also gathered from residents, housing professionals,
and service providers. Incorporating information from these sources is important for
ensuring that the AFH reflects community needs and knowledge that may not be
discernible from other data sources. The community participation process for this AFH
involved the following efforts:
A. Stakeholder Consultation
Four one-on-one interviews, and two focus groups were conducted during January and
February 2025 with organizations that provide fair housing services and/or housing and
services to protected class groups throughout the County. The interviews and focus group
sessions discussed the fair housing issues frequently encountered by the organizations,
the underlying causes for those issues, and ongoing efforts currently to address them.
Participants also discussed additional actions the ir organizations would recommend.
Invitations to participate in the stakeholder consultation activities were sent to
approximately 78 organizations identified by the jurisdictions involved in the planning
process. Fourteen organizations, as well as staff from two of the participating jurisdictions,
participated in these consultations, including: Fair Housing Council of Orange County, Fair
Housing Foundation, Orange County Families Forward, Orange County United Way, Family
Assistance Ministry, The HUB OC, National Core, NeighborWorks Orange County, Thomas
House Family Shelter, Domus Development, City of Garden Grove, City of Lake Forest,
Dayle McIntosh Center, CalOptima, and Assistance League of Orange County. Information
gathered through these consultations is incorporated throughout this report.
B. Community Meetings
A total of six community meetings were held in March 2025 to gather public input on the
fair housing issues impacting residents of Orange County, and the factors that create,
contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of those issues. These meetin gs included
two virtual meetings and four in-person meetings held at the dates, times, and locations
listed below.
In-person community meetings:
• March 5, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22
Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 5, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Santa Ana City Council Chamber, 22
Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701
• March 6, 2025, from 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at La Habra City Hall, Festival Room, 110
E. La Habra Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 4 25-29 Regional AFH
• March 6, 2025, from 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. at Costa Mesa City Hall, Community Room,
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Virtual community meetings:
• March 7, 2025, at 6:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
• March 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., via Microsoft Teams
Outreach to advertise the community meetings included the following efforts:
• City of Anaheim notified the 250 members of their Homeless Collaborative and
community stakeholders.
• City of Aliso Viejo posted a copy of the notice to their City website and shared on
social media and city newsletters.
• City of Buena Park posted the public notice on the City website and City Hall bulletin
board.
• City of Fountain Valley posted the public notice on the City website
• City of Fullerton published the public notice in the Fullerton Observer newspaper,
placed the notice on the City of Fullerton website, and placed copies of the notice at
various public facilities and libraries as well as over 25 affordable housing sites.
• City of Irvine sent copies of the notice to subrecipient partners and other interested
parties.
• City of Laguna Niguel posted the public notice on the City website and social media
channels.
• City of Mission Viejo posted the public notice on the City website.
• City of San Clemente posted the public notice on the City website.
• City of Santa Ana published the public notice for the public meetings in six
languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic) including
the following publications: Orange County Register, La Opinion, Nguoi Viet Daily
News, Korea Times, World Journal, and Beirut Times.
• City of Rancho Santa Margarita posted the public notice on bulletin boards outside
City Hall, OCFA Station 45, and Trabuco Canyon Water District.
• County of Orange sent information regarding the virtual community meetings to
community centers in the unincorporated areas of the County.
A total of fifteen individuals participated in these meetings to share their knowledge on fair
housing issues and contributing factors in Orange County. These included representatives
from the following organizations: Equus Workforce Solutions, Project Hope Alliance,
Alianza Translatinx, Human Options, Illumination Foundation, The Eli Home, The
Cambodian Family, Orange County Families Forward, City of Fountain Valley, and City of
Buena Park. Information gathered through these meetings is incorporated throug hout this
report.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 5 25-29 Regional AFH
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 6 25-29 Regional AFH
III. Fair Housing Analysis
A. Demographic and Housing Summary
Table 1 – Demographics, shows demographic information for the population of Orange
County overall, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions0F
1, the participating HUD
Entitlement Cities, and the region1F
2. These data are from the Census Bureau’s 2018-2022
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Table 2 – Demographic Trends, shows
similar data over time, dating back to 1990. These tables indicate the following:
Population
Orange County has a population of 3,175,227. The largest cities in the County are Anaheim
(population 347,111), Santa Ana (population 311,379), and Irvine (population 304,527). The
Urban County population is 585,178.
Race/Ethnicity
Orange County’s population is majority-minority; however, the largest population group is
White (38.46%). Hispanic residents comprise the second largest population group (33.93%),
followed by Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), who make up 21.77% of the
County population. African Americans account for 1.54% of the County population.
Compared to the region, Orange County has a higher proportion of White and AAPI
residents, and a smaller proportion of Hispanic and Black residents.
Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• The Urban County, Aliso Viejo, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Clemente
have a significantly higher2F
3 proportion of White residents.
• Anaheim, La Habra, and Santa Ana have a significantly higher proportion of Hispanic
residents.
• Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Irvine, and Westminster have a higher
proportion of AAPI residents.
Since 1990, the County population has become more diverse, transitioning from a White
majority in 1990 to a majority-minority population today. The number of White residents in
1 The Orange County Urban County comprises the County unincorporated area, twelve (12) cities with
populations under 50,000 (participating cities) and two (2) cities, Placentia and Yorba Linda, with populations
over 50,000 (metropolitan cities).
2 The region is defined by HUD as the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),
which comprises Los Angeles and Orange counties.
3 For this analysis, “significantly higher” means that the percentage of residents of a particular race/ethnicity in
a city is at least 10% higher than the percentage of residents of the same race/ethnicity in the County overall.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 7 25-29 Regional AFH
the County declined each decade, while the number of Hispanic and AAPI residents grew.
The number of Black residents increased between 1990-2010 but declined over the past
decade. These same trends are generally shared with the region and across the Urban
County and HUD Entitlement Cities, with the following exceptions:
• In the region, the Black population has been declining since 2000.
• In Aliso Viejo, the population of all racial/ethnic groups, including White, has
increased in each decade.
• In Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach , the AAPI
population has declined over the last decade.
• In Fountain Valley and Garden Grove, the Black population has been declining since
2000.
• In Irvine, the White and Black population s have been increasing since 2000, in
addition to growing Hispanic and AAPI populations.
• In La Habra, the Black population continued to grow after 2010.
• In Laguna Niguel and Lake Forest, the White population increased during the 1990s
before declining over the subsequent decades, and the Black population has
continued to grow over the last decade.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the White population increased during the 1990s before
declining over the last two decades.
• In San Clemente, the White population grew between 1990-2010, before shrinking
slightly over the last decade; and the AAPI population fell over the last decade.
• In Santa Ana, the Black population has been falling since 1990, and the Hispanic
population has been declining since 2000.
• In Tustin, the Black population has been declining since 1990.
National Origin
Orange County has a foreign-born population of 937,254 (29.52% of the total population3F
4).
The primary countries of origin for the foreign-born population are Mexico (9.17%) and
Vietnam (4.69%).
In the region, 32.52% of the population is foreign born, which is slightly higher than in
Orange County.
Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Huntington Beach, Laguna Niguel, Newport Beach, Orange, and San Clemente have
significantly lower percentages of foreign-born residents.
4 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B05006
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 8 25-29 Regional AFH
• Garden Grove, Irvine, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly higher
percentages of foreign-born residents. In these cities, the main countries of origin
for the foreign-born population are:
o Garden Grove: Vietnam and Mexico
o Irvine: China (excluding Taiwan), Korea, and India
o Santa Ana: Mexico and Vietnam
o Westminster: Vietnam and Mexico
Since 1990, the County’s foreign-born population has increased in each decade, with the
most dramatic increase occurring during the 1990s. In comparison,
• The foreign-born population in the region grew between 1990-2010 and has been
declining since 2010.
• The foreign-born population has declined in the following jurisdictions:
o The Urban County, Anaheim, La Habra, Orange, and San Clemente, where the
foreign-born population has been declining since 2010.
o Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, where the foreign-born population has been
declining since 2000. However, in Santa Ana, foreign-born residents still make
up approximately half of the total population.
• In Irvine, the foreign-born population has continued to grow rapidly, nearly doubling
since 2010.
Limited English Proficiency
Individuals who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those who primarily speak a
language other than English and speak English “less than very well .” In Orange County,
there are 539,484 LEP individuals4F
5, which is equal to approximately 16.99% of the
population. The primary languages spoken by the LEP population in the County are Spanish
(11.72%) and Vietnamese (3.45%).
In the region, 21.95% of the population is LEP, which is slightly higher than in Orange
County.
Among the participating HUD Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, have significantly lower percentages
of LEP residents.
• Anaheim, Buena Park, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster have significantly
higher percentages of LEP residents. In these cities, the primary languages spoken
by the LEP population are:
o Anaheim: Spanish and Vietnamese
5 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 9 25-29 Regional AFH
o Buena Park: Spanish and Korean
o Garden Grove: Vietnamese and Spanish
o Santa Ana: Spanish and Vietnamese
o Westminster: Vietnamese and Spanish
Between 1990-2010, the County’s LEP population increased. Since 2010, the County’s LEP
population has declined, though it remains well above the 1990 LEP population. In
comparison:
• The LEP population in the region grew during the 1990s but has been declining since
2000.
• The LEP population has grown each decade since 1990, including since 2010, in the
Urban County jurisdictions, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, Lake
Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Westminster.
• The LEP population has been declining since 2000 in Anaheim, Costa Mesa,
Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana.
• In Garden Grove, Newport Beach, and San Clemente, the LEP population declined
between 2000-2010, but has increased since 2010.
Age
Approximately 63.2% of the Orange County population is between the ages of 18 and 64;
15.38% are aged 65 and older, and 21.42% are younger than 18. The age distribution of the
population in the region is similar. In comparison to the County overall, the Urban County,
Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and Newport Beach all have slightly older populations, with
over one-fifth of their population aged 65 and older.
Since 1990, the County’s population has been getting older. Currently, the County’s
population has a smaller proportion of the population (when compared to 1990) in both the
“Under 18” and “18-64” year-old age categories, and a higher proportion of the population
in the “65+” age category. The same general trend is evident in the region and all other
jurisdictions, except for Aliso Viejo, where the percentage of the population under age 18
has increased, and the percentage of the population aged 65 and older has decreased, since
1990.
Families with Children
In Orange County, approximately 41.56% of families have children. This is slightly higher
than the region, where 40.02% of families have children. Among the participating HUD
Entitlement Cities, in comparison to the County overall:
• Aliso Viejo and Tustin have significantly higher percentages of families with children
(52.06% and 52.64%, respectively), and in Irvine, over half (50.45%) of families have
children.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 10 25-29 Regional AFH
• Laguna Niguel, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Westminster have the lowest
percentages of families with children, although the percentages are not significantly
lower than those for the County overall.
The percentage of families with children in the County is lower today than it was in 1990,
when 48.04% of families had children. This is also true in the region and the other
jurisdictions, with the following exceptions:
• Aliso Viejo, Newport Beach, and Tustin, where the current percentage of families with
children is higher than it was in 1990.
Table 1 – Demographics
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 11 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 12 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 13 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 14 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 15 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 16 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 17 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 1 – Demographics (continued)
Note 2: 10 most populous places of birth and languages at the jurisdiction level may not be the same as the 10 most populous at the Region level, and are thus labeled separately.
Note 3: Data Sources: LEP Language data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; All other data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates.
Note 1: All % represent a share of the total population within the jurisdiction or region, except family type, which is out of total families.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 18 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 19 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 20 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 2 – Demographic Trends (continued)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 21 25-29 Regional AFH
The following paragraphs describe housing patterns, including tenure, cost burden, and
the location of renters and owners.
Tenure
Table 3 - Housing Tenure, shows data on housing tenure for the region, Orange County,
the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data
are from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This table indicates
the following:
In Orange County overall, the homeownership rate is 56.5%. This is higher than the
homeownership for the region, which is 48.7%. Among the jurisdictions,
• The following have a comparable homeownership rate (within five percentage
points of the County’s rate)
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o La Habra
o Newport Beach
o Orange
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is lower than the
homeownership rate for the County overall by at least five percentage points,
indicating a higher percentage of households are renters:
o Anaheim
o Costa Mesa
o Irvine
o Santa Ana
o Tustin
• The following jurisdictions have a homeownership rate that is higher than the
County overall by at least five percentage points:
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Fountain Valley
o Laguna Niguel
o Lake Forest
o Mission Viejo
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o San Clemente
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 22 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 3 – Housing Tenure
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 23 25-29 Regional AFH
Cost Burden
Table 4 – Cost Burden shows data on housing cost burden for the region, Orange County,
the Orange County Urban County, and each HUD Entitlement City. These data are from the
2018-2022 American Community Survey 5 -Year Estimates. Cost burden is defined as
spending more than 30% of monthly gross income on housing -related costs. This table
presents the following:
In Orange County overall, over half (53.2%) of all renters are cost burdened. The rate is
significantly lower for homeowners (30.3%). These rates are comparable to the experience
of owners and renters across the region. Among the jurisdictions,
• The following have a comparable rate of cost burdened renters (within five
percentage points of the County’s rate)
o The Urban County jurisdictions
o Aliso Viejo
o Buena Park
o Costa Mesa
o Fullerton
o Garden Grove
o Huntington Beach
o Irvine
o Laguna Niguel
o La Habra
o Mission Viejo
o Orange
o Rancho Santa Margarita
o Santa Ana
o Westminster
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost -burden rate that is lower than the rate
for the County overall by at least five percentage points:
o Newport Beach
o San Clemente
• The following jurisdictions have a renter cost -burden rate that is higher than the rate
for the County overall, by at least five percentage points, meaning a higher
percentage of renters in these jurisdictions are cost burdened compared to the
County overall:
o Anaheim
o Fountain Valley
o Lake Forest
o Tustin
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 24 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 4 – Cost Burden
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 25 25-29 Regional AFH
Location of Renters and Owners
Map 1 – Housing Tenure. is a series of maps showing the distribution of renter households
in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These maps were
produced by California HCD to facilitate the fair housing planning process 5F
6. On the maps,
the darker shaded areas have a higher proportion of renter households. These maps reflect
the following:
• In Orange County overall, renters are concentrated in the north, west, and central
parts of the County. Moving east and south from the border with Los Angeles
County, a higher percentage of housing units are owner-occupied.
Within the participating jurisdictions, there are concentrations of renter-occupied and
owner-occupied housing in the following areas:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions there are relatively few areas with
a high percentage of renter households, with the exceptions of Placentia, which has
high concentrations of renter households in the southwest corner of the city and in
parts of the city near CSU-Fullerton; and Los Alamitos, which has a high
concentration of renters in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los
Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive. Conversely, there are various parts of the
Urban County jurisdictions with relatively high concentrations of owner households,
including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated area to the east of Yorba Linda, North
Tustin, Seal Beach (outside the Naval Weapons Station), Rossmoor, Villa Park,
Orange Park Acres, and Northwest Brea.
• In Aliso Viejo there is a relatively high percentage of renter households south of SR-
73 between Aliso Viejo Parkway and Woodfield Park, and a relatively high percentage
of owner households along the southern and western edges of city, south of SR -73
and west of Pacific Park Drive and Wood Canyon Drive.
• In Anaheim there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the Census
Tracts north of SR-91 in Northeast Anaheim; between the Convention Center and I-
5, and around Angel Stadium, in the southeastern part of the city; and in the Census
Tract south of I-5 bounded by Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street, in the
northwestern part of the city. There is a relatively high percentage of owner
households in Anaheim Hills.
• In Buena Park there is a relatively high percentage of renters in the Census Tracts
just north of I-5.
6 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 26 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Costa Mesa there are relatively high concentrations of renter households north of
SR-55 in the downtown area, and west of Orange Coast College ; and there is a
relatively high percentage of owner households north of Adams Avenue.
• In Fountain Valley there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the
neighborhoods south of Talbert Avenue and west of Brookhurst Street, and in the
neighborhood just to the west of Mile Square Regional Park.
• In Fullerton there are relatively high percentages of renter households in and around
CSU Fullerton and along Highland Ave between SR-91 and Orangethorpe Avenue
(adjacent to the Fullerton Metrocenter shopping mall); and there are relatively high
percentages of owner households in Census Tracts between CSU Fullerton and Brea
Boulevard, and between Harbor Boulevard and the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve.
• In Garden Grove, there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in West
Garden Grove, compared to the rest of the city.
• In Huntington Beach there are high percentages of owner households in the eastern
half of the city, as well as in the area surrounding the Huntington Club country club.
• In Irvine there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the
southwestern part of the city—specifically in the Census Tracts west of Harvard Ave,
around San Remo Park, and north of UC Irvine in University Town Center; and near
the I-5/I-405 interchange—specifically in the Census Tracts encompassing the Irvine
Medical and Science Complex, the Irvine Spectrum Center, and East Irvine.
• In La Habra there are a relatively high percentage of owner households in the
neighborhoods south of SR-90 and west of Euclid St.
• In Laguna Niguel there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the
southeast corner of the city (bordering San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point),
adjacent to the El Niguel County Club, and in the neighborhoods between Crown
Valley Pkwy and Alicia Pkwy.
• In Lake Forest there are relatively high percentages of owner households in the
northeast of the city (to the north of SR-24) and in the southwest of the city (south
of Trabuco Rd and west of Ridge Route Dr).
• In Mission Viejo there are relatively high percentages of owner households
throughout the city, with some renters located in the southern part of the city.
• In Newport Beach there is a relatively high percentage of owner households in the
Newport Coast community, and a relatively high percentage of renters around the
Newport Beach Country Club.
• In the City of Orange there are relatively high percentages of renter households in
the southwestern corner of the city, west of SR-57 and I-5, and relatively high
percentages of owner households in the eastern half of the city.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita there is a relatively high percentage of owner households
throughout the city, with some renters located in the neighborhoods just to the east
of SR-241 between Antonio Pkwy and Santa Margarita Pkwy.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 27 25-29 Regional AFH
• In San Clemente there is a relatively high percentage of renter households in the
neighborhoods south of Max Berg Plaza Park, and relatively high percentages of
homeowners in a number of neighborhoods to the north and northwest.
• In Santa Ana there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the
downtown area and in the neighborhoods southeast of downtown.
• In Tustin there are relatively high percentages of renter households in the
neighborhoods adjacent to SR-55 south of I-5, and relatively high percentages of
owner households in the northeast part of the city.
• In Westminster there are relatively high percentages of renters in the neighborhoods
just north and south of Westminster Blvd between Hoover St. and Beach Blvd.
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 28 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 29 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 30 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 1 – Housing Tenure – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 31 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis describes the demographics of residents of publicly supported
housing.
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity , provides the demographics of
residents of different types of publicly support housing programs, including Public
Housing, Project-Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, and the Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) Program. This table shows that, in Orange County:
• The majority of publicly supported housing is provided through the HCV Program
(over 20,000 households with HCVs countywide). Additionally, there are
approximately 4,000 units in Project-based Section 8 properties and approximately
100 units in Other Multifamily properties. There are no Public Housing units in the
County.
• A significant portion of households with HCVs are headed by an AAPI individual
(41.16%), followed by households headed by a White individual (25.32%), then
Hispanic-headed households (21.12%), and then Black households (7.06%).
• Project-based Section 8 units have a similar racial composition to the HCV Program
overall; however, the percentages of households headed by AAPI and White
individuals are higher (47.11% and 33.06% respectively), and households headed by
Hispanic and Black individuals are lower (15.19% and 1.77% respectively).
Within the participating jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of publicly supported
housing units varies:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the racial/ethnic composition of
households in the HCV Program and in Project-based Section 8 units matches the
County overall, with the one exception being that the number of AAPI and White
households in Project-based Section 8 units are equal (each comprise 36.75% of
those units).
• In Aliso Viejo, the only publicly supported housing available is through the HCV
Program. Two-thirds of households using HCVs in the city are White.
• In Anaheim, there are Project-based Section 8 developments in addition to
households using HCVs. In the Project-based Section 8 units, the majority of
households are AAPI. In the HCV Program, Hispanic households make up the largest
single group of voucher recipients, followed by AAPI and White households.
• In Buena Park, the overwhelming majority of households in Project -based Section 8
units are AAPI. In the HCV Program, approximately one-third of households are
Hispanic, 25% AAPI, 25% White, and nearly one-fifth of households are Black.
• In Costa Mesa, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8 housing
and the HCV Program are White, and there are no Black households in Project -based
Section 8 units.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 32 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8
housing and the HCV Program are AAPI, and there are no Black households in
Project-based Section 8 units.
• In Fullerton, nearly all of the households in Project -based Section 8 units are AAPI
and the majority of households in Other Multifamily program units are White. In the
HCV Program, White and Hispanic families each make up approximately one-third
of households, and Black and AAPI families each make up approximately 14% of
households.
• In Garden Grove, a large majority of households in both Project-based Section 8
housing and the HCV Program are AAPI (over 80% in each program).
• In Huntington Beach, over 50% of households in Project-based Section 8 units are
AAPI and around one-third are White. In the HCV Program, over 40% of households
are White and around one-third are AAPI.
• In Irvine, White households are the majority in Project -based Section 8 and Other
Multifamily program units and are the largest share of households in the HCV
Program (46.76%). In the HCV Program, Black households are the second largest
racial/ethnic group, comprising approximately one-fifth of households.
• In La Habra, Hispanic households are the majority of HCV Program participants. The
second largest racial/ethnic group is White households, who comprise 25% of
households in the program. In Project-based Section 8 units, Hispanic, White, and
AAPI each comprise approximately one-third of households.
• In Laguna Niguel, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8
housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Lake Forest, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There are
no other types of publicly supported housing in the city.
• In Mission Viejo, the majority of households in the HCV Program are White. There
are no other types of publicly supported housing included in the HUD-provided data.
(However, per the City’s Housing Element and other local sources, there are various
publicly supported housing developments in the city.)
• In Newport Beach, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8
housing and the HCV Program are White.
• In Orange, White and Hispanic households each comprise a slightly more than 40%
of households in Project-based Section 8 units, and approximately one-third of
households in the HCV Program. AAPI households make up around 25% of
households in the HCV Program.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the majority of households in the HCV Program are
White. There are no other types of publicly supported housing in the city.
• In San Clemente, the majority of households in both Project -based Section 8
housing and the HCV Program are White.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 33 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Santa Ana, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units and in the
HCV Program are AAPI. The second largest racial/ethnic group in each of these
programs is Hispanic households.
• In Tustin, the majority of households in Project-based Section 8 units are AAPI (over
70%) and approximately one-fifth are White. In the HCV Program, Hispanic
households are the largest group (38%), followed by White households (33%).
• In Westminster, AAPI households are the majority in both Project -based Section 8
units and in the HCV Program.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 34 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 653 6.67%2,696 27.54%6,055 61.84%374 3.82%
Project-Based S ection 8 9,108 23.49%6,733 17.37%10,666 27.51%12,058 31.10%
Other Multifam ily 1,706 32.43%450 8.55%1,173 22.30%1,909 36.29%
HCV Program 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Total Households 1,741,265 40.51%332,330 7.73%1,458,220 33.92%666,628 15.51%
0-30% of AMI 242,025 29.00%96,395 11.55%355,100 42.55%122,168 14.64%
0-50% of AMI 425,645 28.94%149,340 10.16%661,570 44.99%203,018 13.81%
0-80% of AMI 682,980 30.49%208,645 9.31%990,690 44.22%310,058 13.84%
Orange County, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based S ection 8 1,362 33.06%73 1.77%626 15.19%1,941 47.11%
Other Multifam ily 71 68.27%8 7.69%10 9.62%6 5.77%
HCV Program 5,776 25.32%1,610 7.06%4,819 21.12%9,390 41.16%
Total Households 537,517 51.84%16,903 1.63%241,657 23.30%186,863 18.02%
0-30% of AMI 63,893 40.68%2,935 1.87%52,308 33.30%34,051 21.68%
0-50% of AMI 119,885 41.29%5,251 1.81%102,916 35.45%55,867 19.24%
0-80% of AMI 206,268 43.82%8,396 1.78%160,512 34.10%85,187 18.10%
Orange County Urban County
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based S ection 8 154 36.75%11 2.63%96 22.91%154 36.75%
Other Multifam ily 21 87.50%0 0.00%3 12.50%0 0.00%
HCV Program 729 31.81%164 7.16%420 18.35%969 42.30%
Total Households 123,567 64.87%3,074 1.61%30,302 15.91%29,493 15.48%
0-30% of AMI 14,141 57.02%339 1.37%5,608 22.61%4,234 17.07%
0-50% of AMI 27,749 57.61%644 1.34%10,983 22.80%7,883 16.36%
0-80% of AMI 46,897 59.09%1,298 1.64%17,045 21.48%12,551 15.82%
Aliso Viejo, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based S ection 8 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Other Multifam ily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 109 66.09%17 10.60%23 13.90%14 8.60%
Total Households 12,570 67.58%380 2.04%2,120 11.40%2,830 15.22%
0-30% of AMI 960 67.37%85 5.96%100 7.02%205 14.39%
0-50% of AMI 1,675 66.07%180 7.10%195 7.69%385 15.19%
0-80% of AMI 3,540 65.98%250 4.66%555 10.34%770 14.35%
Anaheim, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based S ection 8 58 21.48%14 5.19%51 18.89%146 54.07%
Other Multifam ily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 1,273 26.52%430 8.96%1,788 37.25%1,290 26.89%
Total Households 36,390 36.39%2,688 2.69%41,509 41.51%17,464 17.46%
0-30% of AMI 5,410 26.79%670 3.32%10,364 51.32%3,345 16.56%
0-50% of AMI 10,610 27.99%1,214 3.20%19,969 52.68%5,429 14.32%
0-80% of AMI 17,010 28.83%1,723 2.92%30,514 51.72%8,554 14.50%
Buena Park, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based S ection 8 13 11.40%1 0.88%5 4.39%95 83.33%
Other Multifam ily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 174 24.25%127 17.65%232 32.25%184 25.54%
Total Households 7,540 32.34%835 3.58%7,705 33.05%6,830 29.29%
0-30% of AMI 885 21.74%250 6.14%1,545 37.96%1,300 31.94%
0-50% of AMI 1,820 22.28%315 3.86%3,590 43.94%2,270 27.78%
0-80% of AMI 3,180 25.68%515 4.16%5,020 40.53%3,440 27.78%
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Race/Ethnicity
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 35 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Costa Mesa, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 69 65.09%0 0.00%19 17.92%18 16.98%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 376 57.17%23 3.50%107 16.24%149 22.64%
Total Households 25,230 61.75%695 1.70%10,105 24.73%3,870 9.47%
0-30% of AMI 3,720 54.35%105 1.53%2,380 34.77%480 7.01%
0-50% of AMI 6,395 51.45%175 1.41%4,680 37.65%955 7.68%
0-80% of AMI 10,960 53.71%285 1.40%6,955 34.08%1,800 8.82%
F ountain Valley, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 10 14.29%0 0.00%1 1.43%59 84.29%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 99 19.23%6 1.21%44 8.55%363 70.42%
Total Households 10,409 55.16%175 0.93%2,166 11.48%5,794 30.70%
0-30% of AMI 1,305 49.25%0 0.00%227 8.57%1,015 38.30%
0-50% of AMI 2,299 51.26%25 0.56%472 10.52%1,539 34.31%
0-80% of AMI 4,214 52.51%70 0.87%1,036 12.91%2,529 31.51%
F ullerton, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 5 5.00%0 0.00%1 1.00%94 94.00%
Other Multifamily 38 79.17%3 6.25%5 10.42%2 4.17%
HCV Program 264 38.23%96 13.99%232 33.64%95 13.71%
Total Households 20,005 44.40%1,448 3.21%11,890 26.39%10,615 23.56%
0-30% of AMI 3,305 37.49%344 3.90%2,835 32.16%2,100 23.82%
0-50% of AMI 5,515 37.14%434 2.92%5,350 36.03%3,205 21.58%
0-80% of AMI 9,305 38.61%789 3.27%8,375 34.75%4,965 20.60%
Garden Grove, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 34 13.28%3 1.17%4 1.56%215 83.98%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 133 4.98%35 1.30%219 8.24%2,270 85.23%
Total Households 14,254 29.92%592 1.24%13,550 28.44%18,417 38.66%
0-30% of AMI 2,160 20.26%165 1.55%3,100 29.08%5,054 47.42%
0-50% of AMI 3,865 20.48%204 1.08%6,200 32.86%8,244 43.69%
0-80% of AMI 7,080 23.55%303 1.01%10,125 33.68%12,043 40.06%
Huntington Beach, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 133 35.00%4 1.05%41 10.79%200 52.63%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 461 42.58%50 4.61%166 15.36%399 36.88%
Total Households 53,650 71.15%753 1.00%10,855 14.40%8,114 10.76%
0-30% of AMI 5,730 60.89%115 1.22%2,140 22.74%1,220 12.96%
0-50% of AMI 11,035 62.66%183 1.04%3,905 22.17%2,105 11.95%
0-80% of AMI 20,055 65.89%323 1.06%6,110 20.08%3,205 10.53%
Irvine, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 428 59.03%24 3.31%42 5.79%231 31.86%
Other Multifamily 12 52.17%5 21.74%2 8.70%4 17.39%
HCV Program 682 46.76%282 19.34%246 16.84%243 16.67%
Total Households 45,515 50.61%1,800 2.00%6,788 7.55%33,230 36.95%
0-30% of AMI 6,055 45.27%230 1.72%1,145 8.56%5,260 39.33%
0-50% of AMI 9,580 46.56%510 2.48%1,939 9.42%7,670 37.28%
0-80% of AMI 16,010 49.11%625 1.92%2,959 9.08%11,750 36.04%
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 36 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APSH, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 37 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 5 – Publicly Supported Households by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 87 62.31%21 14.87%24 17.06%6 4.50%
Total Households 11,890 69.59%285 1.67%2,674 15.65%1,855 10.86%
0-30% of AMI 1,095 66.57%0 0.00%440 26.75%60 3.65%
0-50% of AMI 1,855 61.22%50 1.65%805 26.57%215 7.10%
0-80% of AMI 3,525 65.58%65 1.21%1,295 24.09%355 6.60%
San Clemente, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 52 73.24%0 0.00%9 12.68%9 12.68%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 100 72.35%5 3.82%26 18.61%6 4.62%
Total Households 19,495 79.56%130 0.53%3,264 13.32%965 3.94%
0-30% of AMI 1,820 67.16%20 0.74%605 22.32%35 1.29%
0-50% of AMI 3,980 70.76%20 0.36%1,264 22.47%65 1.16%
0-80% of AMI 6,420 72.62%55 0.62%1,809 20.46%225 2.55%
Santa Ana, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 44 5.47%9 1.12%202 25.12%462 57.46%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 191 10.86%69 3.89%537 30.49%958 54.41%
Total Households 12,430 16.55%899 1.20%50,935 67.83%9,959 13.26%
0-30% of AMI 1,570 8.63%159 0.87%13,565 74.59%2,745 15.09%
0-50% of AMI 3,405 9.76%299 0.86%26,460 75.88%4,400 12.62%
0-80% of AMI 6,150 11.63%529 1.00%39,210 74.16%6,440 12.18%
Tustin, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 20 19.42%0 0.00%10 9.71%73 70.87%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 192 33.12%86 14.95%219 37.88%79 13.70%
Total Households 10,485 40.69%604 2.34%7,710 29.92%6,084 23.61%
0-30% of AMI 1,480 39.31%160 4.25%1,465 38.91%589 15.64%
0-50% of AMI 2,660 34.08%240 3.07%3,535 45.29%1,134 14.53%
0-80% of AMI 4,595 34.93%375 2.85%5,965 45.34%1,874 14.25%
Westminster, CA
Housing Type #%#%#%#%
Public Housing 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
Project-Based Section 8 3 3.03%0 0.00%1 1.01%95 95.96%
Other Multifamily 0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%
HCV Program 122 5.13%21 0.87%103 4.33%2,131 89.46%
Total Households 9,270 34.01%203 0.74%5,165 18.95%12,121 44.47%
0-30% of AMI 1,595 22.62%14 0.20%1,195 16.95%4,154 58.92%
0-50% of AMI 2,800 23.64%24 0.20%2,260 19.08%6,599 55.71%
0-80% of AMI 4,685 27.38%79 0.46%3,630 21.22%8,397 49.08%
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
Note 3: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census, APS H, and CHAS; accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 6, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Numbers presented are numbers of households not individuals.
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
White Black Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 38 25-29 Regional AFH
B. Segregation/Concentration and Integration
The following analysis describes segregation/concentration levels, identifies the
racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation /concentration, and
explains how these levels and patterns have changed over time .
Table 6 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, displays how segregated/concentrated or
integrated various racial/ethnic groups are in the region, the Orange County Urban County,
and the HUD Entitlement Cities using a Dissimilarity Index, which is calculated using data
from the 2010 Decennial Census. The Dissimilarity Index measures the degree to which two
groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is commonly used for
assessing residential segregation/integration between two groups. Dissimila rity index
values indicate the following:
• Values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low
segregation/concentration)
• Values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation /concentration
• Values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of
segregation/concentration
Please note two key shortcomings of these data:
1. The data only measure segregation between Black and White, Hispanic, and White,
and AAPI and White residents. As a result, no conclusions can be drawn regarding
segregation among Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents.
2. The data measure segregation only within each jurisdiction and do provide insights
into racial/ethnic segregation across jurisdictional boundaries.
Table 6 shows that, in the region, there are high levels of segregation between Black and
White residents and between Hispanic and White residents, and there is moderate
segregation between AAPI and White residents. Since 1990, segregation between Black
and White residents has declined, while segregation between Hispanic/White and
AAPI/White has increased.
In Orange County the following jurisdictions are highly integrated, indicating low levels of
segregation/concentration among the groups analyzed:
• The Urban County jurisdictions – While segregation levels are higher compared to
1990, they have trended downward since 2000 for Black/White and Hispanic/White
residents.
• Aliso Viejo – Since 1990, concentrations of Hispanic and AAPI residents have been
increasing but remain low.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 39 25-29 Regional AFH
• Anaheim – Segregation levels between Black/White and AAPI/White have been
increasing since 1990. Segregation level between Hispanic/White were high in 2000
but have since declined.
• Buena Park – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low.
• Fountain Valley – Since 1990, segregation levels between Hispanic/White and
between AAPI/White have been increasing but remain low.
• Fullerton – Segregation level between AAPI/White is increasing but remains low.
• Garden Grove – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low.
• Huntington Beach – Segregation level between Black/White increased between
2000-2010 but remains low.
• Irvine – Segregation levels between the groups analyzed decreased between 2000-
2010.
• La Habra – Since 1990, segregation between Black/White residents has increased,
though remains low, and segregation between Hispanic/White and between
AAPI/White has decreased.
• Laguna Niguel – Between 1990-2010, concentrations of Black and Hispanic residents
increased, though remain low.
• Lake Forest – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and between
AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Mission Viejo – Between 1990-2010, concentration of Hispanic residents increased,
though remains low.
• Newport Beach – Between 1990-2010, segregation between Hispanic/White and
between AAPI/White increased, though remains low.
• Orange – Between 1990-2010, segregation between AAPI/White increased, though
remains low.
• Rancho Santa Margarita – Concentration by race/ethnic group has increased since
1990 but remains low.
• Westminster – Segregation levels have increased since 1990 but remain low.
In Orange County the following jurisdictions have moderate levels of segregation between
at least two of the racial groups analyzed (no jurisdictions in the County have high levels
of segregation):
• Costa Mesa – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.
Segregation levels declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate.
• Santa Ana – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents,
and between AAPI and White. Segregation levels between Hispanic/White residents
declined slightly between 2000-2010 but remain moderate. Since 1990, segregation
between AAPI/White residents has increased.
• Tustin – There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents.
Segregation levels declined between 2000-2010 but remain moderate.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 40 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 55.32 55.50 54.64 30.48 36.54 35.55 1.79 6.49 8.90
Black/White 72.75 68.12 65.22 32.90 35.33 34.07 15.82 12.66 11.59
Hispanic/White 60.12 62.44 62.15 36.26 42.43 39.52 0.19 14.88 15.67
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 43.46 46.02 45.77 32.65 36.76 37.16 0.31 4.86 7.94
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 29.33 31.57 31.56 18.17 22.07 21.40 29.84 36.88 34.33
Black/White 22.16 25.87 27.69 21.76 23.51 25.25 30.17 27.07 27.67
Hispanic/White 38.77 40.24 38.70 26.64 33.21 30.85 34.52 45.33 41.88
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.23 17.28 21.53 11.56 13.87 16.44 30.36 31.94 30.59
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 14.25 22.27 23.54 25.53 31.16 30.52 25.05 31.79 32.16
Black/White 27.24 27.57 26.28 30.60 31.84 26.53 22.19 23.11 23.45
Hispanic/White 21.64 28.33 29.59 33.72 39.98 38.28 27.67 32.64 33.20
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.85 22.12 23.58 30.41 33.48 35.24 27.45 34.97 33.98
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 21.11 23.44 21.58 16.49 21.55 18.01 28.18 26.72 24.14
Black/White 21.45 19.99 24.20 42.99 27.84 19.37 12.56 13.25 19.36
Hispanic/White 28.10 33.37 30.09 21.98 22.79 17.88 33.93 30.96 28.59
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.86 20.11 18.25 18.18 22.57 18.73 40.48 38.69 36.53
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 9.17 12.98 16.34 9.39 15.38 17.28 13.67 15.17 15.75
Black/White 13.82 22.75 16.24 12.43 12.16 9.52 18.03 20.63 16.83
Hispanic/White 13.34 20.76 22.79 15.72 26.10 27.63 12.26 18.75 20.96
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 13.37 12.68 13.82 8.84 11.06 13.46 20.00 16.83 13.98
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 13.20 15.04 17.04 23.75 24.25 22.59 5.43 12.26 14.07
Black/White 21.92 19.85 15.96 24.17 24.63 24.89 7.18 12.64 13.35
Hispanic/White 14.33 18.29 18.21 30.31 29.99 26.95 5.73 19.52 23.13
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 22.99 23.74 25.92 19.44 22.28 22.53 6.70 8.56 9.55
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 21.89 25.93 16.76 47.77 49.28 46.49 26.33 36.73 32.93
Black/White 13.86 19.08 14.93 36.53 27.91 25.15 42.49 35.11 29.02
Hispanic/White 27.16 32.90 23.71 53.09 53.61 50.00 31.13 48.20 42.54
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 14.66 14.76 16.56 43.10 46.77 46.87 19.20 17.74 19.76
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Non-White/White 24.58 28.05 31.59
Black/White 11.56 14.18 17.62
Hispanic/White 30.31 29.74 31.83
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.15 29.73 34.65
Lake Forest, CA
Note 1: Data Source: Decennial Census, accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table 3, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
Westminster, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Orange, CA
Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Aliso Viejo, CA
Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Orange County Urban County
Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA La Habra, CA
Laguna Niguel, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 41 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis identifies areas with relatively high segregation/concentration and
integration and indicates the predominant groups living in each area.
Race/Ethnicity
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration, is a series of maps showing racial/ethnic
concentrations in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange County. These
maps are published by California HCD using methodology from the Othering & Belonging
Institute, which combines various measures of segregation and integration (including a
dissimilarity index), and uses data from 2020. On these maps, dark red indicates areas
where people of color (POC) experience high levels of segregation /concentration; green
indicates areas where White residents experience high levels of segregation /concentration;
yellow indicates areas that are racially/ethnically integrated.
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity , is a series of maps showing the
predominant racial/ethnic group by Census Tract in the region, and in northern, central,
and southern Orange County. The colors indicate different racial/ethnic groups, and the
relative strength of the shading indicates the extent to which one group is dominant over
the next most populous group (with darker shading indicating a higher concentration of
that racial/ethnic group). These maps were created by California HCD using 2017-2021 ACS
data, to facilitate fair housing planning.6F
7
Collectively, the maps illustrate that in Orange County overall, there are areas of high POC
segregation/concentration in the central and northern parts of the County (including the
cities of Santa Ana, Westminster, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Fullerton), and there are
areas of high White segregation/concentration along the entire coast (including Seal Beach,
Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Dana Paint, Capistrano Beach, and San
Clemente) and in the southern part of the County (including Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo,
Laguna Niguel, and Rancho Santa Margarita).
Within each participating jurisdiction, there are areas of high segregation/integration in the
following locations:
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are areas of high White segregation in Dana Point, Laguna Beach,
Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, the unincorporated areas east of Rancho Santa
Margarita, North Tustin, Seal Beach, Yorba Linda, northern Placentia, Villa
Park, and Orange Park Acres.
o There are areas of high POC segregation in Stanton (which are predominantly
Hispanic or AAPI), Cypress (which are predominantly AAPI), northern Yorba
7 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 42 25-29 Regional AFH
Linda (which are predominantly AAPI), La Palma (which are predominantly
AAPI), and San Juan Capistrano (which is predominantly Hispanic).
o There are areas of integration including the Atwood neighborhood in
Placentia, which is predominantly Hispanic; Brea just northwest of the SR-
90/SR-57 interchange, which is a predominantly Hispanic area; and in Los
Alamitos, in the neighborhood north of Joint Forces Training Base Los
Alamitos and west of Lexington Drive, which is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration,
with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which
are predominantly White) in the northern and eastern parts of the city.
• In Anaheim, the map shows integrated areas in Southeast Anaheim (where Hispanic
residents are the predominant group), in western Anaheim west of Brookhurst St reet
(where Hispanic residents are the predominant group in many neighborhoods, and
AAPI residents are the predominant group in a few others), and in the
neighborhoods between Modjeska Park and Palm Lane Park in the Hermosa Village
community (where Hispanic residents are the predominant group). The map shows
another integrated area in Northeast Anaheim, to the north of SR-91. However, this
is primarily an industrial/commercial area. The city also has neighborhoods of high
POC segregation, including the neighborhoods north of downtown and along SR -
91, and neighborhoods south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas
are predominantly Hispanic. The Anaheim Hills area demonstrates a high White
segregation.
• In Buena Park, most of the city is considered an area of low-medium segregation
with the exception of the following areas: the northeast corner of the city is
considered an area of high POC segregation and is predominantly AAPI; the
neighborhood between I-5, Artesia Boulevard, Beach Boulevard, and the Los
Angeles County border is also considered an area of high POC segregation, and is
predominantly Hispanic; and the neighborhoods south of Boisseranc Park between
Dale Street and the nurseries, is considered a racially integrated area.
• In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods between downtown and the Costa Mesa Country
Club are areas of high POC segregation, with a predominantly Hispanic population.
The neighborhoods in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive)
are all areas of high White segregation, as are the neighborhoods north of the
Country Club and the neighborhoods between Estancia High School and Canyon
Park.
• In Fountain Valley, the majority of Census Tracts are considered areas of high POC
segregation, and many have a predominantly AAPI population (particularly north of
Warner Avenue). The neighborhoods surrounding the intersection of Magnolia
Street and Ellis Avenue in the city’s southwest, and between Brookhurst Street and
Ward Street south of I-405, are considered areas of high White segregation.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 43 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fullerton, there are various neighborhoods that are considered racially integrated,
including in the area around CSU Fullerton and extending west to Fullerton College,
and in the southwest area of the city. There are also areas considered to have high
POC segregation, including most of the neighborhoods west of Harbor Boulevard
and north of Malvern Avenue, which are predominantly AAPI areas.
• In Garden Grove, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC
segregation except for West Garden Grove. In West Garden Grove, the residential
neighborhoods west of Knott Street are considered areas of high White segregation.
East of Knott Street is primarily industrial and commercial land uses. In the high POC
segregation areas, AAPI residents are the predominant group west of 9th Street and
Hispanic residents are the predominant group east of there.
• In Huntington Beach, most of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White,
with the exception of one Census Tract in the center of the city that is predominantly
Hispanic.
• In Irvine, there are a number of Census Tracts considered to be areas of high POC
segregation, some of which are predominantly AAPI and others are predominantly
White. These areas include the neighborhoods between I-405 and UC Irvine, the
Westpark community north of I-405, the neighborhoods between Como Channel and
I-5, and the Northwood community north of I-5. There are also areas of high White
segregation in Irvine, including the neighborhood bounded by Turtle Rock Drive the
area surrounding the Strawberry Farms Golf Club, the Woodbridge community north
of I-405, and the neighborhood west of the Oak Creek Golf Club. Please note that data
was unavailable for many parts of the city, as indicated by the grey shading.
• In La Habra, there are various neighborhoods considered to have high POC
segregation, including neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe
Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to the east. These
neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic. The city also has two racially integrated
areas, one that extends across its border to the west (between SR-90 and the railroad
tracks) and another that extends across its border to the south (south of SR-90 and
east of Euclid St).
• In Laguna Niguel, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration,
with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration (which
are predominantly White) in the northeastern and eastern parts of the city.
• In Lake Forest, most of the city’s neighborhoods have a predominantly White
population. There are predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in the southeast
corner of the city, along El Toro Road, and the northwest corner of the city is
predominantly AAPI.
• In Mission Viejo, most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration,
with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium concentration in the
southern, northern, and western parts of the city.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 44 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Newport Beach, the entire city is classified as an area of high White segregation.
• In Orange, most of the city to the north and east of Villa Park is considered an area
of high White segregation, and most of the city to the south and west of Villa Park is
considered an area of low-medium POC segregation. In the low-medium
segregation areas, the neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic west of Glassel
Street with a high concentration of Hispanic residents in the neighborhoods north
of Walnut Avenue. The neighborhoods between Glassel Street and SR-55 are
predominantly White, and the neighborhoods east of SR-55 and south of Villa Park
are predominantly Hispanic. There is one area in the city that is considered
integrated. This area lies to the south of Villa Park and runs south along Santiago
Creek and east along the northside of Chapman Avenue toward El Modena.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, most of the city is considered an area of high White
concentration, with the exception of a few neighborhoods with low-medium
concentration (which are predominantly White) in the neighborhoods east of SR-241
between Antonio Parkway and Santa Margarita Parkway.
• In San Clemente, the majority of the city is considered an area of high White
concentration, with the exception of one Census Tract encompassing neighborhoods
north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as low-medium
concentration with a predominantly White population.
• In Santa Ana, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation
and has a predominantly Hispanic population except for the Riverview West
community which is predominantly AAPI. There are some areas of low-medium POC
segregation in the city, including the neighborhoods north of I-5, Floral Park, West
Floral Park, Fisher Park, Morrison/Eldridge Park, Riverglen, Casa de Santiago, and
neighborhoods south of Warner Avenue. There is one integrated area in the southern
part of the city between Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping
Mall, where White residents are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, there are racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I -5. These
are surrounded by neighborhoods of low-medium segregation that are a mix of
predominantly White, Hispanic, and AAPI.
• In Westminster, the majority of the city is considered an area of high POC
segregation and has a predominantly AAPI population with a few exceptions. The
northwestern corner of the city, between I-405 and Bolsa Chica Road is an area of
high White segregation. Across I-405 from those neighborhoods is an integrated
area with a predominantly Hispanic population (west of Edwards Avenue). This area
includes mobile home parks near the intersections of SR-22 and I-405.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 45 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 46 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 47 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 48 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 2 – Racial/Ethnic Concentration – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 49 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 50 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 51 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 52 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 3 – Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis compares the locations of publicly supported housing with the
areas of concentration.
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing, is a series of maps showing the location of federal-
and state-subsidized housing in the region, and in northern, central, and southern Orange
County. These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning,
using data from California Housing Partnership7F
8. On the maps, the size of each dot
correlates to the number of publicly-supported housing units in an area —larger dots
indicate higher numbers of units. The shading of the Census Tracts indicates the
percentage of renter occupied housing units in that Tract that are supported by a HCV,
including both tenant-based and project-based vouchers. The darker shading indicates
higher percentages of vouchers.
The locations of publicly supported housing on these maps align with the areas of
segregation and integration on Map 2 (Racial/Ethnic Segregation/Integration), in the
following places:
8 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 53 25-29 Regional AFH
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There is overlap between the location of publicly supported housing,
including a high rate of voucher use, and areas of high POC segregation in
the following places:
▪ Cypress – in the neighborhood around King Elementary School, in the
north of the city.
▪ Placentia – in the southwest corner of the city
▪ Stanton – throughout the city
▪ San Juan Capistrano – in the Census Tract that encompasses the
interchange between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74)
o There is overlap between areas without any publicly supported housing and
either low HCV use or no data on HCV use, and areas of high White
segregation, the following places:
▪ Rossmoor, Seal Beach, North Tustin, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres,
North Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, and Dana Point
• In Aliso Viejo, there are publicly supported units and higher percentages of units
with vouchers in the south of city, which is an area of high White concentration.
• In Anaheim, there are multiple publicly supported housing developments
downtown and north of downtown, which are high POC segregation areas. The
map also shows a concentration of vouchers in the high POC segregation area
between Santa Ana River and Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Anaheim Canyon
Metrolink station and west of Imperial Highway (SR-90). However, this is largely
a commercial/industrial area with few housing units. In the western part of the
city, around Western High School, there is also a cluster of publicly supported
housing developments in a racially integrated area.
• In Buena Park, most publicly supported housing units are located in between I-5
and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), which is a low-medium segregation area like
most of the city.
• In Costa Mesa, the largest number of publicly supported housing units and the
highest concentration of vouchers is in high POC segregation area located
downtown and west of downtown.
• In Fountain Valley, the location of publicly supported housing units and highest
concentrations of vouchers mirrors the high POC segregation areas.
• In Fullerton, publicly supported housing units are mostly clustered in the center
of the city, which is a low-medium segregation area.
• In Garden Grove, there are lots of publicly supported housing units in the center
of city along Garden Grove Boulevard , which is a high POC segregation area.
There are no publicly supported housing units in West Garden Grove, which is an
area of high White segregation.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 54 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Huntington Beach, the map shows publicly supported housing units located
in the center of the city. Local data identify affordable housing projects
distributed broadly across the city.
• In Irvine, the high POC segregation areas north of I-405 overlap with the location
of publicly supported housing units. In other parts of the city where there is high
voucher use and multiple publicly supported housing developments, there is no
segregation data available.
• In La Habra, publicly supported housing units are located in the city’s center and
north neighborhoods, which are all low-medium or high POC segregation areas.
• In Laguna Niguel, the map shows one public supported housing development
(near the intersection of Pacific Park Drive and La Paz Road ) and a small
concentration of voucher use in northwest part of city, which is a low-medium
concentration area. City staff report that another development in the western part
of the City also receives vouchers.
• In Lake Forest, there are publicly supported housing units in the northwest, near
the intersection of SR-241 and Alton Parkway. There are a smaller number of units
in the south of the city, along El Toro Road.
• In Mission Viejo, the map shows two publicly supported housing developments
in the southern part of the city. One of these developments, in the southeast,
aligns with a low-medium concentration area. City staff report that there are
additional publicly supported housing developments that are not reflected in the
HUD-provided data.
• In Newport Beach, there are two publicly supported housing developments (one
east and one west of Newport Center), both of which are in high White
segregation areas.
• In Orange, all publicly supported housing units and households with vouchers
are located to the west and south of Villa Park (which are low-medium
segregation areas). There are no units or vouchers in use to the east of Villa Park,
where it is a high White segregation area. The largest publicly supported housing
development (biggest blue dot) is in the integrated area to the south of Villa Park,
running south along Santiago Creek and east along the northside of Chapman
Avenue towards El Modena.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no publicly supported housing units. There are
some vouchers in use in the northeast part of the city that is a low-medium
concentration area
• In San Clemente, there is a cluster of publicly supported housing units in the low-
medium concentration area north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park.
• In Santa Ana, a significant number of publicly supported housing units are located
downtown and southeast of downtown, both of which are high POC segregation
areas. There is a higher concentration of vouchers, as well as some publicly
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 55 25-29 Regional AFH
supported housing units, west of the Santa Ana River, which is also a high POC
segregation area.
• In Tustin, there is a large concentration of publicly supported housing units in the
south. Segregation data for this area are unavailable; however, according to Map 3
(Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity) the population is predominantly AAPI.
• In Westminster, the location of publicly supported housing units and areas with
highest concentration of vouchers aligns with the high POC segregation areas in the
central part of the city. There are no publicly supported housing units, and fewer
vouchers in use, in the western parts of the city that are high White segregation ,
racially integrated, and low-medium segregation areas.
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 56 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Region (HCV Only)
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 57 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 58 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 59 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 4 - Publicly Supported Housing – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic
shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the
patterns described above (including siting decisions of private or publicly supported
housing or the location of residents using Housing Choice Vouchers).
Broadly speaking, the patterns of residential segregation/concentration by race – both
between and within jurisdictions in Orange County and across the United States – are due,
in part, to:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation, which created many of
the residential patterns that still exist today.
• Local land use and zoning laws that have perpetuated patterns of racial segregation,
some of which remain in place, while others which have been removed but continue
to have lasting effects.
• Market factors, including the high cost of land and existing housing throughout
Orange County, constrain the development of new affordable housing and limit
access for families to existing housing.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 60 25-29 Regional AFH
• Discrimination in the private housing market, including source-of-income
discrimination, driven in part by a lack of knowledge of state and federal fair housing
laws and regulations, which in turn limits housing mobility.
• There are numerous ethnic enclaves of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Chinese, and other
groups throughout Orange County. These enclaves provide a sense of community
and a social network that may help newcomers preserve their cultural identities.
However, these active choices should not obscure the significant impact of structural
barriers to fair housing choice and discrimination.
Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that
segregation/concentration patterns in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap
between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program
participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity) areas.
• Lack of housing mobility for some minority groups based on a lack of credit history
coupled with high demand for affordable housing across the County, which permits
landlords and property management companies to prioritize applicants based on
credit history.
Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic
trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to segregation /concentration in
each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.
C. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
The following analysis identifies R/ECAPs and/or groupings of R/ECAP tracts.
HUD defines racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) as Census Tracts
that meet both of the following criteria:
• a non-White population of 50 percent or more, and
• a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or a poverty rate that is three or more times the
average Tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
The analysis in this report uses a measure of segregation and concentrated poverty created
by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California HCD. The
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s poverty concentration and racial segregation filter aligns
with HUD's R/ECAP methodology but is designed to more effectively reflect the level of
racial and ethnic diversity in many parts of California. This measure uses the following
criteria to define Census Tracts as “High Segregation and Poverty” areas:
• Tracts and rural block groups where at least 30 percent of the population is living
below the poverty l evel (note that college and graduate students are removed from
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 61 25-29 Regional AFH
the poverty calculation in the filter in Census Tracts where they comprise at least 25%
of the population); and
• Tracts that have a Location Quotient (LQ) higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian,
or all people of color. The LQ measures relative segregation by calculating how much
more segregated a Census Tract is relative to a larger area (in this case, the County).
Compared to the measure used by HUD (which is an absolute threshold of non-
White population in a Census Tract), this measure better captures inequality
operating on individuals at the neighborhood level.
Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas, indicates racially or ethnically concentrated
areas of poverty in Orange County (note that the only R/ECAP areas are located in the
central part of the County). This map was created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing
planning, using the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data. This map shows R/ECAPs in the
following areas:
• Placentia – in the southwestern corner of the city, south of Orangethorpe Avenue
• Anaheim – northeast of Disneyland, along Ball R oad and I-5
• Garden Grove – in the northern part of the city to between Brookhurst St reet and
Gilbert Street, north of Chapman Avenue
• Santa Ana – covering multiple Census Tracts in the downtown
• Costa Mesa – on the west side of downtown and the area southwest of downtown
(between Newport Avenue (SR-55) and Placentia Avenue, south of 19th Street).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 62 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 5 – High Segregation and Poverty Areas – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes and identifies the predominant protected classes residing
in R/ECAPs, and how these demographics compare with the overall demographics of the
area.
To identify the predominant protected classes residing in R/ECAPs and compare them to
the overall demographics of the surrounding areas, we look at the areas designated as
“High Segregation and Poverty” on Map 5 (High Segregation and Poverty Areas) in relation
to the demographic information on Map 3 (Predominant Population by Race/Ethnicity). The
analysis finds that R/ECAPs in Orange County are predominantly Hispanic. Specifically,
• In Placentia, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods
to the west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim. The neighborhoods to the east are
predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding
neighborhoods.
• In Costa Mesa, the R/ECAP area is predominantly Hispanic, as are the adjacent
neighborhoods to the north and west. The Census Tracts to the east, across Newport
Avenue, are all predominantly White.
• In Garden Grove, the R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic and is surrounded by
Census Tracts that are predominantly AAPI.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 63 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Santa Ana, the R/ECAP Tracts are predominantly Hispanic, as are all the
surrounding neighborhoods.
The following analysis describes how R/ECAPs align with the location of publicly
supported housing.
Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs, shows the location of public-supported
housing in Orange County in comparison to the location of the R/ECAPs (outlined in red).
This map shows no overarching patterns between the location of publicly supported
housing and R/ECAPs.
• In Placentia, the R/ECAP area is home to one public housing development of 50-100
units, and between 5-15% of renter-occupied units in the Tract utilize a voucher—
which is similar to other Tracts in the city.
• In Anaheim, there are no publicly supported housing units in the R/ECAP Tract, and
fewer than 5% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP Tract utilize a voucher.
• In Costa Mesa, the largest publicly supported housing development in the city is
located on the northern boundary of the R/ECAP area. There is no data on voucher
usage in the Tract.
• In Garden Grove, 15-30% of renter-occupied units in the R/ECAP tract utilize a
voucher, which is similar to a number of other non -R/ECAP Tr acts in the city. There
are no publicly supported housing developments in the R/ECAP Tract.
• In Santa Ana, fewer than 5% of renter-occupied housing units in the R/ECAP areas
utilize a voucher; however, there are various publicly supported housing
developments within the boundaries of the R/ECAP area.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 64 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 6 - Publicly Supported Housing and R/ECAPs
Source: Created by authors using map from California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 65 25-29 Regional AFH
The following analysis describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic
shifts, economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the
patterns described above.
In the most recent Housing Elements prepared and adopted by each jurisdiction, the
following factors were identified that contribute to the existence of R/ECAPs in these
jurisdictions.
In Placentia:
• Lack of affordable housing, which limits housing mobility.
• Limited participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program .
• Land use and development practices that constrain affordable housing
development.
• Private discrimination in housing, due in part to a lack of fair housing knowledge
and enforcement.
In Anaheim:
• Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation have created many of the
residential patterns that still exist today. Additionally, the high cost of land and
existing housing in Anaheim (and throughout Orange County) are significant
constraints to the development of new affordable housing and access for families to
existing housing.
In Costa Mesa:
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families.
• Lack of affordable housing due to both governmental and market constraints.
In Garden Grove:
• Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes, due to high land and
development costs in the region, public opposition to new development, and land
use and zoning laws.
• Housing discrimination, which limits mobility for families.
• Limited access to financial services.
• Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency.
• Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.
In Santa Ana:
• Lack of fair housing education and outreach.
• Lack of affordable housing.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 66 25-29 Regional AFH
D. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following paragraphs analyze disparities in access to opportunity for education,
employment, transportation, poverty, environmentally healthy neighborhoods, disability
and access, and patterns in any disparities to access to opportunity.
1. Education
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (below), includes a School Proficiency
Index, which measures the proximity various racial/ethnic groups have, based on where
they live, to neighborhoods with high-performing schools. School proficiency is measured
using school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams. The index
is based on a range of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better proximity to high -
performing schools.
Table 6 shows the following disparities in access to neighborhoods with high-performing
schools in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods with high
performing schools. Access is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, and highest
for White and AAPI residents. Access is especially low for Black residents living
below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, Hispanic residents have the least
access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, and this disparity is even
more pronounced for Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Compared to the
region, access is better across all groups and there are smaller disparities between
groups.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all
groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups.
• In Anaheim, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low
for all groups in the city and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic
residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black residents.
Access also tends to be worse for residents living below the FPL, with Hispanic
residents living below the FPL having the least access to neighborhoods with high -
performing schools.
• In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access to neighborhoods with
high-performing schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for
Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Residents in the city have better access to
neighborhoods with high-performing schools than their counterparts regionwide,
and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the
region.
• In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have less access to neighborhoods with high -
performing schools than other groups, and this disparity is even greater for Hispanic
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 67 25-29 Regional AFH
residents living below the FPL. Generally, residents in the city have better access to
neighborhoods with high-performing schools than their counterparts regionwide,
and there are fewer disparities in access by race/ethnicity when compared to the
region.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high
for all groups, with little disparity between race/ethnic groups, except for Native
Americans living below the FPL, who have relatively poor access.
• In Fullerton, access to neighborhoods with high performing schools is comparable
to the region, with relatively low access and evidence of racial/ethnic disparities.
Hispanic residents have the least access, followed by Native American and Black
residents.
• In Garden Grove, Hispanic residents have less access than other groups to
neighborhoods with high-performing schools, though these disparities are less
pronounced than in the region as a whole.
• In Huntington Beach, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other
groups to neighborhoods with high-performing schools, and these disparities are
more pronounced for residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for all
groups.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively low
for all groups and there is little disparity between race/ethnic groups.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high for
all groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is moderately
high for all groups, though residents living below the federal FPL have less access
to these types of neighborhoods. Hispanic residents living below the federal FPL, in
particular, have the least access compared to other groups.
• In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is
moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups.
• In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is high
for all groups.
• In Orange, there are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with high-
performing schools, with Black and Hispanic residents having less access than other
groups. These disparities are less pronounced than in the region overall—this is
because, Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents of Orange have better
access to these kinds of neighborhoods than their counterparts in the region overall,
while White and AAPI residents of Orange have less access.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools
is high for all groups.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 68 25-29 Regional AFH
• In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is
moderately high for all groups with few disparities between groups.
• In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is relatively
low for all groups and there are significant disparities between race/ethnic groups.
Hispanic and Native American residents have the least access to neighborhoods with
high-performing schools.
• In Tustin, Hispanic and Native American residents living below the FPL have
significantly less access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools than other
groups.
• In Westminster, access to neighborhoods with high-performing schools is
moderately high for all groups and there is little disparity between groups.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 69 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 65.19 68.03 67.43 77.63 73.13 54.59 21.35
Black, Non-Hispanic 36.07 33.82 35.34 87.25 79.02 40.72 11.92
Hispanic 35.53 39.72 35.73 86.48 77.78 43.70 12.36
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.03 61.94 57.64 85.13 75.98 51.11 13.13
Native American, Non-Hispanic 48.40 50.70 48.58 81.04 75.36 45.88 17.68
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.66 60.62 59.62 83.19 78.51 56.98 18.46
Black, Non-Hispanic 24.12 28.03 26.41 88.34 81.07 36.90 11.74
Hispanic 25.05 33.70 29.50 89.09 80.94 44.63 10.63
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.45 57.59 51.41 88.58 80.61 52.88 11.05
Native American, Non-Hispanic 33.63 39.10 36.05 84.43 78.22 47.65 16.22
Orange County Urban County, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.48 81.89 74.59 60.92 67.05 46.96 24.39
Black, Non-Hispanic 69.50 75.53 68.16 74.64 71.50 44.07 15.23
Hispanic 58.20 67.52 59.65 75.35 73.08 45.50 15.65
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.64 76.68 67.46 77.05 70.10 43.85 13.93
Native American, Non-Hispanic 68.87 73.43 68.92 69.65 69.78 46.01 19.49
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 68.31 77.99 69.03 62.05 71.85 49.98 24.26
Black, Non-Hispanic 57.08 70.54 60.65 74.14 71.46 42.77 13.74
Hispanic 40.26 56.48 46.97 79.38 77.74 45.63 12.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.82 72.84 58.95 82.14 75.35 40.98 10.57
Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.71 78.50 58.72 80.71 75.06 48.72 12.85
Aliso Viejo, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 86.40 83.80 89.60 25.37 76.58 67.81 44.39
Black, Non-Hispanic 85.66 83.41 89.02 26.10 79.11 67.21 44.13
Hispanic 84.11 84.55 88.33 26.59 79.32 68.55 43.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 87.35 84.31 89.76 24.91 75.76 67.91 44.68
Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.17 83.12 88.93 26.36 79.02 67.87 44.33
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 82.37 81.49 87.38 28.15 80.65 67.31 43.92
Black, Non-Hispanic 96.00 90.96 92.00 20.00 71.00 68.85 44.00
Hispanic 87.11 86.95 88.83 25.18 80.76 67.92 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 79.67 82.36 87.60 28.86 79.35 68.30 43.19
Native American, Non-Hispanic 89.00 73.76 91.00 20.00 71.00 64.40 46.00
Anaheim, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 57.74 51.16 55.99 86.30 72.67 43.78 11.42
Black, Non-Hispanic 42.85 39.66 45.37 89.16 78.00 36.96 8.52
Hispanic 36.00 27.30 39.83 90.59 79.51 50.51 7.89
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 49.75 44.50 50.68 87.98 75.45 37.02 9.49
Native American, Non-Hispanic 44.95 36.79 46.32 89.37 77.46 48.18 8.95
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 45.90 40.49 46.79 89.04 77.96 42.96 9.09
Black, Non-Hispanic 31.74 34.14 37.42 89.65 79.84 31.61 7.85
Hispanic 29.41 22.31 35.78 91.71 81.27 52.65 7.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 45.63 44.33 47.94 88.35 76.64 30.85 9.12
Native American, Non-Hispanic 28.04 34.19 30.87 92.22 79.80 57.77 8.38
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table
12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 70 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Buena Park, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.45 68.12 55.62 88.37 74.04 32.63 5.85
Black, Non-Hispanic 46.36 56.49 50.18 88.38 76.06 36.64 5.75
Hispanic 45.66 56.38 48.40 87.86 75.87 38.65 5.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.66 65.85 56.16 88.51 74.65 34.48 5.98
Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.49 66.44 52.73 88.12 74.89 31.49 5.74
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.80 63.19 53.10 88.01 75.46 34.13 5.82
Black, Non-Hispanic 34.70 61.54 49.56 89.06 79.09 51.37 6.30
Hispanic 36.05 49.35 44.29 87.95 77.28 40.67 5.51
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.60 62.69 52.02 88.88 76.16 33.32 5.99
Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.17 70.34 82.13 88.84 71.20 32.56 6.92
Costa Mesa, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03
Black, Non-Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72
Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65
Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58
Black, Non-Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50
Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46
Native American, Non-Hispanic 50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03
F ountain Valley, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.99 77.95 66.97 88.74 72.84 63.54 10.36
Black, Non-Hispanic 63.35 74.50 64.34 89.00 77.04 67.34 9.23
Hispanic 61.51 73.48 61.11 89.32 76.51 64.27 9.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.19 74.62 62.14 88.86 73.78 61.25 9.43
Native American, Non-Hispanic 71.09 77.77 66.67 88.24 73.04 61.75 9.83
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 73.72 79.47 71.04 88.66 70.86 60.63 12.98
Black, Non-Hispanic 59.12 85.62 60.95 89.98 80.00 64.77 7.03
Hispanic 62.05 75.52 64.05 88.78 73.78 52.61 10.82
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 64.02 71.44 61.18 88.82 76.72 64.70 8.84
Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.00 58.70 39.00 91.00 79.00 33.65 9.00
F ullerton, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 62.61 56.65 61.50 87.07 76.65 55.54 8.66
Black, Non-Hispanic 49.62 47.75 52.52 88.60 79.69 50.90 7.95
Hispanic 42.72 39.02 45.92 88.92 79.56 48.09 7.72
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.92 66.82 67.55 86.58 74.57 45.70 8.74
Native American, Non-Hispanic 52.94 46.15 50.35 88.41 78.82 50.79 7.98
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 55.56 50.27 55.74 89.34 80.78 56.42 8.27
Black, Non-Hispanic 36.98 38.56 45.43 90.92 83.87 43.50 7.52
Hispanic 37.93 36.39 41.66 89.84 80.77 46.43 7.60
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.46 64.03 66.38 88.24 78.20 51.50 8.57
Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.11 42.19 54.89 87.14 77.59 36.66 7.59
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table
12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 71 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Garden Grove, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 51.61 62.62 46.45 89.02 75.00 36.85 5.30
Black, Non-Hispanic 41.29 55.63 41.33 89.90 78.05 34.48 5.93
Hispanic 38.31 49.57 38.53 90.25 78.44 36.49 6.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.53 57.58 38.40 89.26 78.09 26.41 6.31
Native American, Non-Hispanic 42.49 57.15 40.82 89.84 77.88 33.27 6.01
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 43.98 59.78 40.82 89.70 77.12 33.92 5.82
Black, Non-Hispanic 31.36 52.83 42.46 88.39 77.73 22.40 6.08
Hispanic 33.96 47.89 37.29 90.91 80.88 38.03 6.46
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 34.39 57.31 37.26 89.10 78.63 24.49 6.43
Native American, Non-Hispanic 25.46 59.54 38.35 90.71 82.88 20.33 5.55
Huntington Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 73.22 76.09 73.40 86.19 75.11 39.88 27.16
Black, Non-Hispanic 66.28 64.48 68.38 86.93 77.62 44.20 22.24
Hispanic 56.39 62.72 61.50 86.96 78.62 46.28 19.14
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 70.78 72.77 69.79 85.78 74.36 43.09 23.36
Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.29 73.74 70.28 86.49 76.42 41.44 25.86
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.07 73.38 72.99 86.92 77.44 38.84 27.86
Black, Non-Hispanic 46.90 56.51 58.56 88.62 80.11 43.69 17.85
Hispanic 42.73 56.09 51.58 87.45 81.23 47.75 14.39
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.40 65.76 67.00 86.92 78.76 42.40 23.92
Native American, Non-Hispanic 72.02 78.94 63.69 86.00 64.39 36.61 26.65
Irvine, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 75.51 91.83 85.86 86.03 75.70 82.98 24.62
Black, Non-Hispanic 71.46 90.47 85.50 87.62 77.90 85.02 24.34
Hispanic 71.82 91.30 84.30 87.17 77.18 84.06 24.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.27 91.74 86.27 86.36 76.01 81.99 24.03
Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.19 91.00 86.39 86.51 77.19 85.15 24.45
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 74.06 91.44 81.96 88.76 79.32 87.44 26.01
Black, Non-Hispanic 70.68 91.56 89.17 86.53 76.94 79.65 24.23
Hispanic 72.33 89.99 77.69 89.76 80.78 89.91 26.12
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.04 93.12 76.85 88.34 80.05 88.66 27.79
Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.05 92.63 64.82 92.82 83.98 89.60 26.21
La Habra, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 54.95 45.37 49.14 85.13 74.94 24.60 9.57
Black, Non-Hispanic 51.87 41.91 49.43 85.67 76.39 21.77 9.50
Hispanic 49.15 38.57 41.33 85.10 76.65 25.54 9.56
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 63.20 44.08 62.32 84.33 71.22 22.13 9.44
Native American, Non-Hispanic 51.76 43.96 45.26 84.53 75.07 26.27 9.56
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 56.10 47.10 49.00 84.46 74.26 24.56 9.48
Black, Non-Hispanic 52.83 41.39 42.26 87.37 77.76 28.47 9.43
Hispanic 46.12 36.01 37.54 85.25 76.92 28.33 9.70
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.15 40.10 53.86 86.17 73.95 25.19 9.48
Native American, Non-Hispanic 53.40 39.69 33.09 88.64 77.34 23.54 9.00
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table
12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 72 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Laguna Niguel, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.15 78.68 81.92 20.01 65.30 24.83 44.29
Black, Non-Hispanic 75.53 78.56 81.05 20.78 66.76 27.40 43.54
Hispanic 74.16 77.79 80.90 21.60 68.64 26.05 42.93
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 76.21 79.74 81.58 21.17 67.10 30.29 43.17
Native American, Non-Hispanic 73.38 78.54 81.49 20.46 66.97 23.45 45.40
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 76.39 77.56 79.65 20.30 66.57 26.91 43.73
Black, Non-Hispanic 71.95 74.35 89.13 22.25 72.54 11.92 43.47
Hispanic 75.89 78.28 79.36 21.25 67.62 30.40 44.20
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.56 80.73 75.10 23.52 71.49 42.28 41.54
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Lake Forest, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.36 72.36 81.64 32.24 69.42 71.33 42.33
Black, Non-Hispanic 73.27 69.65 81.67 32.34 70.96 72.67 42.25
Hispanic 67.04 66.07 76.36 31.35 73.18 70.57 39.94
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 73.63 72.58 82.39 32.16 69.56 73.34 42.56
Native American, Non-Hispanic 75.43 68.97 79.14 32.03 71.55 69.17 41.59
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 70.42 68.73 79.06 32.70 72.03 71.31 41.04
Black, Non-Hispanic 80.40 60.52 86.90 25.18 69.16 38.16 45.46
Hispanic 63.26 57.73 67.26 26.85 71.64 76.10 35.45
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 61.70 65.12 73.73 35.90 75.46 69.11 39.66
Native American, Non-Hispanic 27.00 62.47 60.00 31.00 85.00 71.40 34.00
Mission Viejo, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.64 76.96 76.49 20.23 60.25 21.34 46.11
Black, Non-Hispanic 79.61 72.77 76.94 20.85 64.05 27.65 45.55
Hispanic 77.56 73.46 73.81 20.70 64.44 27.95 44.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 80.69 77.17 77.29 20.55 60.53 22.69 45.63
Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.23 74.24 74.50 21.07 62.03 22.20 46.25
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 80.70 78.05 76.43 20.42 61.66 22.41 46.10
Black, Non-Hispanic 70.69 76.42 81.54 21.23 69.77 27.61 43.31
Hispanic 73.93 74.29 66.28 20.00 66.08 35.01 41.77
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.62 76.39 81.02 20.31 65.65 30.45 42.20
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Newport Beach, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.31 90.17 82.88 86.59 75.16 90.40 41.36
Black, Non-Hispanic 78.86 89.72 81.85 86.92 76.61 90.54 40.65
Hispanic 79.04 88.93 81.76 86.93 76.81 89.82 40.55
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.48 91.60 85.94 83.05 68.64 89.19 38.80
Native American, Non-Hispanic 79.22 88.29 81.86 88.35 78.06 91.17 40.73
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 78.99 89.20 83.30 87.76 78.81 90.38 43.27
Black, Non-Hispanic 78.71 86.38 78.21 89.58 85.43 87.99 48.46
Hispanic 82.46 87.75 81.41 88.28 77.88 89.87 41.76
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 84.34 88.97 82.79 88.43 76.05 92.09 39.15
Native American, Non-Hispanic 77.00 89.17 88.00 93.00 85.00 95.55 40.00
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table
12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 73 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
Orange, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 59.85 60.76 61.19 87.39 72.03 69.31 10.04
Black, Non-Hispanic 52.12 48.57 51.47 89.40 77.99 78.41 8.77
Hispanic 48.30 50.65 52.77 88.89 76.83 76.42 9.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 59.06 58.78 59.94 87.51 72.50 67.82 9.94
Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.37 55.48 56.10 88.33 74.75 73.95 9.39
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 57.04 52.92 58.45 89.18 76.75 78.49 9.16
Black, Non-Hispanic 32.85 42.16 41.19 83.58 78.05 89.55 9.52
Hispanic 45.47 53.35 53.02 89.09 76.93 73.57 9.08
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 52.82 43.86 48.07 89.57 79.90 81.30 8.42
Native American, Non-Hispanic 64.21 51.31 53.78 90.52 79.37 86.78 8.55
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 87.82 84.08 87.29 19.01 61.49 12.75 54.08
Black, Non-Hispanic 85.22 82.80 86.30 20.39 66.64 13.57 53.73
Hispanic 84.08 80.19 85.16 21.29 69.41 11.83 54.01
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 86.50 84.59 87.52 19.55 63.25 12.85 53.44
Native American, Non-Hispanic 86.05 82.04 86.50 20.09 66.32 11.54 53.88
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 83.99 77.97 85.14 20.86 67.77 9.82 54.55
Black, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
Hispanic 79.71 72.25 79.75 22.39 74.90 7.51 54.71
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 92.08 91.03 89.00 16.53 50.91 17.71 53.51
Native American, Non-Hispanic N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a
San Clemente, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 76.02 73.91 77.79 15.18 58.61 30.53 54.50
Black, Non-Hispanic 75.72 74.47 77.50 15.14 58.28 33.23 53.99
Hispanic 64.41 66.23 74.88 16.13 64.05 28.18 54.33
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 77.00 75.99 77.85 14.57 56.60 36.23 53.93
Native American, Non-Hispanic 70.21 72.47 77.11 16.20 60.72 31.36 54.49
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 72.53 69.89 77.05 15.87 60.90 29.70 54.94
Black, Non-Hispanic 33.81 63.97 69.04 14.71 67.68 30.34 53.00
Hispanic 64.44 65.67 75.42 15.59 64.76 30.60 54.22
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.99 79.46 77.89 13.66 59.13 42.42 53.36
Native American, Non-Hispanic 69.92 82.92 81.47 13.38 53.61 35.91 53.08
Santa Ana, CA
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 43.58 40.95 48.31 92.62 80.95 74.89 10.29
Black, Non-Hispanic 37.22 34.86 40.19 92.78 81.04 67.18 10.60
Hispanic 27.34 28.45 33.05 92.92 80.41 62.17 11.06
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 37.32 41.90 37.03 92.43 79.82 52.24 10.44
Native American, Non-Hispanic 30.92 33.84 37.35 92.65 79.81 61.51 10.65
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 36.59 35.69 45.31 92.55 81.75 72.63 10.59
Black, Non-Hispanic 30.40 34.66 39.64 91.94 82.25 76.57 10.44
Hispanic 22.21 27.00 30.56 93.36 82.18 60.87 10.98
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 36.22 40.88 35.66 92.11 80.53 46.13 10.05
Native American, Non-Hispanic 22.28 21.56 35.82 93.35 79.06 60.67 11.72
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table
12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 74 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 6 – Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
By comparing the School Proficiency Index in Table 6 to the demographic data in Table 1
(Demographics), a pattern emerges showing that cities where all residents have access to
neighborhoods with high-performing schools, have a lower percentage of Hispanic
residents than the County overall. In other words, Hispanic residents are concentrated in
cities with fewer high-performing schools. Specifically, in the following cities, the School
Proficiency Index is 70 or higher for every racial/ethnic group, and the pe rcentage of the
population that is Hispanic is lower than the countywide percentage of 33.93%:
• Aliso Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 83 for all groups, and 20.02%
of the population is Hispanic.
• Fountain Valley, where the School Proficiency Index is over 73 for all groups, and
17.08% of the population is Hispanic.
• Irvine, where the School Proficiency Index is over 90 for all groups, and 11.24% of
the population is Hispanic.
• Laguna Niguel, where the School Proficiency Index is over 77 for all groups, and
16.10% of the population is Hispanic.
• Mission Viejo, where the School Proficiency Index is over 72 for all groups, and
19.67% of the population is Hispanic.
Tustin, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 63.67 71.61 73.97 89.66 78.12 75.92 12.00
Black, Non-Hispanic 49.37 60.11 64.18 92.75 83.81 83.31 10.82
Hispanic 44.93 51.70 59.55 93.52 85.08 86.73 9.74
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 54.59 67.08 73.12 90.92 80.48 78.28 12.30
Native American, Non-Hispanic 58.55 62.31 69.02 91.12 81.54 81.61 10.47
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 50.82 67.17 68.54 92.03 82.78 82.13 11.15
Black, Non-Hispanic 53.03 52.08 60.97 93.61 85.87 88.59 9.55
Hispanic 33.68 38.03 51.91 95.23 88.33 88.99 8.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 51.22 62.44 67.76 91.95 82.30 84.23 11.07
Native American, Non-Hispanic 21.99 34.26 62.35 95.29 87.57 92.46 8.78
Westminster, CA CDBG
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 49.67 72.09 47.64 86.39 76.49 42.87 6.57
Black, Non-Hispanic 40.88 69.65 44.06 86.96 78.34 40.93 6.86
Hispanic 35.08 63.82 39.25 87.10 78.73 37.10 6.50
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 35.42 65.32 39.47 87.81 79.49 29.74 7.51
Native American, Non-Hispanic 43.72 69.82 44.55 87.26 77.82 41.17 6.24
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.88 69.22 42.57 86.90 77.90 37.35 6.79
Black, Non-Hispanic 32.08 67.37 41.25 85.75 77.20 41.57 7.92
Hispanic 32.07 60.97 36.24 86.89 78.84 40.17 5.44
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 31.20 62.98 38.17 87.91 80.04 31.20 7.13
Native American, Non-Hispanic 37.94 63.01 34.15 89.90 81.79 23.92 8.00
Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; and NATA; all accessed through the HUD AFFH Tool, Table
12, Version AFFHT0006, Released July 10, 2020.
Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info/resource/4848/affh-data-documentation).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 75 25-29 Regional AFH
• Newport Beach, where the School Proficiency Index is over 88 for all groups, and
10.47% of the population is Hispanic.
• Rancho Santa Margarita, where the School Proficiency Index is over 80 for all
groups, and 20.41% of the population is Hispanic.
Map 7 – Education Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s
Education Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.
These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data 8F
9. The Education Composite Score for a particular Census
Tract is based on four indicators, all of which are based on enrollment-weighted averages
of the three schools closest to the tract’s center point 9F
10:
• Math and Reading Proficiency, where “Proficiency” is the percentage of students
performing at grade-level in the 4th grade.
• High School Graduation Rate, which is calculated using California Department of
Education data on the percent of students who graduate in four years.
• Student Poverty, which is measured as the percentage of students that do not
receive free and reduced-price lunch.
A tract’s composite score is determined by whether it falls above or below the median (50th
percentile) tract or block group value within each region. Each indicator that falls above the
regional median adds one point to the final score. On the maps, the categories equal the
following scores:
• Highest: >3-4
• High: >2-3
• Moderate: >1-2
• Low: 0-1
These maps, along with Map 3 showing the predominant race/ethnicity in each area, show
the following relationship between residency patterns and proximity to proficient schools
by race/ethnicity:
• In the County overall,
o Cities in the central County have the lowest education scores, indicating that
residents in these areas are less likely to live near high quality schools. Areas
in the southern County, along the coast, and in the unincorporated areas in
the north and east parts of the County, have the highest education scores.
9 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
10 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website,
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 76 25-29 Regional AFH
Low education score areas generally correspond to areas where the
population is predominantly Hispanic.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o Brea and Los Alamitos have high education scores and are predominantly
White in most but not all areas.
o Cypress has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI and White
population.
o La Palma has high education scores and a predominantly AAPI population
o Yorba Linda, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, North Tustin, unincorporated areas
of the County, Laguna Woods, Laguna Beach, and Laguna Hills , all have the
highest education scores and are predominantly White.
o Dana Point has a mix of education scores, all areas are predominantly White.
o Placentia has low education scores in the southeast, which align with the
predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
o San Juan Capistrano has low education score areas that are a mix of
predominantly Hispanic and predominantly White neighborhoods.
• In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have the highest education score and are
predominantly White.
• In Anaheim, most of the city’s neighborhoods have low education scores and are
predominantly Hispanic. The exception is Anaheim Hills, which is both
predominantly White, and has the highest education scores.
• In Buena Park, there are neighborhoods with low education scores in the city’s center
and southeast, which are also areas of predominant Hispanic population.
• In Costa Mesa, the southwest quarter of the city has low education scores. This area
is a mix of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in and around downtown, and
predominantly White neighborhoods to the west.
• In Fountain Valley, almost all of the city’s neighborhoods have high education scores.
These neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI.
• In Fullerton, neighborhoods in the south of the city have low education scores and
are also the areas with the highest concentrations of Hispanic residents.
• In Garden Grove, the neighborhoods with low education score areas in the east are
predominantly Hispanic , and the neighborhoods with low education scores in the
northwest are predominantly Hispanic and AAPI.
• In Huntington Beach, the neighborhoods with the highest education scores correlate
to areas that are predominantly White, which is most of the city. One area of the city
with low education scores has a predominantly Hispanic population.
• In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have the highest education score. These
neighborhoods are a mix of predominantly White and AAPI.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 77 25-29 Regional AFH
• In La Habra, neighborhoods with low education scores are located in the center and
eastern part of the city, which are also the areas with the highest concentrations of
Hispanic residents.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are
predominantly White.
• In Lake Forest, all neighborhoods have high education scores and most are
predominantly White, except in the southeastern corner of the city, along El Toro
Road, which is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods have high education scores, and most are
predominantly White except in the southern part of the city.
• In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are
predominantly White.
• In Orange, neighborhoods in the western half of the city have low education scores
and are predominantly Hispanic. The neighborhoods with the highest education
scores are in the eastern half of the city. The high education score areas north and
west of Villa Park are predominantly White, and the high education score areas south
and west of Villa Park are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are
predominantly White.
• In San Clemente, all neighborhoods have high education scores and are
predominantly White.
• In Santa Ana, neighborhoods with low education score areas comprise most of the
city, and are areas where population is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Tustin, the neighborhoods with low education scores are predominantly Hispanic
and White, and the neighborhoods with the h ighest education scores are
predominantly AAPI.
• In Westminster, there is a mix of moderate, high, and highest education score areas.
There is one part of the city with low education scores, in the north. This area is
predominantly Hispanic.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 78 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 7 – Education Score – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 79 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 7 – Education Score – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 7 – Education Score – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 80 25-29 Regional AFH
2. Employment
Table 6 includes a Jobs Proximity Index, which measures the physical distance between
where residents of different races/ethnicities live and the location of jobs. A higher index
value indicates better access to employment opportunities. Table 6 also includes a Labor
Market Index, which measures the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and
percentage of the population aged 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by
neighborhood. A higher index value indicates that residents live in a neighborhood with
higher labor force participation and human capital.
Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs
and with high labor force participation and human capital in each of the participating
jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in both the Jobs Proximity and the
Labor Market Index. The Jobs Proximity Index is the lowest for Black residents,
especially those living below FPL. It is also low for Hispanic residents. White
residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods close to jobs. The Labor Market
Index is lowest for Black and Hispanic residents, especially those living below FPL,
and highest for White residents. Generally, the Labor Market Index is lower for
individuals living below FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to
neighborhoods close to jobs for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities
between groups. Compared to the region, residents of all races/ethnicities have
better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human
capital. However, there are disparities between racial/ethnic groups, with Hispanic
residents having significantly less access than other groups, and White residents
having more access.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
human capital is high for all races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between
groups. This is also true for access to neighborhoods close to jobs. On both indices,
the city performs significantly better than the region overall.
• In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to neighborhoods close to
jobs, and with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic residents
have the least access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
human capital. Black and AAPI residents have the least access to neighborhoods
close to jobs. On both indices, the city is comparable to the region overall, with low-
to-moderate scores and significant disparities between groups.
• In Buena Park, there is relatively low access to neighborhoods close to jobs for all
races/ethnicities, with no large disparities between groups. Compared to the region,
residents of all races/ethnicities have less access to neighborhoods close to jobs.
There is moderate access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 81 25-29 Regional AFH
human capital, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities—Hispanic residents
have the least access to these neighborhoods. Compared to the region, access is
higher for Hispanic and Black residents in the city.
• In Costa Mesa, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is high for all races/ethnicities,
with only slight disparities—Hispanic residents have the least access. Access to
neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital is also high for
all races/ethnicities, but with significant disparities between races/ethnicities—again
Hispanic residents have the least access. On both indices, the city performs better
than the region overall for all racial/ethnic groups.
• In Fountain Valley, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and with high labor force
participation and human capital, is relatively high for all groups except for Native
American residents living below the FPL, who have very low index values for each
measure.
• In Fullerton, all race/ethnicities have moderate access to neighborhoods close to
jobs, with slight disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access
of any group. Regarding access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation
and human capital, there are some disparities between groups (with Hispanic
residents having the least access), and index values for Hispanic, Black, and AAPI
residents are higher than their counterparts regionwide.
• In Garden Grove, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with
some disparities between groups—AAPI residents have the least access. Compared
to the region, all groups in Garden Grove have less access. Access to neighborhoods
with high labor force participation and human capital is also relatively low for all
groups in the city, with slight disparities between races/ethnicities. Access is lowest
for Hispanic and AAPI residents. Compared to the region, the Labor Market Index in
the city is higher for Black and Hispanic residents , and lower for all others.
• In Huntington Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively low for all
groups, with few disparities between races/ethnicities. Overall, groups in the city
have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human
capital; however, there are large disparities between groups. Hispanic residents, and
especially those living below the FPL, have the least access to these neighborhoods.
• In Irvine, access to neighborhoods close to jobs and with high labor force
participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than the region).
The only significant disparities are for Black residents living below FPL, who have
less access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and Native American residents living
below FPL, who have less access to neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital.
• In La Habra, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all groups, with
no disparities between groups. There are disparities, however, in access to
neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Hispanic
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 82 25-29 Regional AFH
residents and Native American residents living below FPL have the least access of
all groups. Compared to region, Hispanic, Black and AAPI residents in the city have
more access, while White residents have less access.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is lower than the region for
all groups, with little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high
labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity
between groups.
• In Lake Forest, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is relatively high, and higher
than region, for all groups. There is very little disparity between groups, except for
Black residents below FPL, who have very low access to neighborhoods close to
jobs. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital
is higher than in the region for all groups, with little disparity except for Hispanic,
AAPI, and Native American residents living below FPL, all of whom have significantly
less access.
• In Mission Viejo, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with no
disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital is high for all groups, with little disparity except for
Hispanics living below FPL, for whom access is relatively low compared to other city
residents but is still higher than in the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to neighborhoods close to jobs, and neighborhoods with
high labor force participation and human capital, is high for all groups, with very
little disparity between groups.
• In Orange, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher than the region, but there
are some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI and White residents. There are also
disparities in access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
human capital. Black and Hispanic residents overall, and Black and AAPI residents
living below FPL have the least access. However, access is higher for all groups
(except White residents), in comparison to the region.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is very low for all
groups, with no disparities between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high
labor force participation and human capital is high for all groups, with some
disparities—Hispanic residents living below FPL have the least access.
• In San Clemente, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is low for all groups, with
very little disparity between groups. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital is high for all groups (and higher than in the region),
with some disparity—namely, Hispanic residents living below FPL have less access.
• In Santa Ana, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in
region, with some disparities—access is lowest for AAPI residents, especially those
living below FPL. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
human capital is lower than in the region for all groups except Black residents, and
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 83 25-29 Regional AFH
there are significant disparities in access—Hispanic residents have the least access,
and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in each racial/ethnic group.
• In Tustin, access to neighborhoods close to jobs is higher for all groups than in
region, with some disparities between races/ethnicities—White residents have the
least access. Access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
human capital is higher than in the region, with some disparities—Hispanic residents
have the least access, and access is also lower for individuals living below FPL in
each racial/ethnic group.
• In Westminster, there are disparities in access to neighborhoods close to jobs by
race/ethnicity. Native American residents living below FPL, and AAPI residents, have
the least access . There are some disparities in access to neighborhoods with high
labor force participation and human capital by race/ethnicity—Native American
residents living below FPL and Hispanic and AAPI residents overall, have less access.
Compared to the region, access in the city is slightly better for Black and Hispanic
residents, worse for all other groups.
The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their ability to
obtain a job.
Map 8 – Economic Score, is a series of maps showing the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map’s
Economic Composite Score for north, central, and south Orange County, and the region.
These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using the
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map data 10F
11. The Economic Composite Score for a particular Census
Tract is based on four indicators11F
12:
• Poverty Rate – Measured as the percentage of the Tract residents who live above 200
percent of the FPL (the 200 percent threshold is used to account for the higher cost
of living in California compared to other regions of the United States).
• Adult Education Rate – Measured as the percentage of adults aged 25 years and
older in each Tract, who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree .
• Employment Rate - Measured as the percentage of individuals in each Tract ages 20
to 64 who are employed in either the civilian labor force or the armed forces.
• Home Value – Measured as the median home value (dollars) of owner-occupied
housing units in each tract.
11 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
12 Detailed descriptions of the methodology used to measure each indicator can be found on the CTAC website,
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 84 25-29 Regional AFH
The composite score for each Tract is determined by whether it falls above or below the
median (50th percentile) tract or block group value within each region. On the map, a higher
numerical score indicates more positive economic outcomes.
These maps show the following relationship between residency patterns and economic
outcomes, including employment:
• Countywide, there is a similar pattern to the education scores, with cities in the
central County tending to have lower economic scores than cities and
unincorporated areas along the coast and in the southern, northern, and eastern
parts of the County. Low score areas generally correspond to areas where the
population is predominantly Hispanic of AAPI, whereas the high score areas
correspond to predominantly White areas.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
o There are g enerally good economic outcomes in Cypress, Yorba Linda, North
Tustin, La Palma, Los Alamitos, unincorporated areas east of Yorba Linda,
Brea, North Tustin, Orange Park Acres, Villa Park , Seal Beach (except for the
Tract where Leisure World, a retirement community, is located), Rossmoor,
Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Ladera Ranch , and Capistrano Beach.
o There is a mix of economic outcomes in the following places:
▪ Placentia, where there are lower economic scores in the southwest
corner of the city, which is predominantly Hispanic.
▪ Laguna Woods and North Laguna Hills, which are predominantly
White and have lower economic scores.
▪ San Juan Capistrano, where there are lower economic scores in the
Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between I-5 and the
Ortega Highway (SR-74), which is also a high POC segregation area
and predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are
predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration.
• In Anaheim, neighborhoods with lower economic scores include neighborhoods
considered to be areas of high POC segregation, including those north of downtown
and along SR-91, and south of downtown and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas
are predominantly Hispanic. Conversely, Anaheim Hills has high economic scores
and is predominantly White.
• In Buena Park, the neighborhoods between I-5 and SR-91 have the lowest economic
scores in the city. These areas are predominantly Hispanic. The northeastern corner
of the city, which is predominantly AAPI, has the highest economic scores in the city.
• In Costa Mesa, the neighborhoods in and surrounding downtown, on the west side
of Newport Boulevard have the lowest economic scores. These are also areas that
are predominantly Hispanic.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 85 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores.
• In Fullerton, there is a general north/south divide between areas with higher and
lower economic scores. The southeastern neighborhoods, which are predominantly
Hispanic, have the lowest economic scores, while the northern half of the city,
predominantly White and AAPI neighborhoods, have the highest economic scores.
• In Garden Grove, economic scores are moderate north of Garden Grove Freeway
(SR-22) and are higher in West Garden Grove. Economic scores are generally lower
south of SR-22.
• In Huntington Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores.
• In Irvine, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except in the
area surrounding UC Irvine, and in the neighborhoods east of the intersections of
SR-133 and I-5—these are predominantly AAPI.
• In La Habra, the areas with the lowest economic scores are the same areas with high
POC segregation, including the neighborhoods in the center of the city north of
Guadalupe Park and between Idaho Street to the west and Sonora High School to
the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Laguna Niguel, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are
predominantly White, and are mostly areas of high White concentration.
• In Lake Forest, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores except for
in the southeastern corner, which is a predominantly Hispanic area.
• In Mission Viejo, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are
predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration.
• In Newport Beach, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are
predominantly White, and are all areas of high White segregation.
• In Orange, neighborhoods across the city have good economic scores. The best
economic scores are in the neighborhoods north and east of Villa Park, where the
population is predominantly White and classified as an area of high White
segregation. The neighborhoods with lower economic scores are located west of
Glassel Street and north of Walnut Avenue, which is a predominantly Hispanic area.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, neighborhoods across the city have high economic
scores, are predominantly White, and are generally areas of high White
concentration.
• In San Clemente, neighborhoods across the city have high economic scores, are
predominantly White, and are primarily areas of high White concentration.
• In Santa Ana, there are neighborhoods with low economic scores in much of the
central and western parts of the city, which correspond to the areas of high POC
segregation and are predominantly Hispanic , except for the Riverview West
community, which is predominantly AAPI. Neighborhoods with higher economic
scores are in the northern and southern parts of the city, which are areas of low -
medium segregation.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 86 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Tustin, all neighborhoods have good economic scores except for one
neighborhood south of I-5 and west of SR-55, adjacent to Santa Ana. This is also a
predominantly Hispanic area and is classified as an area of high POC segregation.
• In Westminster, economic scores are lowest in the central part of the city, in the
neighborhoods south of Westminster Boulevard, east of Hoover Street, and north of
Bolsa Avenue. These are all areas of predominantly AAPI population.
Map 8 – Economic Score – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 87 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 88 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 89 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 8 – Economic Score – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the groups that are least successful in accessing
employment.
Table 7 - Labor Force Participation and Unemployment, shows 2018-2022 ACS data on
labor force participation rates and unemployment rates in the region and Orange County,
for the overall population and by race/ethnicity, disability status, and sex. The table shows
that:
• Orange County has lower unemployment rates than the region for every group
measured in the table, except for Pacific Islanders.
• Labor force participation rates are generally higher in Orange County than the
region, except for White individuals (lower in the County than the region) and Asian
individuals (same rate in County and region).
• Similar to the region overall, Black individuals have the highest unemployment rate
in Orange County. In the County, Pacific Islanders have the second highest
unemployment rate.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 90 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 65.00%6.60%65.60%5.40%75.30%3.80%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.40%6.30%62.80%5.10%75.50%3.50%
Black 60.70%10.40%70.60%7.70%84.90%8.90%
Hispanic 67.60%6.60%70.70%5.50%78.00%3.00%
Asian 62.70%5.30%62.70%5.10%71.00%3.00%
Pacific Islander 66.40%7.00%68.70%7.30%100.00%0.00%
Native American 66.20%7.90%70.60%5.20%100.00%0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 84.10%6.10%85.90%4.70%91.10%2.90%
Female 72.80%6.50%73.50%5.40%79.00%4.10%
Disability Status
With any disability 46.80%13.30%51.00%10.80%68.50%2.90%
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 67.40%5.40%69.00%5.40%73.20%5.00%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 62.70%5.00%61.40%6.40%71.20%5.00%
Black 72.30%9.30%77.70%3.30%91.60%5.90%
Hispanic 70.80%5.40%72.40%5.00%76.50%5.80%
Asian 64.20%4.70%70.90%5.00%64.10%2.60%
Pacific Islander 66.80%2.50%63.30%33.50%92.80%2.80%
Native American 73.70%4.10%67.80%18.30%72.90%3.70%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 86.20%4.70%87.00%5.60%89.50%4.00%
Female 73.90%5.50%77.00%4.90%78.50%5.00%
Disability Status
With any disability 47.50%13.40%50.10%13.70%57.80%11.50%
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 61.80%6.00%65.40%6.90%64.30%5.80%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 57.40%6.90%60.40%6.60%59.70%6.70%
Black 70.50%27.80%63.10%17.80%57.80%0.00%
Hispanic 72.90%3.90%71.10%6.60%72.90%4.90%
Asian 62.10%5.10%63.60%6.90%59.60%6.40%
Pacific Islander 65.20%20.40%83.50%0.00%65.60%13.00%
Native American 66.00%0.00%73.20%8.30%78.70%5.90%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 83.30%7.40%85.00%5.50%83.30%5.00%
Female 75.30%4.80%71.80%7.50%74.00%5.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 37.40%12.10%52.00%10.50%46.40%10.70%
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 66.30%5.40%65.60%5.50%66.20%5.50%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.80%5.10%66.90%6.30%63.50%4.70%
Black 80.90%13.10%73.10%5.20%63.40%9.80%
Hispanic 75.70%5.70%68.10%5.50%74.10%3.00%
Asian 63.40%5.40%63.40%4.50%69.40%9.60%
Pacific Islander 77.70%6.40%79.30%0.60%93.10%0.00%
Native American 56.00%4.00%65.20%4.00%89.70%0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.70%5.50%83.10%4.10%86.70%4.30%
Female 77.40%4.60%70.10%6.40%75.00%6.80%
Disability Status
With any disability 53.80%13.00%54.10%11.20%37.80%10.50%
Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Garden Grove, CA
Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA Laguna Niguel, CA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA Orange County, CA Aliso Viejo, CA
Anaheim, CA Buena Park, CA Costa Mesa, CA
Fountain Valley, CA Fullerton, CA
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 91 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment (continued)
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 68.30%7.20%69.20%5.00%63.60%4.40%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 63.60%7.60%67.20%5.20%60.30%4.70%
Black 76.00%3.60%54.70%3.50%71.10%2.80%
Hispanic 71.20%7.70%75.20%5.50%71.50%3.20%
Asian 65.30%4.30%67.50%3.30%66.20%5.00%
Pacific Islander 100.00%0.00%60.70%0.00%89.50%0.00%
Native American 57.70%0.00%94.90%0.00%72.80%0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.90%6.20%88.90%4.30%88.60%3.50%
Female 76.60%7.50%73.80%5.00%75.10%4.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 49.80%15.90%57.30%7.50%53.90%3.70%
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 62.40%4.10%66.10%4.70%74.30%3.30%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 60.50%4.70%64.00%4.00%73.60%3.00%
Black 54.80%0.00%60.90%5.60%82.10%1.60%
Hispanic 76.80%2.70%69.20%5.40%80.20%3.80%
Asian 57.50%0.80%64.90%3.10%72.70%3.40%
Pacific Islander 100.00%0.00%59.60%0.00%100.00%0.00%
Native American 65.40%0.00%76.50%0.00%95.00%21.60%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 88.70%3.80%82.30%4.20%92.90%3.50%
Female 68.60%3.90%75.60%4.20%77.10%2.20%
Disability Status
With any disability 60.30%10.40%52.40%5.10%62.10%5.20%
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 63.10%5.30%66.70%5.50%69.00%5.90%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 61.90%5.80%59.90%3.90%65.90%7.30%
Black 71.50%0.00%70.50%6.60%74.00%8.00%
Hispanic 70.70%4.70%68.50%5.30%72.50%6.50%
Asian 52.20%3.90%61.70%7.40%67.80%4.00%
Pacific Islander 30.90%0.00%42.10%24.90%63.50%14.80%
Native American 100.00%0.00%70.00%6.40%68.20%0.00%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 85.40%4.80%85.00%4.90%89.70%4.40%
Female 71.60%5.30%71.60%5.20%75.80%6.50%
Disability Status
With any disability 52.60%4.40%51.70%9.60%51.40%11.20%
Labor Force
Participation Rate Unemployment rate
Population 16 years and over 59.90%7.50%
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 58.00%5.80%
Black 71.40%3.80%
Hispanic 66.60%9.00%
Asian 57.40%7.20%
Pacific Islander 36.30%25.60%
Native American 47.60%15.40%
Sex (population 20 to 64 years)
Male 82.10%7.20%
Female 71.20%7.60%
Disability Status
With any disability 42.10%12.90%
Note 1: Data Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Orange, CA Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
San Clemente, CA Santa Ana, CA Tustin, CA
Westminster, CA
La Habra, CA Lake Forest, CA Mission Viejo, CA
Newport Beach, CA
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 92 25-29 Regional AFH
3. Transportation
This analysis describes any disparities in access to transportation related to costs and
access to public transit by protected class groups.
Table 6 includes a Transit Index, which measures the likelihood that residents will utilize
public transportation. Higher index values indicate better access to public transit in a
neighborhood. Table 6 also includes a Low Transportation Cost Index, which measures the
cost of transportation in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate lower transportation
costs. Transportation costs may be low in a neighborhood due to better access to public
transportation, or to the density of housing, services, and employment, or contributing
factors.
Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to transit and to neighborhoods
with low transportation costs in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are relatively high for all groups, though there are significant disparities
between racial/ethnic groups. Both indices are lowest for White residents and
highest for Black residents and are higher across all groups for individuals living
below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to transit is slightly lower
for all groups compared to the region but is still relatively high. There are also
significant disparities, with AAPI residents having the best access, and White
residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups for people
living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is lower
for all groups compared to the region overall but is still relatively high. There are
some disparities between groups, with Hispanic residents having the best access ,
and White residents having the least access. Access is slightly higher across groups
for people living below the FPL, except for Hispanic residents living below the FPL
who have similar access to the overall Hispanic population.
• In Aliso Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and Native
American residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs is relatively high for all groups, with small disparities between
groups—access is lowest for Black and Native American residents living below the
FPL.
• In Anaheim, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In Buena Park, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In Costa Mesa, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs are high for all groups.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 93 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fountain Valley, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs are high for all groups. Black residents living below the FPL
have the highest access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs.
• In Fullerton, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In Garden Grove, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs are high for all groups.
• In Huntington Beach, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs are high for all groups. Native American residents living below
the FPL have relatively low access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs,
compared to other groups in city and the region.
• In Irvine, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In La Habra, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods
with low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison
to the region.
• In Lake Forest, access to transit is low for all groups, and lowest for Black and
Hispanic residents living below the FPL. Access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to the
region.
• In Mission Viejo, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to neighborhoods with
low transportation costs is slightly lower for residents of the city in comparison to
the region.
• In Newport Beach, access to transit is high for all groups. Access to neighborhoods
with low transportation costs is comparable to the region for most groups, except
for AAPI residents in the city, who have less access than other groups and compared
to the region.
• In Orange, access to transit is high for all groups and slightly better than access in
the region. Access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs is relatively high
for all groups and is comparable to the region as a whole.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to transit is low for all groups. Access to
neighborhoods with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to
the region, and there are significant racial/ethnic disparities. AAPI residents living
below the FPL have significantly lower access than other groups.
• In San Clemente, access to transit is low for all groups, and access to neighborhoods
with low transportation costs is also lower in the city compared to the region. There
are some racial/ethnic disparities in access to neighborhoods with low
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 94 25-29 Regional AFH
transportation costs—Native American residents living below the FPL line, and AAPI
residents of all income levels, have less access compared to other groups.
• In Santa Ana, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In Tustin, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low transportation
costs are high for all groups.
• In Westminster, access to transit and access to neighborhoods with low
transportation costs are high for all groups.
The following analysis describes how a person’s place of residence affects their access to
transportation.
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas, is a series of maps showing the areas of north, central,
and south Orange County, and the region, that have access to “high quality” public transit,
defined as having scheduled frequencies of 15 minutes or less. These maps were created
by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans)12F
13. On the maps, the outlined areas are those within
half a mile of a transit stop that is served by public transit with scheduled frequencies of 15
minutes or less.
These maps show the following relationship between a person’s place of residence and
access to transportation:
• Countywide, high quality transit areas (HQTAs) are concentrated in central County
cities, and there are no HQTAs in the southern or northeast parts of the County.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are HQTAs in the following
places
o In Brea, there is a HQTA in the center of city, overlapping with the racially
integrated Census Tract that has a predominantly Hispanic population.
o In Cypress, there is a HQTA on the southern edge of the city.
o In Stanton, HQTAs cover the entire city.
o In Seal Beach, there are HQTAs along Seal Beach Boulevard north of US-1.
o In Rossmoor, the southeastern corner of the city is a HQTA, along Seal Beach
Boulevard.
o In Los Alamitos, the northern edge of the city is part of an HQTA.
o In Laguna Woods, the eastern half of the city is a HQTA, along El Toro Rd.
o In Laguna Hills, the part of the city adjacent to the HQTAs in Laguna Woods
and Lake Forest is a HQTA.
13 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 95 25-29 Regional AFH
o The following areas have no HQTAs: Placentia, Yorba Linda, unincorporated
areas east of Yorba Linda, La Palma, Villa Park, Orange Park Acres, El Modena,
North Tustin, Laguna Beach, Dana Point, Capistrano Beach, San Juan
Capistrano, Ladera Ranch, and North Laguna Hills
• In Aliso Viejo, there are no HQTAs
• In Anaheim, there are HQTAs in the western part of city along Beach Boulevard; in
the central and southern part of city along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Ave nue,
including the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center near Angel
Stadium; and in the eastern part of the city near the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink
station. These areas overlap with both high POC segregation areas and racially
integrated areas.
• In Buena Park, there are HQTAs in the eastern half of city, along Beach Boulevard
and La Palma Avenue.
• In Costa Mesa, HQTAs cover most of the city’s area except for the high White
segregation areas in the northwest (the neighborhoods north and west of the
Country Club) and in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive),
which do not have HQTAs.
• In Fountain Valley, there are no HQTAs
• In Fullerton, there are HQTAs in downtown Fullerton and up to Fullerton College,
including the area around the Metrolink station.
• In Garden Grove, there are HQTAs south of SR-22, in West Garden Grove, and in the
eastern part of the city. There are no HQTAs in the city’s north-central area.
• In Huntington Beach, most of the city is not a HQTA. There is one HQTA around the
intersection of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway (US-1).
• In Irvine, there are HQTAs located near UC Irvine and John Wayne Airport, and the
Irvine Medical and Science Complex. The majority of the city does not have HQTAs.
• In La Habra, the western half of the city is a HQTA. In the eastern half of the city,
which is a high POC segregation area and has a concentration of predominantly
Hispanic neighborhoods, there are no HQTAs
• In Laguna Niguel, there are no HQTAs except in a small area in the northeast corner
along Crown Valley Parkway, adjacent to Mission Viejo.
• In Lake Forest, most of the city is not a HQTA. There are two HQTAs in the city: one
in Foothill Ranch, north of SR-241(around Towne Center); and the other in the city’s
southeastern corner along El Toro Rd (which is a predominantly Hispanic area).
• In Mission Viejo, most of the city does not have HQTAs. There are two HQTAs in the
city: one in the southern part, along Crown Valley Parkway (which is a low-medium
concentration area with a predominantly Hispanic population); and the other in the
northern part of the city, around the intersections of Santa Margarita Parkway with
Los Alisos Boulevard and Marguerite Parkway (which are low-medium
concentration areas with predominantly White populations)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 96 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Newport Beach, there are HQTAs just south of Costa Mesa and around the Civic
Center. Much of the city does not have HQTAs.
• In Orange, there are HQTAs downtown, in the neighborhoods west and northwest of
downtown, and along the westside of Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) north of Katella
Avenue. There are no HQTAs east of the Costa Mesa Freeway.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there are no HQTAs
• In San Clemente, there are no HQTAs
• In Santa Ana, most of the city is covered by HQTAs, except for northeast and
southeast corners.
• In Tustin, most of the city does not have HQTAs. There are two HQTAs in the following
areas: one HQTA is in the racially integrated neighborhoods just to the north of I-5,
in and around downtown; the other HQTA is in South Tustin, around the Metrolink
train station.
• In Westminster, most of the city is considered a HQTA, with the exception of the
western and southeastern areas.
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 97 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 98 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 99 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 9 – High Quality Transit Areas – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
4. Access to Low Poverty Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class
groups.
Table 6 includes a Low Poverty Index, which measures the level of poverty in a
neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods
in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty
neighborhoods. Hispanic and Black residents have the least access, and White
residents have the most access. Individuals living below the FPL also have less
access to low-poverty neighborhoods, compared to the overall population.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, access to low-poverty
neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to the region, including for
individuals living below the FPL. However, there are significant disparities in access.
Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.
Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty
neighborhoods, compared to the overall population.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 100 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Aliso Viejo, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups
compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are
no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Anaheim, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods.
Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents have the most access.
Individuals living below the FPL also have less access to low-poverty
neighborhoods, compared to the overall population. Compared to the region, White,
AAPI, and Native American residents of the city have less access to low-poverty
neighborhoods; and Black residents of the city have bett er access.
• In Buena Park, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods
as in the region, though at a smaller scale because Hispanic, Black, and Native
American residents in the city have better access than their counterparts in the
region. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic and Black residents, and highest for
White residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups,
except for Native American residents.
• In Costa Mesa, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods
as in the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that all groups, except for
White residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region
as a whole. Access in the city is lowest for Hispanic residents and highest for AAPI
residents. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except
for Black residents
• In Fountain Valley, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty
neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity,
with Hispanic residents, and Native American residents living below the FPL, having
the least access.
• In Fullerton, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty neighborhoods
compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity, with Hispanic
residents, including those living below the FPL, and Black residents living below the
FPL, having the least access.
• In Garden Grove, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty
neighborhoods. AAPI and Hispanic residents have the least access. White residents
have the best access. The population living below the FPL has less access across all
groups. Compared to the region, disparities in the city are less pronounced due to
lower index values for White and AAPI residents in the city, and higher index values
for all other groups in the city, as compared to values in the region.
• In Huntington Beach, all residents have relatively good access to low-poverty
neighborhoods compared to the region. There are some disparities by race/ethnicity,
with Hispanic residents having the least access and White residents having the most
access. Individuals living below the FPL have less access across all groups, except
for Native American residents.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 101 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Irvine, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared to
the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are no major
disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups compared
to the region, except for White residents. There are significant disparities in access
to low-poverty neighborhoods by race/ethnicity. Hispanic residents have the least
access. AAPI residents overall have the most access, however, the AAPI population
living below the FPL has significantly less access compared to the overall AAPI
population in the city.
• In Laguna Niguel, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups
compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are
no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups
compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic
residents having the least access. For the population living below the FPL, access is
much lower for Native American residents compared to any other group, access is
lower for AAPI residents compared to the overall AAPI population, and access is
higher for Black residents compared to the overall Black population.
• In Mission Viejo, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups
compared to the region. However, some disparities exist for individuals living below
the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having less access than other
groups in the city (though still with better access compared to the region).
• In Newport Beach, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups
compared to the region, including for individuals living below the FPL, and there are
no major disparities by race/ethnicity.
• In Orange, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as
in the region, though at a smaller scale because all groups, except for White
residents, in the city have better access than their counterparts in the region as a
whole. Hispanic residents in the city have the least access to low-poverty
neighborhoods. Additionally, Black residents living below the FPL have significantly
lower access.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all
groups compared to the region, and there is little racial/ethnic disparity. For the
population living below the FPL, racial/ethnic disparities are larger, mainly because
the AAPI population below the FPL has the most access to low-poverty
neighborhoods of any group in the city.
• In San Clemente, access to low-poverty neighborhoods is higher for all groups
compared to the region. However, some racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Hispanic
residents experiencing the least access. Disparities are larger for the population
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 102 25-29 Regional AFH
living below the FPL, with Black residents living below the FPL having the least
access in the city.
• In Santa Ana, there are significant disparities in access to low-poverty
neighborhoods. Hispanic residents have the least access overall, and White
residents have the most access overall. For the population living below the FPL,
access is lower across all groups. Compared to the region, all groups in the city have
less access to low-poverty neighborhoods, except for Black residents, who have
access comparable to the region overall.
• In Tustin, there are similar disparities in access to low-poverty neighborhoods as in
the region, though at a smaller scale due to the fact that Hispanic, Black, and Native
American residents in the city have higher access relative to the region, and White
and AAPI residents have lower access relative to region. In the city, Hispanic
residents have the lowest access. For the population living below the FPL, there are
also significant disparities. Access to low-poverty neighborhoods is lowest for
Native American and Hispanic residents living below the FPL, and access for White
residents living below the FPL is significantly lower than access for the overall White
population.
• In Westminster, access to low poverty neighborhoods is lower than in the region for
all groups, except for Black residents, and there are significant racial/ethnic
disparities. Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access, overall. For the
population living below the FPL, access is lower across all groups and is lowest for
AAPI residents.
Map 10 – Poverty Status, is a series of maps showing the percent of households, by Census
Tract, living below the FPL in north, central, and south Orange County, and in the region.
These maps were created by California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data
from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2017 -2021 5-Year Estimates13F
14.
These maps show the following relationship between a n individual’s place of residence
and their exposure to poverty:
• Countywide, higher poverty areas are in the central County cities, whereas the areas
along the coast, in the south, and in the northeast are low poverty areas.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there are high poverty areas (i.e.,
with poverty rates above 20%) in the following places:
o In Placentia, in the southwest corner of the city, which is a high POC
segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic.
o In Stanton, in the neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on
the eastside of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue.
14 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 103 25-29 Regional AFH
o In San Juan Capistrano, there is one tract between Camino Del Avion, Del
Obispo Street, and Alipaz Street, which has a poverty rate over 20% and is
predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Anaheim, the highest poverty area is located downtown north of Lincoln Avenue
(in a predominantly Hispanic area). There are other areas of concentrated poverty
south and west of downtown, which are also predominantly Hispanic. The areas of
lowest poverty are downtown south of Lincoln Avenue, east of downtown (including
the racially integrated areas), in Northeast Anaheim, and in Anaheim Hills.
• In Buena Park, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Costa Mesa, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Fountain Valley, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Fullerton, there are high poverty areas in the southeast (predominantly Hispanic,
low-medium segregation areas) and surrounding CSU Fullerton (likely due to the
presence of college students).
• In Garden Grove, there are high poverty areas in the industrial area in West Garden
Grove, in the Census Tract between Brookhurst Street and Gilbert Street north of
Chapman Avenue (a low-medium segregation area that is predominantly Hispanic),
and in the Census Tract in between SR-22 and Garden Grove Boulevard west of
Gilbert Street (a high POC segregation area that is predominantly AAPI).
• In Huntington Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Irvine, the highest poverty area is surrounding UC Irvine (likely due to the
presence of college students). There is also a high poverty area west of San Diego
Creek north of I-405. This is primarily an industrial/commercial area encompassing
the Irvine Business Complex.
• In La Habra, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Laguna Niguel, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Lake Forest, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Mission Viejo, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Newport Beach, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Orange, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%, and all neighborhoods
east of Villa Park have poverty rates below 10%.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In San Clemente, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Santa Ana, high poverty areas are concentrated in downtown and southeast of
downtown where land use is primarily industrial and commercial, and in western
Santa Ana, specifically the Census Tract northwest of the intersection of McFadden
Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, where Kona Kai Mobile Home Park is located . All of
these areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly Hispanic
populations.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 104 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Tustin, all Census Tracts have a poverty rate below 20%.
• In Westminster, there are high poverty areas between Edwards Street and Beach
Boulevard along Westminster Boulevard , and south of Bolsa Avenue west of
Bushard Street. These areas are high POC segregation areas with predominantly
AAPI populations.
Map 10 – Poverty Status – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 105 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 106 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 107 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 10 – Poverty Status – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Table 8 - Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin, shows data from the 201 8-2022
ACS on poverty rates by race/ethnicity and national origin, for the region, Orange County,
the Urban County jurisdictions, and the HUD Entitlement Cities . The table shows the
following:
• Countywide, the poverty rate is lower than region for all groups except AAPI
residents (who have a poverty rate comparable to the region). There are significant
racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate is highest and is nearly double the
White poverty rate, and the foreign-born population is more likely to live below
poverty than the native-born population.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, the poverty rate is lower than the
County overall. Similar to the County overall, the Black poverty rate is highest and
is nearly double the White poverty rate, and the foreign -born population is more
likely to live below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Aliso Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the County,
the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the native-born
population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may be too small
for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Anaheim, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to
the region poverty rate. Black and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 108 25-29 Regional AFH
Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below
poverty than the native-born population.
• In Buena Park, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. Similar to the
County overall, Black residents have the highest poverty rate.
• In Costa Mesa, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County and there are much
larger racial/ethnic disparities. The Black poverty rate in the city is over 20%, which
is nearly three times as high as the White poverty rate and double the AAPI poverty
rate. Similar to the County overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live
below poverty than the native-born population.
• In Fountain Valley, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Similar to the
County, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the
native-born population. (Note that the Black and Native American populations may
be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Fullerton, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to
the region poverty rate, and there are much larger racial/ethnic disparities than in
the County overall. The Black poverty rate is over 22%, which is almost three times
higher than the White and AAPI poverty rates. The Hispanic poverty rate is above
17%, which is more than double the White and AAPI rates. Similar to the County
overall, the foreign-born population is more likely to live below poverty than the
native-born population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small
for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Garden Grove, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is
comparable to the region poverty rate. There are relatively small disparities by
race/ethnicity, with Black residents experiencing the highest poverty rates, and
foreign-born residents more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents.
• In Huntington Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and the
foreign-born population is much more likely to live below poverty than the native -
born population. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for
the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Irvine, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and is comparable to the
region poverty rate. Black, Hispanic, and AAPI residents experience similar poverty
rates, which are all higher than the poverty rate for White residents. Foreign -born
residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents.
• In La Habra, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. Foreign-born residents
more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents, and Hispanic residents
have a higher poverty rate than other groups. (Note that the Black and Native
American populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.)
• In Laguna Niguel, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. However, there
are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 109 25-29 Regional AFH
the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-
born residents.
• In Lake Forest, the overall poverty rate is lower than in the County. However, there
are disparities between groups. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate in
the city, and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-
born residents.
• In Mission Viejo, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. The data show the
Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups, however the
population size may be too small for the data to be accurate.
• In Newport Beach, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. Unlike the
County overall, foreign-born residents in the city are less likely to live below the FPL
than native-born residents. Poverty rates for Black, AAPI, and Native American
residents are the highest. However, note that the Black and Native American
populations may be too small for the sample data to be accurate.
• In Orange, the overall poverty rate is similar to the County. In the city, Native
American and Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rates, and foreign -born
residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County. The
data show the Native American poverty rate to be much higher than other
racial/ethnic groups, however the population size may be too small for the data to
be accurate.
• In San Clemente, the overall poverty rate is lower than the County and foreign-born
residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born residents. The data
show the Black poverty rate to be much higher than other racial/ethnic groups,
however the population size may be too small for the data to be accurate.
• In Santa Ana, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the
region poverty rate. Black residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly 20%).
• In Tustin, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County but lower than the region
poverty rate. Hispanic residents have the highest poverty rate (nearly double the
White poverty rate), and foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL
than native-born residents.
• In Westminster, the overall poverty rate is higher than the County and the region. The
Black poverty rate is over 20% and more than double the White poverty rate. The
AAPI poverty rate is over 18% and is also more than double the White poverty rate.
Foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the FPL than native-born
residents. (Note that the Native American population may be too small for the
sample data to be accurate.)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 110 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 111 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 8 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin (continued)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 112 25-29 Regional AFH
5. Access to Environmentally Healthy Neighborhoods
The following analysis describes any disparities in access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods by protected class groups.
Table 6 includes an Environmental Health Index , which captures the potential exposure to
harmful toxins in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to harmful
toxins, and therefore better environmental quality, in a neighborhood.
Table 6 shows the following regarding disparities in access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods in each of the participating jurisdictions:
• In the region, there is relatively low access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities exist. Access to
environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White residents, and
lowest for Black residents followed by Hispanic and AAPI residents. Access is lower
for all groups living below the FPL, with the least access experienced by Hispanic
residents living below the FPL.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, there is relatively low access to
environmentally healthy neighborhoods for all groups, and racial/ethnic disparities
exist. Access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods is highest access for White
residents, and lowest for AAPI residents followed by Black and Hispanic residents.
Access is lower for all groups living below the FPL, except for White residents who
have comparable access to the overall population.
• In Aliso Viejo, there is relatively high access to environmentally health
neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region, and no racial/ethnic
disparities.
• In Anaheim, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for
all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Buena Park, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods
for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Costa Mesa, residents have better access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods than residents of the region, but access is still low. There are some
racial/ethnic disparities in access. Overall, AAPI residents have the least access to
environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and Hispanic residents have the best
access. For the population living below the FPL, Black and Native American residents
have the least access.
• In Fountain Valley, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly
neighborhoods for all residents compared to the region. There are small disparities
in access for the population living below the FPL. Specifically, Black residents living
below the FPL have the least access.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 113 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Fullerton, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for
all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Garden Grove, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly
neighborhoods for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Huntington Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still fairly low and
there are some racial/ethnic disparities. Access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods is lowest for Hispanic residents , and even more so for Hispanic
residents living below the FPL.
• In Irvine, residents have better access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods
than those of the region, but access is still low for all groups regardless of
race/ethnicity.
• In La Habra, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for
all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Laguna Niguel, residents have better access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all
groups regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Lake Forest, residents have better access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited and
there are some disparities among the population living below the FPL—specifically,
Native American residents living below the FPL have the least access.
• In Mission Viejo, residents have better access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all
groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Newport Beach, residents have better access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods than residents of the region overall, but access is still limited for all
groups regardless of race/ethnicity
• In Orange, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for
all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, there is relatively high access to environmentally health
neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in
Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In San Clemente, there is relatively high access to environmentally health
neighborhoods for all groups compared to the region and other jurisdictions in
Orange County, and no racial/ethnic disparities.
• In Santa Ana, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods
for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
• In Tustin, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods for all
residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 114 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Westminster, there is very poor access to environmentally friendly neighborhoods
for all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity.
Map 11 – Environmental Health, is a series of maps showing data from the California Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) California Communities
Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). These maps were created by
California HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using CalEnviroScreen data from
OEHHA14F
15.
The CalEnviroScreen tool is designed to identify communities most affected by pollution,
and those where residents may be especially vulnerable to its effects. To do this, it uses a
composite score based on 13 different indicators of pollution burden – such as exposure
indicators (e.g., diesel particulate matter levels and lead risk from housing and
environmental effect indicators (e.g., location of solid waste facilities) - as well as eight
indicators of population characteristics including sensitive population indicators (e.g.,
asthma rates) and socioeconomic factor factors (e.g., poverty and linguistic isolation). More
detailed information on the mapping methodology is available on the OEHHA website15F
16.
On these maps, green areas represent regions with more positive environmental factors,
while red areas indicate regions with more negative environmental factors.
These maps show the following relationship between an individual’s place of residence
and their access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods:
• Countywide, the areas with more positive environmental factors are along the coast,
in the south, and northeast. The areas with more negative environmental factors are
in the central parts of the County north of I-405 and west of the Costa Mesa Freeway
(SR-55).
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, most neighborhoods have
primarily positive environmental factors. The areas with more negative
environmental factors are located in the following places:
o Stanton.
o Southwest Placentia, next to Fullerton , which is an area of high POC
segregation and is predominantly Hispanic.
o San Juan Capistrano, in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange
between I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74), which is a high POC segregation
area and is predominantly Hispanic.
• In Aliso Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
15 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
16 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 115 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Anaheim, Anaheim Hills (a high White segregation area), has positive
environmental factors. Much of the rest of the city is affected by negative
environmental factors, with the severe environmental factors located in and around
downtown, along I-5 cutting across the city, and along Riverside Freeway (SR-91) on
the northern edge of the city.
• In Buena Park, there is one Census Tract with a score lower than 40 (indicating more
positive environmental factors). This area is between La Palma Avenue and Crescent
Avenue, on either side of Knott Avenue. Areas of the city with more negative
environmental factors include the neighborhoods north of the Artesia Freeway (SR-
91) and adjacent to I-5, and the western part of the city, which includes numerous
warehouses and distribution facilities.
• In Costa Mesa, areas with more positive environmental factors include
neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are high White
segregation areas, as well as neighborhoods along the western edge of the city and
north of I-405, which are also predominantly White. The areas with more negative
environmental factors include neighborhoods downtown, which are predominantly
Hispanic.
• In Fountain Valley, areas with more positive environmental factors include the
neighborhoods in the southwest corner of city, which have a high concentration of
White residents, and those surrounding Mile Square Regional Park, a high POC
segregation area that is predominantly AAPI. The rest of the city experiences
moderate environmental factors.
• In Fullerton, areas with more positive environmental factors include the
neighborhoods near the Panorama Nature Preserve in the city’s northeast. Areas
with more negative environmental factors include the neighborhoods in the
southeast part of the city, which are predominantly Hispanic—this area includes the
commercial/industrial area along the Riverside Freeway (SR-91); and neighborhoods
in the southwest part of the city, around Fullerton Municipal Airport and to the south,
which are also predominantly Hispanic.
• In Garden Grove, residential neighborhoods in West Garden Grove, west of Knott
Street have more positive environmental factors and are areas of high White
segregation. The rest of the city experiences less positive environmental factors, with
the most negative factors located in West Garden Grove, east of Knott Street an
industrial and commercial area, and along Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22), in the
city’s southeast.
• In Huntington Beach, most of the city – particularly along the coast and in the
southeastern region – has more positive environmental factors. However, an area
with less positive environmental factors is in the industrial/commercial area
between Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and Gothard Street, spanning from Talbert
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 116 25-29 Regional AFH
Avenue to Edinger Avenue. This area overlaps with the one predominantly Hispanic
Census Tract.
• In Irvine, most of the neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
The few places with more negative environmental factors include the area west of
San Diego Creek north of I-405 (which is primarily comprised of industrial and
commercial land uses, including the Irvine Business Complex), the area between UC
Irvine and I-405 (which is a high POC segregation area and is predominantly AAPI),
and the eastern part of city along I-5 near Lake Forest, where Irvine Industrial
Complex East and Irvine Technology Center are located.
• In La Habra, most of the city is affected by negative environmental factors, with the
most negative factors concentrated in the central and southeast areas of the city/
This is likely due to the proximity to warehouses, distribution centers, and Imperial
Highway (SR-90). These areas overlap with the high POC segregation areas, which
are predominantly Hispanic.
• In Laguna Niguel, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
• In Lake Forest, most neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors,
except for those south of Serrano Creek, which experience more negative
environmental factors.
• In Mission Viejo, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
• In Newport Beach, all neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental factors.
• In Orange, the neighborhoods east of Villa Park, which haver high White segregation,
experience more positive environmental factors. Neighborhoods west of Glassel
Street, which are predominantly Hispanic, are affected by more negative
environmental factors.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, all neighborhoods in the city have positive
environmental factors.
• In San Clemente, most neighborhoods in the city have positive environmental
factors, except for one area with moderate environmental factors . This area
encompasses the neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, and is
classified as a low-medium concentration area with a predominantly White
population.
• In Santa Ana, most of the city has negative environmental factors, with the most
negative factors located in the east and southeast side of the city along the Costa
Mesa Freeway (SR-55), where many of the commercial/industrial land uses are
located. Other highly impacted areas include downtown and neighborhoods west of
downtown. These are all areas of high POC segregation, and most are predominantly
Hispanic, except for one of the Tracts to the far west of downtown, which is
predominantly AAPI. There is one Census Tract with positive environmental factors
located in the southern part of the city, within a racially integrated area between
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 117 25-29 Regional AFH
Segerstrom High School and the Bristol Place Shopping Mall, where White residents
are the predominant group.
• In Tustin, neighborhoods north of I-5 have more positive environmental factors, and
neighborhoods south of I-5 have more negative environmental factors.
• In Westminster, most of the city has negative environmental factors, with the most
negative factors located in the central neighborhoods, from I-405 north, between
Beach Boulevard and Edwards Street.
Map 11 – Environmental Health – Region
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 118 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – North Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 119 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – Central Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 120 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 11 – Environmental Health – South Orange County
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
6. Disability and Access
The following analysis describes the barriers that deny individuals with disabilities access
to opportunity and community assets.
Table 7 – Disability by Type, presents the percentage of residents with various disabilities
living in the region, Orange County, the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, and in
HUD Entitlement City. In the region and Orange County overall, the most prevalent form of
disability is ambulatory difficulty, followed by independent living difficulty. Ambulatory
difficulty is also the most prevalent form of disability in the Urban County jurisdictions and
all HUD Entitlement Cities except for Aliso Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, where
cognitive difficulty is most prevalent, and Irvine, where independent living difficulty is most
prevalent.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 121 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 7 – Disability by Type
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 122 25-29 Regional AFH
According to data from HUD, in Orange County, a total of 398 housing discrimination cases
were opened between January 2019 and November 2024 (when this report was prepared).
As shown in Table 8, below, the majority (65.33%) of cases alleged discrimination based
on disability. (Please note, the total number of cases in the table below equal more than
398, and the percentages equal more than 100% because one case can involve allegations
of discrimination based on multiple protected classes). Table 9 shows the number of cases
by jurisdiction, and the number and percentage of cases that included allegations of
discrimination based on disability status. As the table shows, in nearly all jurisdictions,
discrimination based (in whole or in part) on disability status comprises most cases.
Table 8 – Discrimination Complaints, Orange County, 2019-2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 123 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 9 – Discrimination Complaints by Jurisdiction,
Orange County, 2019-2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 124 25-29 Regional AFH
The fair housing challenges facing individuals with a disability were described during the
stakeholder consultations and community meetings. Participants in these meetings
reported the following barriers that deny individuals with disabilities access to opportunity
and community assets:
• Individuals with disabilities often seek affordable housing in older buildings that
may not meet accessibility standards, creating additional barriers.
• Affordable housing options are concentrated in areas of Santa Ana and Anaheim,
with fewer options in higher opportunity areas of the County.
• Individuals with disabilities often face barriers in accessing necessary modifications
in housing. Tenants must provide a doctor's letter to request modifications, yet
landlords are often resistant to approving accommodation requests . In many cases,
tenants are responsible for covering modification costs, unless the property is
government-owned. Additionally, low-income individuals with disabilities struggle
to afford the necessary modifications.
7. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The following analysis identifies and discusses any overarching patterns of access to
opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors , including how these patterns
compare to patterns of segregation, integration, and R/ECAPs . The analysis also identifies
areas that experience: (a) high access; and (b) low access across multiple indicators.
In Orange County, there is a general pattern of disparities in access to opportunity between
the cities in the central part of the County, and the cities and unincorporated areas along
the coast and in the southern and northeastern parts of the County. Cities in central Orange
County tend to have higher poverty areas, lower educational scores, lower economic
scores, and worse environmental health factors. These cities are also comprised of many
areas of high POC segregation, with predominantly Hispanic populations. Except for
Garden Grove and Westminster, which have neighborhoods with predominantly AAPI
populations. Conversely, the cities and unincorporated areas along the coast and in the
south and northeast experience lower poverty rates, higher educational scores, higher
economic scores, and better environmental health factors. These areas correspond to areas
of high White segregation and predominantly White populations.
In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions,
• The following racial/ethnic groups experience disparities in access across multiple
indicators:
o Hispanic residents, and particularly those living below the Federal Poverty
Level (FPL), have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods,
neighborhoods in close proximity to high performing schools, and
neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 125 25-29 Regional AFH
• The following areas experience low access across multiple indicators:
o Southwest Placentia neighborhoods have low access to environmental
health, high poverty, low economic scores, and are not located in a high -
quality transit area. This part of the city is a high POC segregation area that is
predominantly Hispanic.
o Stanton residents experience low access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods and high exposure to poverty on the south side of Katella
Avenue and on the east side of Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue.
o In San Juan Capistrano, the neighborhoods surrounding the I-5 and the
Ortega Highway (SR-74) interchange experience poor environmental health
and have low economic scores. This is a high POC segregation area and is
predominantly Hispanic.
• Apart from the areas above, the rest of the Urban County jurisdictions experience
high environmental quality and have relatively low poverty. In addition, the
following areas have access to educational and economic opportunities, as reflected
in high education and economic scores on the maps analyzed above:
o Brea, Cypress, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Los Alamitos, North Tustin, Orange
Park Acres, Villa Park, Yorba Linda, and the unincorporated areas east of Yorba
Linda
In Aliso Viejo, residents have high access across multiple opportunities, including high
education scores, high economic scores, high environmental quality, and low exposure to
poverty. However, residents generally do not have good access to transit and
neighborhoods with low transportation costs.
In Anaheim, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods,
neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods near the downtown have
low environmental health, low education scores, low economic scores; but good access to
HQTAs. Conversely, Anaheim Hills, which is a predominantly White area, has the best
access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods with low poverty rates, high educat ion
scores, and high economic scores.
In Buena Park, Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to
neighborhoods with low poverty rates and high performing schools. Geographically, the
neighborhoods in the center of the city, between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), have
poor environmental health, lower educational scores, and lower economic scores.
In Costa Mesa, Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods,
neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods downtown and west of
downtown are less environmentally healthy and have lower education and economic
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 126 25-29 Regional AFH
scores. These are also predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Conversely,
neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which are predominantly White, have
higher education and economic scores, are more environmentally healthy, and have lower
poverty rates.
In Fountain Valley, neighborhoods across the city have relatively high economic and
educational scores, and relatively low poverty rates. White or AAPI residents comprise the
predominant population in all neighborhoods.
In Fullerton, Hispanic residents have the least access to low -poverty neighborhoods,
neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods in southeast Fullerton
(which are predominantly Hispanic), have relatively low economic and education scores,
poor environmental quality, and relatively high poverty rates. Conversely, neighborhoods
in the northern part of the city, which are predominantly White or AAPI, have higher
education and economic scores, better environmental health, and lower poverty.
In Garden Grove, Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access to low poverty
neighborhoods and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
Additionally, Hispanic residents also have the least access to neighborhoods with high
performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods with access to the most
opportunities are in West Garden Grove, where education and economic scores are high,
environmental quality is high, and poverty is low. West Garden Grove is a predominantly
White area.
In Huntington Beach, Hispanic residents have relatively low access to neighborhoods with
good environmental health, low poverty, high education scores, and high economic scores.
Overall, access to opportunities in the city is high compared to the region.
In Irvine, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities.
Geographically, the neighborhoods surrounding UC Irvine have relatively low economic
scores and relatively high poverty rates, but this is most likely due to the concentration of
college students in this area.
In La Habra, neighborhoods in the city’s center and southeast of the center have poor
environmental quality, low education scores, and low economic scores. These
neighborhoods are also predominantly Hispanic.
In Laguna Niguel, residents have high access across multiple opportunities, including high
education scores, high economic scores, high environmental quality, and low exposure to
poverty. However, residents generally do not have good access to transit and
neighborhoods with low transportation costs.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 127 25-29 Regional AFH
In Lake Forest, residents overall have relatively good access to opportunities, compared to
the region. However, residents living below the FPL in the city generally have less access
to opportunities than the rest of the population.
In Mission Viejo, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities (apart
from transit and low-cost transportation). Most of the city’s neighborhoods are
predominantly White, except in the south.
In Newport Beach, residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities. All
of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White.
In Orange, Hispanic, and Black residents (especially Black residents living below t he FPL)
have relatively low access to neighborhoods close to high performing schools, and to
neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Geographically,
neighborhoods west of Glassel Street (which are predominantly Hispanic), have lower
education and economic scores, and worse environmental quality. Conversely,
neighborhoods to the north and east of Villa Park (predominantly White), have high
education and economic scores, and good environmental quality.
In Rancho Santa Margarita, residents across the city have relatively high access to
opportunities. All of the city’s neighborhoods are predominantly White.
In San Clemente, residents have relatively high access to opportunities compared to the
region. Geographically, compared to the rest of the city, neighborhoods north and east of
Max Berg Plaza Park have lower environmental quality, lower economic scores, and slightly
higher poverty rates.
In Santa Ana, Hispanic residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty
in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to
high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
human capital. Geographically, neighborhoods downtown, west of downtown, and
southeast of downtown have low economic scores, low education scores, high poverty
rates, and poor environmental quality. Neighborhoods in the north and south of the c ity
have better economic and education scores.
In Tustin, Hispanic residents (especially those below FPL) are less likely than other groups
to live in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor
force participation and human capital; and are more likely to be exposed to poverty in their
neighborhoods.
In Westminster, AAPI residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty
in their neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to
high performing schools or jobs. Native American residents living below the FPL are also
less likely to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 128 25-29 Regional AFH
This section describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts,
economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns
described above.
Broadly speaking, disparities in access to opportunities between and within jurisdictions in
Orange County are due, in part, to:
• Lack of affordable (market or publicly subsidized) housing in high opportunity areas,
due to market factors, governmental constraints, and community opposition to high
density zoning.
• Lack of public and private investment in low-opportunity neighborhoods.
• Displacement of residents is due to rising housing costs.
Through the stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that
disparities in access to opportunities in the County are due to:
• In addition to landlord resistance to renting to HCV Program participants, the gap
between HCV subsidy amounts and housing costs further inhibits HCV Program
participants from accessing housing in higher cost (and higher opportunity areas).
• Many seniors are on fixed incomes and cannot keep up with the rising cost of
housing.
• The high cost of land, which makes it hard to build new affordable housing in high
opportunity areas.
• The California Coastal Act, which limits development in high opportunity areas along
the coast.
• Lack of accessible housing for individuals with disabilities.
Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic
trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to disparities in access to
opportunities in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 129 25-29 Regional AFH
E. Disproportionate Housing Needs
The following analysis describes which groups experience higher rates of housing cost
burden, severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when
compared to other groups.
Housing Problems
Table 10 – Disproportionate Housing Problems, shows 2017 -2021 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data on the percentage of households experiencing at least
one of the following four housing problems, organized by race/ethnicity:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household lacks a sink with piped water, a range or
stove, or a refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household lacks hot and cold piped water, a
flush toilet, and a bathtub or shower.
• Overcrowding: A household is considered overcrowded if there are more than 1.01
individuals per room.
• Cost burden: A household is considered cost burdened if the household spends
more than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs
include rent paid by the tenant, plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include
mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
A disproportionately greater need exists when members of a racial or ethnic group in a
certain income range experience housing problems at a rate that is least 10 percentage
points higher than the rate experienced by all households within that income level. Table
10 reports the following:
• American Indian or Alaska Native households, and Pacific Islander households have
disproportionate housing needs within the 80%-100% AMI range.
• It is also worth noting that Hispanic households in the 30% AMI and below range
experience housing needs at a much higher rate than the overall population in that
income range, though the rate is slightly less than 10 percentage points.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 130 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 10 - Disproportionate Housing Problems, Orange County
Percent of households experiencing at least one
housing burden, by income range
Race/Ethnicity Less than
30% AMI
30%-50%
AMI
50%-80%
AMI
80%-100%
AMI
Orange County as a whole 79.8% 78.9% 63.3% 42.6%
White 77.4% 72.4% 61.6% 43.8%
Black/African American 81.5% 85.9% 70.9% 37.5%
Asian 72.5% 78.5% 61.7% 44.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 59.7% 60.7% 56.5% 54.2%
Pacific Islander 78.1% 76.5% 71.7% 55.1%
Hispanic 89.5% 86.0% 65.4% 39.3%
Source: CHAS 2017-2021
Severe Housing Problems
Table 11 – Disproportionate Severe Housing Problems, shows 2017 -2021 CHAS data on the
percentage of households experiencing at least one of the following four severe housing
problems, organized by race/ethnicity:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household does not have a stove/oven and
refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household does not have running water or
modern toilets.
• Severe overcrowding: A household is considered severely overcrowded if there are
more than 1.5 individuals per room.
• Severe cost burden: A household is considered severely cost burdened if the
household spends more than 50% of its total income for housing costs. For renters,
housing costs include rent paid by the tenant , plus utilities. For owners, housing
costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
According to Table 11, the following groups experience disproportionate need as defined
above:
• Hispanic households have disproportionate severe housing needs within the 0%-
30% AMI range.
• American Indian or Alaska Native households, and Pacific Islander households have
disproportionate severe housing needs within the 50%-80% AMI range.
• American Indian or Alaska Native households have disproportionate severe housing
needs within the 80%-100% AMI range.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 131 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 11 - Disproportionate Severe Housing Problems, Orange County
Percent of households experiencing at least one
severe housing burden, by income range
Race/Ethnicity Less than
30% AMI
30%-50%
AMI
50%-80%
AMI
80%-100%
AMI
Orange County as a whole 71.2% 55.5% 28.0% 14.8%
White 68.7% 52.5% 22.9% 10.5%
Black/African American 72.9% 55.5% 25.2% 4.3%
Asian 62.4% 52.5% 27.7% 15.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 59.7% 17.0% 44.4% 30.6%
Pacific Islander 58.1% 59.3% 40.7% 19.2%
Hispanic 82.2% 60.3% 34.6% 23.0%
Source: CHAS 2017-2021
The following analysis identifies which areas experience the greatest housing burdens and
describes which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs ,
and the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas .
Map 12 – Housing Problems, is a series of maps illustrating concentrations of households
experiencing housing burdens in Orange County. These maps were created by California
HCD to facilitate fair housing planning, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau American
Community Survey, 2018 -2022 5-Year Estimates16F
17. On these maps, areas with darker
shading have a higher percentage of households experiencing a particular housing
problem (i.e., cost burden, overcrowding, incomplete plumbing, and incomplete kitchen
facilities.
The maps show that the areas experiencing the greatest housing burdens are the following:
• Overcrowding is an issue that is generally only experienced by the residents of cities
in the central and northern parts of the County. Overcrowding is not a significant
concern in the coastal areas, the areas south and east of Irvine, or the northeastern
region, including Yorba Linda and the unincorporated areas to the east Conversely,
more than 20% of all units are overcrowded in the following areas:
o In Santa Ana, in most of the city, which are also areas of high POC segregation
and are predominantly Hispanic.
o In Garden Grove, in the eastern and southeastern neighborhoods, which are
areas of high POC segregation and are predominantly Hispanic in the east.
17 The maps were downloaded from the AFFH Data Viewer, which can be accessed at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 132 25-29 Regional AFH
o In Anaheim, in the neighborhoods north and south of downtown, and around
Disneyland. These are also areas of high POC segregation and are
predominantly Hispanic.
o In Fullerton, in the neighborhoods south of downtown, which are
predominantly Hispanic.
• Overpayment by renters is an issue everywhere in the County. In most
neighborhoods in the County, over 40% of renter households are struggling with
overpayment.
• Overpayment by owners is less of an issue than overpayment by renters but is also
widespread throughout the County. In many neighborhoods, 20-40% of homeowner
households struggle with overpayment. There are only a few areas where more than
60% or fewer than 20% of homeowner households struggle with overpayment .
• Incomplete plumbing is not a significant concern in the County, as fewer than 2% of
homes experience this issue. However, one exception is Fountain Valley, where 5-
10% of housing units are affected. This area includes the neighborhood surrounding
Fountain Valley High School and north to Warner Avenue, which is an area of high
POC segregation.
• Incomplete kitchen facilities are also not a significant concern in the County. In most
of the County less than 10% of homes experience this issue. The areas where m ore
than 10% of homes experience this issue are:
o In Anaheim, in the western neighborhoods, which are racially integrated and
predominantly Hispanic , except for one Census Tract that is predominantly
AAPI.
o In Orange, in the predominantly Hispanic area west of Glassel St reet and
north of Walnut Avenue.
o In La Habra, in one Census Tract in the north central part of the city.
o In Irvine, near UC Irvine (which may reflect a concentration of student
housing).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 133 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overcrowding
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overpayment by Renters
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 134 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Overpayment by Owners
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Lacking Complete Plumbing
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 135 25-29 Regional AFH
Map 12 – Housing Problems – Lacking Complete Kitchen
Source: California HCD, AFFH Data Viewer
The following analysis describes the differences in rates of renter and owner-occupied
housing by race/ethnicity.
Table 12 – Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity, shows the percentages of households that
are renters and homeowners by race/ethnicity, based on data from the 201 8-2022 American
Community Survey. The table shows that,
• Countywide, the homeownership rate is 56.5%, which is higher than the
homeownership rate in the region. There are large disparities in homeownership by
race/ethnicity. Black households have the lowest homeownership rate (32.4%). Less
than 40% of Hispanic households own their home , and approximately 42% of Native
households own their home. White and AAPI households have the highest
homeownership rates.
• In the Orange County Urban County jurisdictions, homeownership rates are higher
overall and for each group compared to the County. The same disparities in
homeownership by race/ethnicity exist as in the County.
• In Aliso Viejo, homeownership rates for AAPI, Black, and Hispanic households are
higher than in the County overall, and homeownership rates for White households
are lower.
• In Anaheim, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County,
and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 136 25-29 Regional AFH
• In Buena Park, homeownership rates and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the
County overall; however, the disparities are even larger due to a higher
homeownership rate for White households compared to the County, and a lower rate
for Black households compared to the County.
• In Costa Mesa, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the
County, and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist.
• In Fountain Valley, homeownership rates are higher compared to the County for all
groups, except Black households. However, it is important to note that the small
sample size for Black households may affect the accuracy of the data is not accurate.
• In Fullerton, homeownership rates are lower for all groups than the County overall,
except for AAPI households. Racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Native American
households the least likely to own their home, and AAPI households most likely.
• In Garden Grove, the Black and Hispanic homeownership rate is half the White
homeownership rate. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than the
AAPI homeownership countywide.
• In Huntington Beach, homeownership rates are lower for White, Black, and Hispanic
households compared to the County overall, and higher for AAPI and Native
American households. Similar racial/ethnic disparities exist in the city as in the
County.
• In Irvine, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County
overall, and racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County, with Black and
Hispanic households experiencing the lowest homeownership rates (15.7% and 18%
respectively)
• In La Habra, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the County,
and similar racial/ethnic disparities exist as in the County.
• In Laguna Niguel, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the
County, and racial/ethnic disparities exist —the Hispanic homeownership rate is the
lowest, followed by the Black homeownership rate. The AAPI homeownership rate
is the highest, followed by the White homeownership rate.
• In Lake Forest, homeownership rates are higher for all groups compared to the
County, except Native American households. Racial/Ethnic disparities exist, with
AAPI and White homeownership higher than Black and Hispanic homeownership
rates.
• In Mission Viejo, homeownership rates across all groups are much higher than in
the County overall, though racial/ethnic disparities still exist. The Black
homeownership rate is the lowest in the city, though it is above 60%.
• In Newport Beach, homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the
County overall, except for AAPI households, who have slightly higher
homeownership rate in the city. The Black and Native American homeownership
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 137 25-29 Regional AFH
rates are very low in the city. However, due to the small sample sizes for these
groups, the data may not be entirely accurate.
• In Orange, homeownership rates are comparable to the County overall, and similar
disparities exist. However, the disparities are slightly larger in the city than in the
County, as White, AAPI, and Hispanic homeownership rates are higher than in the
County overall, while the Black homeownership rate is lower.
• In Rancho Santa Margarita, homeownership rates are higher for all groups when
compared to the County. However, there are still racial/ethnic disparities. Hispanic
households have the lowest homeownership rate, and it is 20 percentage points
lower than the AAPI homeownership rate, which is the highest rate in the city.
• In San Clemente, homeownership rates are higher for White, AAPI, and Hispanic
households compared to the County overall, while rates are lower for Black and
Native American households. Due to the small sample size for Black and Native
American households, the data may not be accurate. This causes the racial/ethnic
disparities in homeownership rates to be larger than at the County level.
• In Santa Ana, racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership rates are similar to the
County overall, but less pronounced. This is because homeownership rates in the
city are lower for White and AAPI households, and higher for Black, Hispanic, and
Native American households compared to the County overall.
• In Tustin, homeownership rates are very low for Black and Hispanic households,
equaling less than half of the homeownership rate for AAPI and White households.
The AAPI homeownership rate is higher in the city than in the County overall, and
the White homeownership rate is lower in the city than in the County overall.
• In Westminster, there are large racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Black,
Hispanic, and Native American households have the lowest rates (30%), and these
rates are less than half the homeownership rate for White households, which is the
highest in the city. The AAPI homeownership rate in the city is lower than in the
County overall and is nearly 20 percentage points lower than the White
homeownership rate in the city.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 138 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 139 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 140 25-29 Regional AFH
Table 12 - Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity (continued)
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 141 25-29 Regional AFH
Charts 1 and 2, below, show denial rates for home purchase loans by race/ethnicity in
Orange County and California between 2010 -2021. In both Orange County and California,
denial rates are highest for Black loan applicants, followed by Hispanic then Asian
applicants. White applicants have the lowest denial rates. Denial rates are lower in Orange
County for all groups compared to the state, except for Hispanic applicants who have the
same denial rate in both geographies. Since the Great Recession, denial rates hav e fallen
for all groups.
Chart 1: Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Orange County
Source: Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by the Federal Reserve Banks of
Philadelphia and Cleveland.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 142 25-29 Regional AFH
Chart 2: Home Purchase Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, California
Source: Analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data by the Federal Reserve Banks of
Philadelphia and Cleveland.
This section describes the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts,
economic trends, or other factors that may have caused or contributed to the patterns
described above.
Broadly speaking, disproportionate housing needs across and within jurisdictions in
Orange County are influenced by several factors, including:
• The age of housing stock in some neighborhoods, and the high cost of home
repairs/rehabilitation relative to incomes.
• Insufficient number of Housing Choice Vouchers or other types of publicly subsidized
housing
• Land use and zoning laws that have led to the dominance of single-family housing,
which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing.
Through stakeholder consultations and community meetings, it was also reported that
disproportionate housing needs in the County are due to:
• Eviction notices have a particularly adverse impact on tenants, especially on families
who are fleeing or those with a history of domestic violence. While the judicial
system is making efforts to address these issues, barriers such as language and
understanding legal terminology continue to pose challenges.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 143 25-29 Regional AFH
• Lack of adequate shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly for
the most vulnerable groups such as trans women.
• Insufficient homebuyer education for minority homebuyers.
• Lack of resources for organizations providing education and services to protected
class groups.
• Language and digital literacy barriers that make it hard for LEP populations to locate
and access housing resources.
Detailed lists of the public or private policies or practices, demographic shifts, economic
trends, and other factors that have caused or contributed to disproportionate housing
needs in each of the jurisdictions are included in Section IV.
F. Local and State Policies and Practices Impacting Fair Housing
The following analysis describes how local laws, policies, ordinances, and other practices
impede or promote fair housing (including how they impede or promote the siting or
location of affordable housing in well-resourced neighborhoods, and equitable access to
homeownership and other asset building and economic opportunities).
In general, land use and zoning laws across Orange County have led to the dominance of
single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily housing and has
contributed in various ways to reinforcing longstanding patterns of segregation,
concentration of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities. Through the Housing
Element process mandated by the State of California, e ach jurisdiction has identified
various public and/or private policies and practices that have contributed to the fair housing
issues identified in this AFH, as well as efforts they are making to promote fair housing .
These items are detailed in Section IV.
This section describes any state or local fair housing laws and the characteristics protected
under each law.
In the State of California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil
Rights Act prohibit discrimination in housing based on the following characteristics:
• Race
• Color
• National origin (including language use restrictions)
• Religion
• Sex
• Familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal
custodians; pregnant women and people securing custody of children under 18)
• Handicap (disability)
• Age
• Ancestry
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 144 25-29 Regional AFH
• Citizenship
• Gender Identity and Gender Expression
• Genetic Information
• Immigration Status
• Marital Status
• Primary Language
• Sexual Orientation
• Source of Income
• Military or veteran status
This section describes efforts to increase fair housing compliance and enforcement
capacity, and to ensure compliance with existing fair housing and civil rights laws and
regulations.
Orange County jurisdictions rely on the state and local nonprofit fair housing providers to
ensure fair housing compliance and enforcement, including the following organizations:
California Civil Rights Department
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH), is responsible for enforcing state fair housing laws that
make it illegal to discriminate against or harass someone because of a protected
characteristic, that require reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and that prohibit
retaliation against someone for exercising their rights. The CRD receives and investigates
complaints and provides mediation and conflict resolution services throughout the state.
Fair Housing Council of Orange County
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) is a nonprofit with a mission of
ensuring access to housing and preserving human rights. FHCOC provides a variety of
services in multiple languages, including community outreach and education, homebuyer
education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost
advocacy. In addition to these client services, FHCOC investigates claims of housing
discrimination and assists with referrals to the state. FHCOC currently works in Anahe im,
Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Rancho Santa Margarita, the City
of Orange, and Orange County.
Fair Housing Foundation
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) serves parts of Los Angeles County and several cities
in Orange County, including Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove,
Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente,
Tustin, and Westminster. FHF provides landlord-tenant counseling and mediation, rental
housing counseling, and community outreach and education. In addition, the FHF screens
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 145 25-29 Regional AFH
fair housing complaints, investigates through testing, and either engages in conciliation or
mediation efforts or refers the complaints to the appropriate administrative agencies.
This section describes the status of any unresolved findings, lawsuits, enforcement
actions, settlements, or judgments in which the program participant has been a party
related to fair housing or other civil rights laws in the jurisdiction.
There are no unresolved findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or
judgments in which the program participants have been a party related to fair housing or
other civil rights laws in the jurisdictions.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 146 25-29 Regional AFH
IV. Fair Housing Issues and Action Plan
For each participating jurisdiction, this section outlines (1) the issues identified in the
preceding analysis; (2) the factors that create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the
severity of each fair housing issue; and (3) the actions each jurisdiction has taken or will
take to address those contributing factors in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
The actions listed below are included in the most recently approved and adopted Housing
Element for each jurisdiction, and include actions taken to affirmatively further fair housing
since the adoption of the Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
in 2020.
A. Orange County Urban County
Across the Urban County jurisdictions, the preceding analysis identified the following fair
housing issues:
• Disparities in Access to Opportunities: Hispanic residents, and particularly those
living below the FPL, have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods,
neighborhoods in close proximity to high performing schools, and neighborhoods
with high labor force participation and human capital.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs: Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across
Orange County, including in the Urban County jurisdictions. Additionally, there are
racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Specifically, Black, Latino, and Native
American households have low homeownership rates compared to White and AAPI
households. The Black homeownership rate, the lowest among all groups, is
approximately half the White homeownership rate, which is the highest.
Within the jurisdictions that make up the Urban County, the following additional fair
housing issues were identified:
• Unincorporated Orange County
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the unincorporated
areas east of Rancho Santa Margarita, in North Tustin, in Orange Park Acres ,
and in Rossmoor.
• Brea
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• Cypress
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation (which are
predominantly AAPI neighborhoods), and there is overlap between the
location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher use,
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 147 25-29 Regional AFH
and areas of high POC segregation in the neighborhood near King
Elementary School, in the north of the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• Dana Point
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• La Palma
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the city, which are
predominantly AAPI neighborhoods.
• Laguna Beach
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• Laguna Hills
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• Laguna Woods
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• Placentia
o Segregation and R/ECAPs: There are areas of high White segregation in the
north of the city, and high POC segregation areas in the southwest corner of
the city. The high POC segregation area also has several publicly supported
housing units, including a high rate of voucher use. Additionally, in this part
of the city, the neighborhoods south of Orangethorpe Avenue are a R/ECAP.
The R/ECAP Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are the neighborhoods to the
west and south in Fullerton and Anaheim.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing. Geographically, southwestern Placentia
neighborhoods have low access to environmental health, high poverty, low
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 148 25-29 Regional AFH
economic scores, and are not located in a high-quality transit area. As noted
above, this part of the city is a high POC segregation area that is
predominantly Hispanic.
• San Juan Capistrano
o Segregation: There is a high POC segregation area that is predominantly
Hispanic. There is overlap between the location of publicly supported
housing, including a high rate of voucher use, and the areas of high POC
segregation in the Census Tract that encompasses the interchange between
I-5 and the Ortega Highway (SR-74).
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing. Geographically, the neighborhoods around the I-5
and the Ortega Highway (SR-74) interchange experience poor environmental
health and have low economic scores. This is a high POC segregation area
and is predominantly Hispanic.
• Seal Beach
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing.
• Stanton
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the city, which are
predominantly Hispanic or AAPI neighborhoods . There are overlaps between
the location of publicly supported housing, including a high rate of voucher
use, and areas of high POC segregation throughout the city.
o Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience
discrimination in housing. Additionally, all Stanton residents experience low
access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and residents in the
neighborhoods on the south side of Katella Avenue and on the eastside of
Beach Boulevard north of Katella Avenue also experience high exposure to
poverty.
• Villa Park
o Segregation: There are areas of high White segregation in the city.
• Yorba Linda
o Segregation: There are areas of high POC segregation in the northern area of
the city, which is predominantly AAPI, and areas of high White segregation
elsewhere
The contributing factors to each of the fair housing issues listed above, along with each
jurisdictions’ fair housing goals and actions, are outlined as follows:
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 149 25-29 Regional AFH
1. Unincorporated Orange County
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of investment in certain neighborhoods, including lack of community revitalization
strategies, lack of private investment, and lack of public investment, including in services and
amenities.
2. Limited quantity of affordable housing due to community opposition, land use and zoning
laws, and occupancy codes and restrictions.
3. Private discrimination, including source of income discrimination.
4. Limited knowledge of fair housing laws due to: limited resources to pay for outreach;
increasingly fewer people rely on newspapers to receive information, and public notices or
printed flyers are costly and ineffective means to reach the community at large; unknown
language barriers and resource barriers to accessing information.
Actions: Timeframe:
Facilitate Affordable Housing Development through the following
actions:
1. Create a Housing Opportunities Overlay Map and webpage
providing information about the Housing Opportunities Overlay
and identify areas where higher density projects would be
permitted with expedited processing, and which may be eligible
for density bonuses.
Within 18-months of
adoption/certification of
the Housing Element.
2. Develop informational materials on the County’s website
regarding the County’s lot consolidation incentives and density
bonus program.
Within 18-months of
adoption/certification of
the Housing Element.
3. Update the “Orange County Housing Opportunities Manual” and
will also create and distribute promotional materials explaining
the County’s expedited permit processing and incentives for
affordable housing to be provided to developers in the region.
Within one year of
adoption and certification
of the Housing Element.
4. Publish and review the Affordable Housing Rental List. Annually
5. Review the County Housing Authority’s participation in the
Housing Choice Voucher Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
and pursue additional vouchers/funding when available.
Annually
6. Work with applicants who propose for -rent residential projects to
encourage four-bedroom units for large families as part of the
proposed developments.
As proposals are received
(ongoing)
7. Meet with Developers and DPRC to identify potential constraints
to the development of affordable housing and housing for those
with special needs in the County’s zoning regulations.
Within one year of
adoption. Address within
six months.
Coordination with Affordable Housing Stakeholders through the
following actions:
8. Provide letters of support to affordable housing developers’
applications to local, State, and federal agencies for funding,
Initiate by January 2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 150 25-29 Regional AFH
provided the proposed projects are consistent with the goals and
policies of the General Plan.
9. Work with cities and LAFCO to ensure that new planned
communities in sphere of influence areas provide adequate sites
at appropriate densities for affordable housing.
Annually
10. Conduct meetings with stakeholders, including the development
community and property owners to facilitate housing
development.
Annually
11. Attend and promote development incentives at the monthly
Housing Opportunities Committee meeting and the bi -monthly
OC Housing Finance Trust meetings.
Twice annually
12. Meet with owners of the religious properties identified in the
inventory of sites and provide information on regulatory
changes, development standards and affordability requirements
and incentives and/or assistance available through the County for
development of housing on religious institution properties.
By January 2025
13. Meet with nonprofit developers and housing organizations to
evaluate projects for acquisition and rehabilitation/new
construction of new shelters, and long-term affordable housing,
including senior housing.
Annually
Increase knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws through
the following actions:
14. Implement Restrictive Covenant Modification Plan (RCM)
including Phase III, examination of remaining handwritten
documents for unlawful languages and process.
By July 2027
15. Continue to work under contract with the FHCOC and/or other
qualified fair housing service providers to provide fair housing
services for all segments of the community. Evaluate and adjust
the scope of services to ensure the County addresses any
emerging trends in fair housing.
Annually
16. Provide federal/state/local information regarding discrimination
to residents, including applicable Fair Housing Information and
Discrimination Complaint Forms.
Annually
17. Maintain bilingual staff to assist non -English speaking families
and ensure handicap accessible offices.
Annually
18. Work with the fair housing agencies to provide information
regarding housing discrimination and intervention to resolve
complaints.
Annually
19. Use non-traditional media (e.g., social media, County website) in
outreach and education efforts in addition to print media and
notices.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 151 25-29 Regional AFH
20. Update the Affordable Housing Rental List (translated in multiple
languages) on the County website.
Annually
21. Inform community members of the existence of the Orange
County Fair Housing Council (FHCOC) and its oversight of fair
housing practices by posting on the County’s website and at the
Planning counter.
By December 2025
22. The County shall work with local resource agencies to implement
an outreach program informing families within the County of
housing and services available for individuals with
developmental disabilities.
Annually
Amend the zoning code and other local ordinances to facilitate new
housing opportunities and increase housing mobility, including:
23. Allow emergency shelters without a Use Permit or other
discretionary permit in the commercial and industrial portions of
the Housing Opportunities Overlay Zone.
By October 2024
24. Remove the Site Development Permit requirement for
multifamily developments of one to four units and any
developments with 20% affordable units and allow by-right.
Amend the Site Development Permit requirements for objective
findings for developments of units or more.
By October 2024
25. Adopt Objective Design Standards (ODS). By October 2024
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Contributing Factors:
1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes.
2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.
3. Lack of private and public investment in specific neighborhoods.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase accessible and affordable housing opportunities for persons
with disabilities through the following actions:
1. Review Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit. To promote
flexibility to accommodate residents with different living
conditions, the County will review and adopt revisions as
appropriate to its zoning code to provide greater flexibility in
consideration of accommodating a variety of household
situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.
By December 2026.
2. The County will review and revise its group home and zoning
ordinances as needed to ensure ongoing compliance with state
and federal fair housing laws. For example, the ordinance will be
reviewed to ensure that a group home that operates as a single
By December 31, 2025.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 152 25-29 Regional AFH
housekeeping unit is permitted in any zoning district in the same
manner as other residential uses in that zone (e.g., multifamily,
single family). The definition of single housekeeping unit as to
group homes will be revised to eliminate (1) the reference to
residential activities that do not occur on a nonprofit basis and,
(2) the requirement that the residents share lease agreements or
ownership. In addition, the standards for group homes shall be
objective and not unnecessarily constrain approval of grou p
homes in that zoning district.
3. Seek State and Federal monies, as funding becomes available,
for permanent supportive housing construction and
rehabilitation targeted for persons with disabilities, including
persons with developmental disabilities.
Annually.
4. Develop a program /ordinance to provide regulatory incentives,
such as expedited permit processing and fee waiver, to projects
targeted for persons with disabilities, including persons with
developmental disabilities.
Within 2 years of adoption
of the Housing Element.
5. On an ongoing basis, enforce building code provisions requiring
accessible design.
Annually.
6. On an ongoing basis, implement reasonable accommodation
ordinance.
Ongoing.
7. On an ongoing basis, ensure the permitting requirements for
group homes and care facilities for seven or more persons are
consistent with State law and fair housing requirements.
Ongoing.
Increase affordable housing opportunities in high opportunity areas
through the following actions:
8. Sites Rezoning – Amend the HOO to accommodate a higher
density of development, establish a minimum density for R2, R3,
R4, RP, and MX zones, rezone C1, C2, CC, CH, CN, RP to MX, and
expand the HOO.
Adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on June 25,
2024.
9. No Net Loss – Identify and make available additional adequate
sites to accommodate the share of housing need by income level.
By end of 2024, if required.
10. Review incentives for density bonuses, expedited permit
processing procedures, development standards, tax-exempt
conduit financing, infrastructure financing assistance, and direct
financial assistance.
Every two years.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 153 25-29 Regional AFH
11. Review with DPRC members the existing and proposed codes,
procedures, and fees to ensure that they do not unreasonably
hinder housing production.
Within 1 FY of approval.
12. Review funding opportunities and aggressively pursue, as the
County has been, all state and federal housing grant funds for
which the County is eligible
Bimonthly.
13. Approve affordable housing projects in Rancho Mission Viejo
administratively.
Ongoing.
14. Coordinate with the City of Newport Beach for development and
shared RHNA credit of the identified parcels on the County-
owned Coyote Canyon site.
By November 2024.
15. Implement an informational program to disseminate information
about developing ADUs.
By end of 2025; annually
thereafter.
16. Prepare pre-approved ADU plans. July 2024.
17. Implement the Affordable ADU Loan Program Policy Manual. Within 2 years of
adoption.
18. Initiate consideration of an Inclusionary Housing Program/Policy. By December 2026.
19. Leverage available funding sources, such as Homekey funds, to
purchase or rehabilitate housing, including hotels, motels, vacant
apartment buildings, and other buildings and convert them into
interim or permanent, long-term housing.
Annually.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 154 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes.
2. Shortage of subsidized housing units.
3. Cost of repairs and rehabilitation.
4. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multifamily.
Actions: Timeframe:
Rehabilitate and Preserve Existing Residential Units through the following actions:
1. Use available housing funding to finance housing rehabilitation, focusing in
Central and North County.
Annually.
2. Implement and review the County’s code enforcement and graffiti removal
programs.
Ongoing.
3. Provide infrastructure maintenance in existing residential neighborhoods,
including through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), focusing in Central
and North County.
Annually.
4. Participate in the CDBG, HOME and related programs as a means of providing
passthrough funding to affordable housing projects and efforts to rehabilitate
existing affordable units or projects, focusing in Central and North County.
Annually.
5. Site Replacement – Comply with site replacement requirement pursuant to
Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3). Replace sites identified in the
inventory that currently have residential uses, or within the past five years have
had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, and:
a. Were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts
rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low-
income; or
b. Subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public
entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or
c. Occupied by low or very low-income households for the purpose of this
program “previous five years” is based on the date the application for
development was submitted.
As
necessary
(ongoing).
6. Monitor projects with expiring affordability covenants and take appropriate
action to preserve these affordable units whenever possible. Promote funding
and other opportunities to owners considering conversion of units through
existing outreach programs and the County’s website.
Annually.
7. Enforce the provisions of the County’s condominium and mobile home park
conversion ordinance.
Annually.
Make neighborhood improvements in low opportunity areas in Central and North
County, including the following:
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 155 25-29 Regional AFH
8. Implement the County CIP plan including ADA, roadway, and infrastructure
improvements in the Unincorporated County. Improvements may include:
a. Curb ramp, sidewalk, and driveway upgrades and improvements to
satisfy current ADA standards and requirements.
b. Parkway, sidewalk, and intersection improvements.
Annually.
9. Facilitate the development or improvement of parks and open space under the
County’s CIP plan or other implementation plan benefiting residents of
Unincorporated communities, particularly communities with reduced access
to environmental opportunities. Projects may include:
a. Development of Mile Square Regional Park in Fountain Valley
b. Santa Ana River Trail
c. Ted Craig Regional Park improvements
d. Yorba Regional Park improvements
By 2029.
Increase housing opportunities, with a focus in Central County, for persons
experiencing homelessness through the following actions:
10. Facilitate the development of one interim or permanent, long -term housing
project using available funding sources, such as Homekey funds (provided it is
made available through the State), during the planning period which is
anticipated to assist 50 persons experiencing homelessness annually.
Annually.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 156 25-29 Regional AFH
2. Brea
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of community revitalization strategies.
2. Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services and amenities.
3. High cost of housing rehabilitation and repairs.
4. High levels of overpayment create displacement risk.
5. Limited availability of affordable housing in all areas of the city, including those where rents
and sales prices have become exclusive.
6. Community concern about housing densities.
7. Lack of knowledge of fair housing laws.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase knowledge of fair housing laws through the following actions:
1. By the end of 2022, post additional fair housing information at the
Family Resource and Senior Centers and on their digital platforms .
Starting in 2022, conduct an informational workshop at these locations
once every two years.
By the end of 2022
2. In 2023, conduct a fair housing information session for the City Council .
Invite local nonprofits (including the Orange County Human Relations
Commission, the Kennedy Commission, and People for Housing O.C.)
to attend.
By the end of 2023
3. Publish Fair Housing information, including any community meetings
in Brea Line (city newsletter), as well as non- traditional media, such as
Instagram and Facebook, and conduct targeted outreach to tenants,
mobile home park residents, and other lower-income populations.
Annually
4. Increase the distribution of fair housing materials by at least 25 percent
to increase awareness of fair housing options among residents,
including special needs groups and low-income residents. Seek to
increase the number of Brea residents counseled through the Fair
Housing Council of Orange County from an average of 70 to 75 annually.
Annually, between
2021-2029
Increase quality of affordable housing and access to opportunities in low
opportunity areas through the following actions:
5. Include information about rehabilitation resources in City newsletters
and on the City website, including the availability of funds for
accessibility improvements. Include translated information when
feasible. Seek to assist 12-15 households annually. Starting in 2023,
conduct targeted outreach in identified Low and Moderate Resource
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 157 25-29 Regional AFH
Census Tracts, utilizing the Housing Conditions Survey and Code
Enforcement information to further target assistance.
6. Identify apartments in need of rehabilitation and cooperate with
nonprofit providers to acquire and rehabilitate units and provide as
long-term affordable housing. Seek to complete at least two projects,
including the 47-unit Walnut Village in partnership with Jamboree
Housing.
Between 2021-2029
7. Continue to improve access to individuals with disabilities through ADA
improvements to streets, sidewalks, and public facilities. Dedicate or
seek funding, including annual CDBG allocations, to prioritize
infrastructure and accessibility improvements in Low and Moderate
Resource opportunity areas.
Ongoing
8. Increased public and private investment in Low and Moderate Resource
Census Tracts, including $2,000,000 allocated for a variety of ADA, park
facilities, transportation, water, and sewer line improvements in these
Census Tracts during 2021-2029.
2021-2029
Increase housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the
following actions:
9. Starting in 2023, work with the FHCOC to contact landlords of affordable
multifamily complexes every two years and provide fair housing
information and assistance. This outreach will focus on promoting the
Section 8 voucher program to landlords who have not previously
participated in the program and should include multi-lingual materials.
Through landlord outreach in coordination with the FHCOC and housing
mobility programs through the Orange County Housing Authority, the
City's goal will be to increase Housing Choice Vouchers by 10%, from
114 to 125 vouchers, including a 10% increase in high resource
neighborhoods.
Every two years;
2021-2029
10. Rezone sufficient parcels to provide geographically dispersed sites for
over 1,100 lower-income units, fostering a more inclusive community.
2022
11. Provide significant new housing opportunities in Highest Resource
eastern Brea through development of a diverse mix of 1,100 new units
in the Brea 265 project, including an estimated 76 deed restricted
affordable units as required through the City’s inclusionary ordinance.
Pursue the introduction of workforce housing on Amazon’s 31-acre
warehouse site in eastern Brea.
2021-2029
12. Update Brea’s Affordable Housing Ordinance in 2022 to integrate low-
and moderate-income units in market rate projects throughout the
community
2022
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 158 25-29 Regional AFH
13. Coordinate with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) in 2023
to utilize the mobility counseling program. This OCHA program informs
Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in
higher opportunity areas and provides holistic support to voucher
holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.
2023-2029
14. Initiate a marketing program for homeowners on the benefits of ADUs
and the availability of funds to support development through the City's
Newsletter and posting of the ADU application checklist on the City
website, thereby expanding housing opportunities in areas traditionally
limited to single-family ownership. Promote and support the
development of ADUs and seek to issue permits for 16 units annually
throughout Brea.
Annually, starting
in 2022
15. Adopt an Ordinance by 2022 to expand the housing supply in High
Resource single-family zones by allowing for lot splits and duplexes
under the parameters of SB 9. In coordination with research being
conducted at the State level, pursue opportunities to incentivize and
provide funding assistance for homeowners to provide affordable units
under SB 9.
2022-2025
16. Require affordable developers receiving public funds to prepare an
affirmative marketing plan and encourage private developers with
affordable units in their projects to prepare an affirmative marketing
plan. The affirmative marketing plan shall ensure marketing materials
for new developments are designed to attract renters and buyers of
diverse demographics, including individuals of any race, ethnicity, sex,
handicap, and familial status.
Ongoing
Prevent displacement through the following actions:
17. Continue anti-displacement programs including limits on rent increases
and prohibiting evictions without just cause for tenants that have
resided in their units for more than 12 months; relocation assistance
where public funds are utilized; and replacement requirements when
affordable units are removed.
Ongoing
18. Assist mobile home park resident organizations interested in
purchasing their parks to access funds through the state HCD Mobile
Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP). Provide available
local funds for leverage and assist with the subdivision map waiver
process consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 159 25-29 Regional AFH
3. Cypress
Issue: Segregation and Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of City-specific data on fair housing inquiries/complaints .
2. Lack of effective outreach strategies.
3. Concentration of lower- and moderate-income households.
4. Limited understanding of regulations surrounding acceptance of HCV tenants.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Advocate to receive reports from the Orange County Fair Housing Council
that include data specific to the City of Cypress to allow the City to better
assess fair housing issues within the community.
Ongoing
2. Create an updated webpage on the City’s website with information on fair
housing rights and resources by 2023.
2023
3. Publish information about fair housing resources in the City’s quarterly
newsletter.
Ongoing
4. Implement requirements for developers to submit an Affirmative Action
Marketing Plan for density bonus projects by 2023.
2023, ongoing
thereafter
5. Expand outreach and education of Source of Income Protection laws (SB
329 and SB 222), which include HCVs and other public assistance as
legitimate sources of income for housing.
Ongoing
6. Provide information on Source of Income Protection laws in ADU
informational packets.
Ongoing
7. Increase affordable housing stock in high opportunities through the
following actions:
a. Promote key lower income housing opportunity sites for
affordable housing development as a means to bring new housing
opportunities to high resource areas.
Ongoing
b. Conduct a feasibility study on the implementation of an
inclusionary housing ordinance by 2024.
2024
c. Support funding applications by nonprofit developers for
affordable housing in high resource areas.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 160 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Presence of a higher proportion of older multi-family rental units.
2. Limited income available for home repairs/maintenance.
3. Older single family housing stock.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Implementation of a Neighborhood Preservation Pilot Program to
identify and address code violations and needed right of way
improvements.
Ongoing
2. Expand outreach and education efforts to neighborhood residents on
resources available to address code violations and property
maintenance issues.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 161 25-29 Regional AFH
4. Dana Point
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Low rates of HCV use. Despite high rates of overpayment for rental households, the use of
housing vouchers is low. This may be due to stigma associated with the use of Housing
Vouchers, both by property owners and tenants.
2. School performance. Disadvantaged students at schools serving Dana Point residents may be
falling behind other students in the school and compared to those across the state. Both
elementary schools in Dana Point are ranked much lower compared to other elem entary
schools that serve Dana Point residents.
3. Income and Diversity. The City lacks a substantial number of suitable housing sites in moderate
/ high / highest opportunity areas; many of these areas are largely built out with single-family
homes. The majority of available housing sites are in Census Tracts that already have a higher
concentration of low-income residents.
4. Lack of regional coordination and lack of public/private investment. Dana Point and
surrounding cities generally address the need and solutions for affordable housing and
homeless shelters in an independent manner, which causes them to compete against one
another for funds and eliminates opportunities to pool resources.
5. Potential community opposition. While there is little community opposition to a proposed
affordable project (e.g., there was community support for Silver Lantern), additional regional
collaboration can help to mitigate community opposition that may arise in the future (whether
an affordable housing project or homeless shelter).
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws through the
following actions:
1. Educate the community about fair-housing and equal housing
opportunities, providing housing counseling services and family
resource information and referral. Topics include, but are not
limited to tenant rights, legal resources, rehabilitation grants and
loans, first-time homebuyer programs, and Section 8 programs.
Distribute materials in English and Spanish through City Hall, City
libraries, City websites, and the Fair Housing Council website.
Ongoing
2. Track fair housing issues and identify patterns in the City, including
meeting annually to check on the status of active cases.
Annually
3. Promote fair housing opportunities through various financial
assistance initiatives and affordable housing/neighborhood
revitalization programs.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 162 25-29 Regional AFH
4. Actively recruit residents from neighborhoods in low resource
areas to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local
government bodies.
Ongoing
5. As part of the City’s Housing Element Annual Report, continue to
annually monitor zoning regulations to ensure compliance with fair
housing laws.
Ongoing
Increase use of Housing Choice Vouchers through the following
actions:
6. Coordinate with OCHA to generate a detailed understanding of
where overpayment rates and displacement risks are highest in the
city (as of latest available Census data), where vouchers are and are
not used, and how many tenants could potentially qualify at each
multifamily property in target areas.
2022
7. Coordinate with Orange County United Way on the
WelcomeHomeOC program to identify opportunities to assist Dana
Point residents.
2022
8. Apply affirmative advertising policy to income-restricted units to
be built in the Victoria Apartments development in the Doheny
Village area. Apply the policy to all future income-restricted
projects, as permitted by state and/or federal funding programs.
2022
9. Coordinate with OCHA to develop an outreach plan and materials
to communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant rights
regarding just cause evictions, limitations on rent increases, and
replacement housing requirements if any existing residential units
would be removed, based on state law.
2023
10. Complete study of options to augment/adjust current in -lieu fee
program for possible application of funds for those overpaying
and/or at risk of displacement; evaluate how the City can prioritize
or facilitate mixed- income housing through potential use of in-lieu
fees or other resources (e.g., determine which federal and state
grant or loan programs are structured to score mixed-income
projects as more competitive compared to 100 percent lower
income developments).
2024
11. Distribute outreach materials through means that reach target
populations (e.g., those receiving subsidized school lunches).
Conduct direct outreach to 10 properties (tenants and owners) in
Census Tracts illustrating high rates of rental overpayment and
conduct mailer outreach to all renter occupied units and rental
2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 163 25-29 Regional AFH
property owners in the Town Center and Doheny Village Census
Tracts.
12. Bring forth appropriate in-lieu fee provisions for adoption. 2024
13. Establish strategies to use City resources (technical support and/or
in-lieu fees as appropriate) to encourage mixed-income housing
developments.
2024
Improve educational outcomes for lower income and underserved
students at schools in or serving Dana Point, through the following
actions:
14. Continue annual assessment of effectiveness of Sparkpoint OC with
Orange County United Way.
Annually
15. Negotiate with the Victoria Apartments property owner to dedicate
substantial funds toward schools in Dana Point, specifically Dana
Hills High School (which serves residents in the low resource
areas).
2024
16. Coordinate with United Way to continue and or expand Sparkpoint
effort on annual basis, with modifications to provide better or more
effective assistance and/or to reach more families.
Annually
17. Coordinate with United Way to expand Sparkpoint effort to
Palisades Elementary School.
2025
Increase affordable housing opportunities through the city, and
especially in moderate, high, and highest resource areas, through the
following actions:
18. Adopt a pre-approval review process for ADUs. 2023
19. Initiate a general plan update with an explicit objective to identify
additional housing opportunities in moderate, high, and highest
resource areas, with additional emphasis on Census Tracts that can
help improve patterns of greater diversity, promote a broader
distribution of households with a range of incomes, and lowers
displacement risk.
2023
20. Coordinate with the OCHA to inform Housing Choice Voucher
holders about their residential options in moderate, high, and
highest resource areas.
Annually
21. In coordination with research being conducted at the state level,
pursue opportunities to incentivize and provide funding assistance
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 164 25-29 Regional AFH
for homeowners to provide affordable units under SB 9 provisions
(adopted by ordinance in February 2022).
22. Coordinate through the Orange County Housing Finance Trust
(OCHFT) on the use of funding sources (e.g., REAP) and potential
to apply for additional funding.
Ongoing
23. Coordinate through OCHFT on year two notice of funding
availability (NOFA), and subsequent NOFAs for years three, four,
and five; advocate for the use of funds in Dana Point as appropriate
and in surrounding jurisdictions when such location would yield
better benefits (more units, deeper level of subsidy, more target
populations, etc.).
Ongoing
24. Assist in the update of the OCHFT five-year strategic plan. 2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 165 25-29 Regional AFH
5. La Palma
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Need s
Contributing Factors:
1. Some residents who are in need of fair housing resources, including low-income households,
individuals with disabilities, racial/ethnic minorities and other protected classes, may be
unaware of the fair housing resources that are available. Although information about fair
housing services is posted on the City website and in public offices, more could be d one to
make this information available.
2. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs is a significant contributing factor to
fair housing throughout the region. All areas of La Palma are classified as high opportunity.
Increasing housing availability in areas with good opportunity make it easier for lower -income
households to access the types of services and amenities that further economic and social
mobility.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Expand fair housing outreach through the following actions:
a. Continue directing fair housing inquiries to the Fair Housing
Council of Orange County.
Ongoing
b. Post and update information annually regarding fair housing
and request FHCOC to conduct a presentation every two years
about services available.
Every two years
c. Contact all apartment complexes annually to provide
education and materials about the Section 8/Housing Choice
Voucher program including multi-lingual materials.
Coordinate to develop an outreach plan and materials to
communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant rights
regarding just cause evictions, limitations on rent increases,
and replacement housing requirements. Conduct direct
outreach to 30 properties (te nants and owners) in Census
Tracts with LMI concentrations by December 2026.
Annually
d. Publish and update links to fair housing information on the
City website and via social media annually.
Annually
2. Improve Access to Opportunity and Mobility through the following
actions:
a. Conduct fee study annually and adopt City planning fee
reductions for new deed-restricted low-income housing
projects and fee waivers for lot consolidation by June 2025
Annually, fee
reductions adopted
by June 2025
b. Update Municipal Code for large residential care facilities and
remove any unreasonable conditions of approval or other
By December 2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 166 25-29 Regional AFH
requirements by establishing objective development
standards to eliminate subjective components of the
discretionary CUP process and ensure barrier free housing
choices for individuals with disabilities by December 2024.
c. Continue to support the provision of housing for individuals
with disabilities through updates to zoning regulations in
compliance with fair housing law by December 2023.
December 2023
d. Encourage and facilitate housing development commensurate
with the City’s identified housing need in the RHNA allocation
on a continuous basis.
Ongoing
e. Apply for CDBG funding through the County of Orange Urban
County program and seek third-party grant writing assistance
for City’s Meals on Wheels senior program and ADA
improvements for streets and sidewalks by October 2025.
October 2025
f. Establish Economic Development/Land Use Committee by
February 2024 to implement the following programs:
i. Review City-owned properties annually and identify
any surplus land that could be made available for
affordable housing development by June 2024.
ii. Explore options to allow and incentivize missing
middle and special needs residential uses in the R-3 as
part of the development standards amendments for
increased story count, parking, and lot coverage by
December 2024.
iii. Pursue strategies to facilitate housing development of
at least 10 housing units on religious, institutional, and
quasi-institutional lands, and adaptive reuse of
underutilized properties for affordable housing by
December 2024. Include potential residential
development and conduct targeted outreach to
interested parties for City-owned parcel on 5062 La
Palma Avenue and conduct outreach to the three large
churches within La Palma. Evaluate opportunities for
adaptive reuse as part of outreach to Centerpointe
property owners by December 2024.
iv. Report back to City Council on findings,
recommendations and provide update on program
implementation by December 2024. By 2027,
implement short term and midterm programs
identified in the Strategic Plan.
Report to Council by
December 2024.
Implement short and
midterm programs in
Plan by 2027.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 167 25-29 Regional AFH
g. Work cooperatively with the County of Orange and cities to
create a regional housing bond program to help fund
affordable housing and permanent supportive housing.
Ongoing
h. Work with Orange County Housing & Community
Development to conserve existing affordable housing units at-
risk of converting to market rate. Contact owners of the City’s
low-income apartment complexes (Camden Place, Seasons at
La Palma, and Casa La Palma) and offer funding from the City’s
affordable housing asset fund toward rental rehabilitation of
at least 20 units during the planning period.
2021-2029
i. Work with the Fair Housing Council to expand knowledge of
first-time homebuyer programs, and promote available
programs on the City’s website, newsletters and through social
media.
Ongoing
j. Affirmative Marketing and Regional Registries: Require,
provide incentives, and utilize other strategies to promote
affirmative marketing plans in all new housing developments.
The affirmative marketing plans will consider regional housing
registries and ensure marketing materials for new
developments are designed to attract renters and buyers of
diverse demographics, including individuals of any race,
ethnicity, income, disability, and familial status.
Ongoing
k. In collaboration with OCHA, expand the use of housing choice
vouchers in high resource areas through the following actions:
i. Develop an outreach plan and materials with targeted
outreach to Census Blocks of LMI concentrations to
communicate the benefits of vouchers and tenant
rights regarding just cause evictions, limitations on
rent increases, and replacement housing
requirements if any existing residential units would be
removed, based on state law.
ii. Gain a better understanding of where overpayment
and overcrowding rates are highest in the city, where
vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants
could potentially qualify at each multifamily property
in target areas in order to develop strategies to expand
use of vouchers with the goal of increasing voucher
use (63 vouchers in 2023) by at least two per year in La
Palma.
iii. Inform voucher holders about their residential options
in high-resource areas by developing a Housing
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 168 25-29 Regional AFH
Resources Directory available on the City’s website and
updated annually.
l. Expand production of accessory dwelling units in high-
resource single family neighborhoods and address potential
overcrowding by promoting the City’s ADU ordinance,
application, look-up tool, preapproved plans, and educational
resources through the Housing SoCal page by June 2024.
Target direct outreach to areas of LMI concentrati on and
Census Tracts south of La Palma Avenue with promotional
materials annually. Increase ADU production by two units per
year for a total of at least 30 units during the planning period.
2021-2029
m. Enhance City’s existing proactive code enforcement program
by targeting areas of concentrated owner rehabilitation needs,
resulting in repairs to minimize displacement and relocation
impacts. Re-initiate volunteer home painting/repair program
with local churches and home improvement stores, which was
successful in the last planning period. Provide owner
rehabilitation assistance to at least a total of 16 residential
units rehabilitated within areas of LMI concentration during
the planning period.
2021-2029
n. Distribute direct mailers and applications to apartment
complexes for La Palma Citizens’ Academy to recruit residents
from areas of concentrated lower income and renters to serve
on boards, committees, and other local government decision -
making bodies annually.
Annually
o. Initiate joint use agreement between City and Centralia
Elementary School District to create a public playground at
Miller Elementary School and Edison Right-of-Way to benefit
the LMI concentration in the eastern portion of the City. Seek
grant funding opportunities by December 2026.
December 2026
p. Continue place -based strategies toward community
revitalization including:
i. Invest and prioritize City beautification projects,
including 3.85 miles of street medians, trees, and
drought-tolerant landscaping, along corridors of areas
with LMI concentrations (La Palma Avenue, Moody
Street, and Walker Avenue) by June 2025.
ii. Complete water infrastructure projects related to four
(4) water main interconnections to provide emergency
and contingency water supply to 4,270 units; and
2024-2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 169 25-29 Regional AFH
replacement of large water meters for 36 residential
units by June 2024.
iii. Seek grant funding for the La Palma Avenue Slurry
Seal Project, which includes sidewalk ADA
improvements from west to east City limits, centralized
in area of higher percentage (10-20%) of population
with a disability by December 2024 .
q. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation
Authority, provide community education regarding transport
services for individuals with disabilities. Partner with OCTA,
OC Health Care Agency, and local school districts to
implement OC Safe Routes to Schools Program in its
Countywide initiatives through participation in Next STEP
(ATP and REAP 2.0 funding) by December 2027.
December 2027
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 170 25-29 Regional AFH
6. Laguna Beach
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of knowledge and enforcement of fair housing laws due to the following:
a. Insufficient fair housing monitoring and limited outreach capacity.
b. Lack of a variety of media inputs.
c. Lack of marketing community meetings.
d. Lack of regional coordination.
2. Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas due to the following:
a. Historical land use development patterns and zoning, and lack of vacant land limit
opportunities for larger and higher density project types.
b. Past national, state, and regional racial/ethnic discriminatory practices.
c. Current high cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all
races/ethnicities.
d. Lack of affordable housing and need for greater access to opportunities.
e. Regional coordination affects transit services, funding sources, and allocation of
housing resources including vouchers.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the following
actions:
a. Ensure that all laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further
fair housing in accordance with state law. As the General Plan and
Zoning Code are updated or amended, review and revise policies
and code provisions to promote an inclusive community.
Ongoing
b. When considering specific plan or rezoning proposals, evaluate
whether the change in zoning will help achieve fair housing
goals.
Ongoing
c. Include fair housing information on the City’s website, including
up-to-date fair housing laws, FHCOC services, and information on
filing discrimination complaints. Proactive announcement of fair
housing resources on Community Newsletter (weekly text
messaging system).
Provide link to
services on City
website by 2023
and make service
announcements at
least annually.
d. Continue to publish a Housing Assistance Guide informing
community members of the Orange County Fair Housing Council
(FHCOC) and its oversight of fair housing practices, for
availability on the City's website and at the Planning counter.
Update annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 171 25-29 Regional AFH
e. Develop interest list for update on fair housing and affordable
housing projects.
By the end of 2022
and updated
annually.
f. Update the City website with affordable housing projects. Update website
semi- annually.
g. Utilize non-traditional media (i.e., social media, City website,
Community Newsletter) in outreach and education efforts in
addition to print media and notices.
Beginning in 2023;
ongoing
thereafter
h. As a participating City in the County of Orange Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, continue to support
the annual contribution of CDBG funds to the Orange County Fair
Housing Council (FHCOC).
Annually
i. Participate in regional efforts to address fair housing issues and
monitor emerging trends/issues in the housing market. Attend
quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee meetings.
Quarterly
j. Petition to Orange County, administrator of the City’s CDBG
program, for the fair housing provider (FHCOC) to expand
landlord education on source of income discrimination and
voucher programs.
Beginning in 2023.
k. Expand outreach and education on recent state laws (SB 329 and
SB 222) supporting source of income protection for publicly
assisted low-income households (HCVs).
Begin in 2023
2. Increase affordable housing in high opportunity areas through the
following actions:
a. Establish a new Housing Program Coordinator planner position
to oversee and expedite Housing Element program
implementation.
Beginning in 2023.
b. Create a comprehensive ADU Handbook with tools to facilitate
ADU production.
12/1/2022.
c. Require that 25% of the total number of units or lots, whichever
is greater, in new subdivisions of two or more residential units or
lots and 25% of new development of three or more units on
existing building sites be affordable to extremely-low-, very-low-
, low- or moderate-income households or individuals.
Initiate
inclusionary
housing policy
update in 2023
with a market
feasible study. d. Update inclusionary housing policy to enhance feasibility and
production of affordable housing.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 172 25-29 Regional AFH
e. Amend the Zoning Code to provide more flexible development
standards and the built form for affordable housing and facilitate
development of densities at or above 30 units per acre.
Complete
amendments by
2024.
f. Conduct outreach to religious institutions to provide information
and technical assistance on state law regarding developing
housing units on religious-use parking spaces.
In 2023.
g. Monitor financial assistance programs administered by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development
and apply for funding that the City is eligible for and can
competitively vie for.
Annually explore
funding options
available.
h. Amend the Zoning Code to create a new zone where emergency
shelters all allowed by right, then apply the zone to the Friendship
Shelter site.
Zoning Code
revision adopted
by the City
Council on
December 13,
2022.
i. Amend Zoning Code to address Low Barrier Navigation Center,
transitional housing, and supportive housing, SRO, and
reasonable accommodation.
By June 2023.
j. Review Zoning Code to accommodate large group homes (7+
individuals) as a residential use to be conditionally permitted in
residential zones and to establish conditions for approval that are
objective and provide for certainty in outcomes.
By June 2023.
k. Establish an Affirmative Marketing Plan, to include advertising
and community outreach designed to reach underrepresented
households to be implemented when affordable units become
available.
Establish plan by
the end of 2023.
l. Initiate an update to the Laguna Canyon Specific Plan to evaluate
suitability for expansion of sites, through code amendments or
rezoning, to where live-work, residential, or mixed-use
development is permitted.
Complete plan by
2023.
m. Continue to evaluate potential for mixed-use and work/live
spaces along the Coast Highway Corridor and on vacant or
underutilized commercial properties.
Establish strategy
by 2024.
n. With adoption of Phase 2 of the DSP, include incentives such as:
increased densities, increased height limits, higher lot coverage,
lower parking requirements, allowances for off -site parking,
allowances for lot assemblage and, and removal of upper story
Adoption of Phase
2 in 2025.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 173 25-29 Regional AFH
residential use limitations to assist in the development of
housing
3. Make neighborhood improvements to increase access to opportunity,
and preserve housing affordability, through the following actions:
a. Pursue the development of an amnesty program for unpermitted
residential units.
By 2023
b. Laguna Canyon Road (SR-133) Improvements: place overhead
utilities underground; active transportation improvements;
reconstruct drainage channel; add dam to control storm flows.
By end of 2025
c. Coast Highway ADA South Improvements (Moss Street to Fifth
Avenue): add new sidewalks; widen existing sidewalk;
reconstruct existing curb ramps and driveways to meet current
ADA standards; add audible pedestrian crossing systems; repair,
resurface, and restripe roadway.
By end of 2025
d. Laguna Canyon Road Median Landscaping: Replant the
landscaped median along Laguna Canyon Road between Forest
Avenue and east of Canyon Acres Drive.
2023-2024
e. Continue to provide Senior Housing Repair program. Ongoing
f. Monitor implementation of the Short- Term Lodging Ordinance.
Restrictions to short-term lodging are intended to help preserve
rental housing stock by limiting their use for vacation rental
purposes.
Annually
g. Continue to support aging in place through amortization and
abatement agreements which allow residents to remain on the
property under specified conditions to improve the property.
Ongoing
h. Where safety concerns can be addressed, allow residents to
remain in unpermitted spaces while they are adapted to meet
work/live code If funding is available, develop incentives and
funding programs to assist building owners and tenants to make
the building modifications necessary to conform with work/live
ordinances.
By 2023
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 174 25-29 Regional AFH
7. Laguna Hills
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Concentration of more affordable housing (e.g., multifamily, mobile home park) in north
Laguna Hills and the Via Lomas neighborhood.
2. Neighborhoods in south Laguna Hills are more desirable, therefore more costly, than
neighborhoods in central and north Laguna Hills.
3. Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes.
4. Cost of rehabilitation or repair.
5. Availability of rentals that accept Housing Choice Vouchers.
6. Linguistic isolation of non-English speaking households.
7. Availability of high-ranked elementary schools to serve north Laguna Hills and the Via Lomas
neighborhood.
8. Housing shortages regionally in Orange County.
9. Unaffordable rents and home prices.
10. Lack of partnerships with affordable housing developers
11. Concentrated areas of poverty in low-resource areas.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Coordinate local housing efforts with federal, state, regional, and
local government and/or agencies and cooperate in implementation
of intergovernmental housing programs; including the following
actions:
Ongoing
a. Submit CDBG applications to assist in preserving existing
affordable housing stock;
Annually
b. Continue to publicize programs, such as energy-efficiency
programs and state and federal funding programs;
Ongoing
c. Encourage local housing advocates to make presentations to
local builders and developers, Chamber of Commerce, civic
groups, and the local community re: affordable and
multifamily/higher density development.
Biannually
2. Encourage the development of ADUs throughout the City to expand
housing opportunities for all income levels within existing
neighborhoods, particularly for lower-income seniors, single
individuals, individuals with disabilities, and small households;
through the following actions:
Ongoing
a. Update the City’s current ADU Ordinance 2023
b. Promote development of ADUs through City website
c. and informational material
2023
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 175 25-29 Regional AFH
d. Identify and implement potential incentives to encourage
production of affordable ADUs.
Ongoing
e. Monitor the production and affordability of ADUs annually to
ensure the City will meet the assumption of 18 ADUs during
the planning period.
Annually
f. Explore funding options to create an ADU forgivable Loan
Program.
2024
3. Increase affordable housing in high opportunity areas through the
following actions:
a. Establish objective design standards for residential
development and analyze opportunities to permit multifamily
residential in an existing commercial center.
By August 2024
b. Analyze opportunities to permit multifamily residential in an
existing commercial center in north Laguna Hills.
2024
c. Mitigate regulatory constraints on the production of housing
through the following actions.
i. Consider adaptive reuse ordinance by June 2024 and
implement, if appropriate, by June 2025.
2024-2025
ii. Consider inclusionary housing ordinance and present
findings to City Council by June 2024 and implement,
if appropriate, by June 2025.
2024-2025
iii. Consider congregational overlay by June 2024 and
implement, if appropriate, by June 2025.
2024-2025
iv. Conduct initial review of development standards and
permitting requirements by June 2025 and update
Zoning Ordinance as needed.
2025
v. Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code, as needed,
to provide adequate sites for 413 lower -income units.
2024
d. Provide incentives (e.g., expedited processing, fee waivers,
and density bonuses) to facilitate set-asides for planned low-
income units, and for mixed-use development.
Ongoing
e. Promote lower-income housing development incentives on
the City website.
Ongoing
f. Enact new measures that will raise local funding for
construction of affordable and other needed housing types.
June 2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 176 25-29 Regional AFH
g. Develop and implement strategies to encourage and facilitate
lot consolidation and phasing of residential and mixed-use
developments on large sites.
Ongoing
h. Explore the potential to partner with a nonprofit organization
to offer a program based on the Community Land Trust
model.
2025
i. Work with stakeholders to identify nongovernmental
constraints that may impede the construction of housing.
Ongoing
j. Increase participation in the Housing Choice Voucher
Program through the following actions:
i. Provide referral services and information to City
residents on HCV program.
Ongoing
ii. Study the feasibility of a landlord incentive program
for landlords that choose to accept voucher holding
tenants.
2024
4. Increase housing opportunities for special needs populations
through the following actions:
a. Pursue homeless assistance grants through the Continuum
of Care.
Annually
b. Assist public and private nonprofit housing developers in
preparation of funding applications for special -needs
populations.
Annually
c. Conduct outreach to service providers to discuss ways the
City can assist in the development of housing for lower
income households.
Annually
d. Work with local organizations that provide assistance to
individuals with disabilities to implement an outreach
program that informs individuals with disabilities and their
families about housing and available services.
Ongoing
e. Prepare and distribute informational material on the
reasonable accommodation ordinance, that will direct people
to service information on the City website.
2024
f. Encourage developers to provide universal design features in
housing developments.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 177 25-29 Regional AFH
g. Provide fair housing education and information to apartment
managers and homeowners associations on why denial of
reasonable modifications/ accommodations is unlawful.
Ongoing
5. Promote development opportunities in the Urban Village Specific
Plan (UVSP) area, encouraging affordable housing development,
through the following actions:
a. Add promotional material re: UVSP housing opportunities on
the City’s website.
2023
b. Meet with prospective developers to encourage
incorporating housing for multiple income levels.
Annual
c. Consider amending UVSP to incorporate inclusionary
housing requirements.
2024
d. Provide regulatory incentives on a case-by-case basis
consistent with Chapter 9-72 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ongoing
6. Preserve existing affordable housing through the following actions:
a. Cooperate with owners of existing affordable units to secure
appropriate federal funding necessary to maintain existing
affordability.
Annually
b. Enforce the Municipal Code and address matters related to
property maintenance that pose threat to public health,
safety, or welfare.
Ongoing
c. Develop informational materials to help educate property
owners on available funding programs to assist with
rehabilitation.
2023
d. Notify the State Franchise Tax Board if substandard rental
housing is identified.
Ongoing
e. Work with Orange County Housing and Community Services
Department to receive rehabilitation loans and grants for low
and moderate-income homeowners and rental property
owners; Use CDBG funds as funding becomes available and
pursue other funding sources;
Ongoing
f. Prepare and distribute informational material advertising the
rehabilitation program
2024
g. Continue to pursue the extension of affordability controls for
51 units that are set to expire in 2032; prepare a “Risk
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 178 25-29 Regional AFH
Assessment” report provided by the California Housing
Partnership Corporation
h. Provide technical assistance to preserve at-risk units; Ongoing
i. Apply for state or federal funding on behalf of interested non-
profit entities, if necessary, to protect the affordability of
rental units
Ongoing
j. Provide foreclosure information on City website 2023, update
annually
k. Refer residents to external agencies to assist in reducing
incidents of foreclosures
Ongoing
l. Require replacement housing units subject to the
requirements of SB 330 on sites identified in the sites
inventory when any new development occurs on a site that
has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-
income households at any time during the previous five
years;
Ongoing
m. Prevent tenant displacement by considering the feasibility of
a local Just Cause Eviction ordinance, a Local Rent
Stabilization ordinance, and a multi -lingual Right to Counsel
program;
2024
7. Increase services to special needs populations through the following
actions:
a. Allocate CDBG funds to nonprofits providing shelter for the
homeless
Annually
b. Contract with Mercy House or other housing services
providers to help residents experiencing homelessness
obtain services.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 179 25-29 Regional AFH
8. Laguna Woods
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing. The availability and price of land represents a significant market
constraint to housing production in Laguna Woods, where there is very little residentially
designated vacant land.
2. Displacement risk for existing lower-income residents due to economic pressures/motivators
on property owners/managers
3. Limited access to opportunities for individuals with disabilities and other special needs due to
underimproved housing stock potentially resultant of financial or physical challenges.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Conduct a market study and then amend the existing inclusionary housing
ordinance to modify the minimum percentages of new housing units that
must be deed-restricted for extremely low, very low, and low-income
households, as feasible and advantageous to promote the development of
affordable housing.
2. Investigate potential incentives for property owners to extend and/or expand
existing affordability covenants beyond the planned expiration date and/or
current number of housing units, with an emphasis on incentivizing (i)
affordability covenants for extremely low and very low-income housing units,
and (ii) affordability covenants that apply to housing units in a range of sizes.
If feasible and economical, adopt such incentives.
3. Adopt an ordinance waiving or reducing City building permit fees for
improvements to the home of a person at least 60 years of age with a
qualifying disability that are made to accommodate that disability, as
provided for by California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.7. Consider
including provisions allowing for similar building permit fee waivers or
reductions for improvements to the home of a person with a qualifying
disability that are made to accommodate that disability, regardless of age.
Prepare and maintain a flyer with related information. Conduct annual
outreach to nonprofit organizations known to provide medical or social
services to residents with disabilities. Conduct biennial outreach to residents
residing in Census Tracts 626.22 and 626.48 due to their comparatively lower
economic domain scores from the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.
4. Provide opportunities for reimbursements, grants, or other forms of financial
assistance to support home improvements that increase accessibility or
functionality for individuals with special needs. Conduct annual outreach to
nonprofit organizations known to provide medical or social services to
residents with special needs. Conduct biennial outreach to residents residing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 180 25-29 Regional AFH
in Census Tracts 626.22 and 626.48 due to their comparatively lower economic
domain scores from the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.
5. Formalize a proactive code enforcement program that focuses on housing-
related rehabilitation needs, results in repairs, and seeks to mitigate potential
cost, displacement, and relocation impacts on residents.
6. Improve pedestrian accessibility on sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and
other public property connecting housing with transit stops, public buildings,
businesses, and educational institutions. Prioritize improvements based on
factors including:
a. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool
(“CalEnviroScreen”) scores for individual Census Tracts, with an
emphasis on undertaking improvements in and around Census Tract
626.47 due to its comparatively higher CalEnviroScreen score, as
feasible and economical; and
b. Education domain scores from the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (“TCAC”)/HCD Opportunity Map, with an emphasis on
undertaking improvements in and around Census Tract 626.22 due to
its comparatively lower scores, as feasible and economical.
7. Pursue partnerships and seek funding to provide Laguna Woods-based
housing mobility counseling services. If feasible and economical, implement
such services.
8. Adopt an ordinance waiving or reducing City building permit fees, or
providing other incentives, for housing projects that prepare and implement
an affirmative marketing plan designed to attract renters or buyers of diverse
demographics, including individuals of any race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin. Prioritize incentives based on
factors including racial concentrations from U.S. Census Bureau data
products, with an emphasis on avoiding the creation of geographically
discernable patterns of segregation or racially concentrated areas of poverty.
9. Prepare and maintain a webpage with information on housing mediation,
foreclosure assistance, tenant legal counseling services, and vocational
counseling services. Train City staff to make referrals using the webpage.
10. Pursue partnerships and seek funding to provide Laguna Woods-based
housing mediation, foreclosure assistance, and multilingual tenant legal
counseling services. If feasible and economical, implement such services.
11. Investigate potential hazard mitigation measures that would reduce or
eliminate the long-term risk of residential displacement as a result of future
disasters. If feasible and economical, implement such hazard mitigation
measures. Prioritize improvements based on factors including economic
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 181 25-29 Regional AFH
domain scores from the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map for individual Census
Tracts, with an emphasis on undertaking improvements in and around Census
Tracts 626.22 and 626.48 due to their comparatively lower scores, as feasible
and economical.
12. Investigate potential incentives for property owners of apartment and
cooperative housing units for which tenants pay usage-based energy costs to
make energy efficiency improvements that exceed the minimum
requirements set forth in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
If feasible and economical, implement such incentives. Prioritize incentives
for residents residing in Census Tracts 626.46 and 626.47 due to those areas
being identified in this Housing Element as susceptible to displacement a nd
having the highest renter vulnerability indices, as feasible and economical.
13. Investigate opportunities to provide rental relief for residents at risk of
homelessness. If feasible and economical, implement such opportunities.
Prioritize rental relief for residents residing in Census Tracts 626.46 and 626.47
due to those areas being identified as susceptible to displacement and having
the highest renter vulnerability indices, as feasible and economical.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 182 25-29 Regional AFH
9. Los Alamitos
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of housing for special needs population.
2. Lack of knowledge of fair housing laws.
3. Local land use and zoning laws.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Encourage development of housing for special needs populations
through the following actions:
a. The City shall encourage and facilitate development of housing
for families and large households, the elderly, farmworkers,
individuals experiencing homelessness and individuals with
disabilities, including physical and developmental disabilities.
b. The City will assist developers in identifying outside funding
sources and support efforts to pursue those opportunities—
either as group homes or in single family homes, when
appropriate and feasible.
c. The City will develop a menu to offer incentives such as density
bonuses, regulatory concessions, and expedited processing.
d. The City will develop and disseminate informational materials
annually to developers regarding the incentive program and
identified funding sources to potentially assist 5 special needs
residents annually through the planning period.
Establish incentive
program and
publish on City
website by June
30, 2023.
2. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the following
actions:
a. The City shall continue to provide referrals to the Fair Housing
Council of Orange County for fair housing services including
counseling services for tenant -landlord disputes and cases of
alleged discrimination.
b. The City shall continue to publicize fair housing and complaint
referral information at local community centers and in the
Recreation & Community Services Schedule of Classes. The City
will also provide information at City Hall and on the City’s
website.
c. The City shall work with government agencies (e.g., Fair Housing
Council of Orange County) and nonprofit groups (e.g., Habitat for
Humanity) on anti-discrimination during housing processes for
residents in protected classes, such as those with disabilities and
families with children. Advertise workshops and events held by
these organizations on anti-discrimination on the City’s email
newsletter and Housing Element webpage.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 183 25-29 Regional AFH
3. Collaborate and coordinate with government agencies and nonprofit
groups such as the Fair Housing Council of Orange County to support
outreach and expansion of lending programs for homeownership among
minority populations.
Annually
4. The City currently requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application
for a residential care facility for seven or more individuals in the R-3 zone.
To remove any potential constraint to housing for individuals with
disabilities, the City shall remove the CUP requirement for the R -3 Zone
or allow residential care facility for seven or more individuals by right in
another zone as appropriate.
By December 2022
5. The City will annually review its policies and zoning laws relating to fair
housing and reach out to the community through surveys and workshops
as appropriate. The outreach efforts will be advertised via multiple
channels, such as City email newsletter, posting at City website, print
material at City Hall, local community centers, and social media.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 184 25-29 Regional AFH
10. Placentia
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing limits housing mobility
2. Limited participation in Housing Choice Voucher Program
3. Land use and development practices
4. Lack of fair housing knowledge and enforcement
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Disseminate information on the City’s website and conduct
community outreach meeting with local stakeholders and
affordable housing developers to promote affordable housing
development throughout the city and discuss other City-
incentives to create affordable housing.
Annually beginning in
August 2024.
2. Conduct marketing to increase participation in the Housing
Choice Voucher Program.
Ongoing
3. Collaborate with developers to develop a mechanism to develop
affordable housing in highest-opportunity areas.
Annually
4. Annually review existing policies and programs for potential
restrictive practices that would limit diversity within racially
concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs). If restrictive practices
are identified, address prior to adoption of the new policies and
programs or within six months for existing policies and
programs.
Annually
5. Establish incentives for affordable developments (including
ADUs and JADUs) in RCAA and high opportunity areas.
By March 31, 2025
6. Establish specific incentives for the development of affordable
units the RCAAs and high opportunity areas.
By June 2025
7. Conduct Affirmative marketing to increase diversity within
RCAAs. This may include, but is not limited to, noticing of
affordable units/projects through direct mail targeted outreach
to lower income Census Tracts, publishing advertising materials
in multiple language, informing service agencies, outreach to
community organizations or places of worship.
Every 2 years, beginning in
August 2024.
8. Facilitate the development and/or legalization of over 84 ADUs
during the planning period by a variety of methods, including
but not limited to:
2021-2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 185 25-29 Regional AFH
a. Annually pursuing funding to adopt permit-ready ADU
plans to minimize design costs, expedite permit
processing, and provide development certainty.
b. Developing an ADU Manual guiding applicants through
the construction of an ADU by December 2024.
c. Developing an ADU webpage informing the community
on ADU related codes, processes, and incentives
December 2024.
d. Developing and implementing a public awareness
campaign for construction of ADUs and the City’s
incentives utilizing all forms of media and outreach
distribution December 2024.
e. Establishing incentives for ADUs, with an emphasis on
affordable ADUs by December 2024.
9. Research and establish home sharing program(s) and/or
policies.
2025
10. Coordinate with local organizations to assist with matching
tenants with existing homeowners. The City will assist with
outreach, facilitate annual presentations, and conduct outreach
to eligible and potential homeowners.
Annually
11. Facilitate the development of at least 30 units on publicly-
owned properties, with an emphasis on areas with relatively
higher opportunity, higher median income and RCAAs.
2021-2029
12. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the
following actions:
a. In partnership the city's fair housing provider, conduct
multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants,
landlords, property owners, realtors, and property
management companies. Methods of outreach should
include workshops, informational booths, presentations
to civic leaders and community groups, staff training,
and distribution of multi- lingual fair housing literature.
Ongoing
b. Provide general counseling and referrals to address
tenant-landlord issues and provide periodic tenant-
landlord walk-in clinics at City Halls and other
community locations.
Ongoing
c. Include testing/audits within the scope of work for each
city's fair housing provider.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 186 25-29 Regional AFH
d. Support enforcement activity and publicize outcomes of
fair housing litigation.
Ongoing
e. Provide and maintain multi-lingual informational
materials on tenant legal counseling and resources.
Develop by August 2024;
disseminate annually;
update as needed.
f. Work collaboratively with local housing authorities to
ensure affirmative fair marketing plans and de-
concentration policies are implemented.
Ongoing
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunity and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. High cost of housing in high opportunity areas
2. Limited accessible housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities
3. High cost of housing repairs/rehabilitation
4. Displacement of residents due to economic factors
5. Lack of public investment in lower opportunity areas
Actions: Timeframe:
1. The City will seek to improve access to opportunity for
lower-income households and other protected classes
through the following actions:
a. Providing adequate sites for affordable housing
development
Update candidate sites list
annually
b. Reduce governmental constraints to encourage
the production of ADUs
Review ADU procedures
annually and revise as needed to
reduce cost and time and comply
with state law.
c. Facilitating the production of housing for
individuals with special needs by providing
technical assistance to developers proposing
affordable housing.
Ongoing
d. Work with federal, state, and local agencies to try
to identify and secure funding for homeowners
who are interested in building an ADU and are
willing to offer it as an affordable rental.
Annually
2. Increase community integration for individuals with
disabilities.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 187 25-29 Regional AFH
3. Continue to help develop housing projects for special
needs households by providing technical assistance with
tax credit applications, tax-exempt bond financing and
other public funds, including ESG, CDBG, and HOME.
Ongoing
4. Review reasonable accommodation standards and
procedures annually and update within 6 months of
annual review if not compliant with state or federal law. If
not compliant, the City will process reasonable
accommodations in compliance with state or federal law
in the interim.
Annually
5. Enhance the proactive code enforcement program that
targets areas of concentrated rehabilitation needs,
resulting in repairs and mitigating potential costs,
displacement and relocation impacts on residents.
Review and revise annually
6. The City shall develop a program to collaborate with non -
profit housing providers and develop a preservation
strategy. The preservation strategy will allow the City to act
quickly if, and when, it receives notice of conversion. As
part of the strategy, the City shall ensure compliance with
noticing requirements; conduct tenant education and
pursue funding to preserve the units.
Develop strategy by 2024, apply
for funding annually thereafter.
7. Explore anti-gentrification policies and regulations to
combat displacement, which especially affects low-
income residents and communities of color. These may
include, but are not limited to foreclosure assistance,
community land trusts, and housing trust funds.
Report to Council by October
2025.
8. Provide housing mobility counseling either directly or
through referrals. This counseling may include, but is not
limited to, information on opportunity areas, housing
search skills and tools, workshops, search assistance,
referrals, structured support for a time after a move to the
City, landlord-tenant mediation, and retention counseling.
Ongoing
9. Engage community health workers to conduct ground
level site visits and meetings within areas of lower income
to better understand resident and business barriers,
resources, and needs.
Ongoing
10. Seek funding and will review Capital Improvement
Program in order to prioritize projects in areas of lower
income, to improve living environments and reduce the
risk of displacement. Examples of projects include street
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 188 25-29 Regional AFH
improvements, multi- modal investments, safe routes to
school, parks, community facilities and amenities,
infrastructure, and other investment toward community
revitalization.
11. The City will continue to encourage and emphasize public
art in areas of lower income and diversity.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 189 25-29 Regional AFH
11. San Juan Capistrano
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Limited local private fair housing outreach and enforcement
2. Overcrowding in Capistrano Villas
3. Limited affordable and accessible low-income housing
4. Inability to afford and take advantage of local educational, recreational activities
5. Private discrimination against protected classes (in violation of federal Housing Law) directly
limits housing choice and mobility.
6. Zoning standards that limit the ability to achieve the maximum permitted density.
7. Lower and moderate households may face displacement pressures as rents rise due to high
overall housing costs.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Contract directly with a fair housing services provider to provide specific
services for San Juan Capistrano residents
Annually
2. Continue increased bilingual translation and interpretation services as well
as alternative events and workshops times, locations, and formats to enable
and facilitate meaningful participation from the Community of Focus
Ongoing
3. Provide tenant/landlord training about fair housing laws, requirements,
services, and resources.
Annually
4. Pursue development of a program to increase maintenance and necessary
repairs and safety of overcrowded rental units through voluntary owner
certifications and randomized inspections in a manner that does not rely on
tenant complaints or lead to increased threat of retribution or displacement.
Ongoing
5. Update Density Bonus Ordinance Ongoing
6. Continue to coordinate and support community-based organizations that
support after school programs, self-help training, food-assistance and
counseling and access to other resources.
Annually
7. As part of the Capital Improvement Plan, coordinate with Public Works to
prioritize Environmental Justice / Community of Focus areas for actions and
capital improvements.
Annually
8. Rezoning to permit high density residential development in higher resource
areas,
Ongoing
9. Increase housing choices through removal of regulatory and procedural
barriers to higher density housing; increased incentives and requirements
for construction of affordable housing,
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 190 25-29 Regional AFH
10. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the minimum
percentage of lower-income affordable housing units (or in-lieu fees) to the
extent feasible based on current economic analysis.
2023 and
ongoing
11. Review Architectural Control process to ensure objective design standards. 2024
12. Continue Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program. Ongoing
13. Continue to implement the mobile home park rent increase limits ordinance
and the senior mobile home park overlay,
Ongoing
14. Consider new forms of rent stabilization and price control for older
multifamily units to ensure existing residents are not priced out of their
homes.
2024
15. Ensure compliance with and education regarding the Tenant Protection Act
of 2019 (AB 1482), including maximum annual rent increases, just cause
evictions, and financial compensation requirements to stabilize residents
living in areas at risk of displacement.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 191 25-29 Regional AFH
12. Seal Beach
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas due to local land use and zoning laws.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. The City will process zoning and General Plan
amendments for sufficient sites with appropriate densities
as identified in the City’s Housing Element, to fully
accommodate the City’s remaining housing need.
2025
2. Create a mixed-use zone that meets state requirements for
RHNA site designation, specifically to facilitate housing for
lower income households. The zoning code update
process will accommodate all relevant state requirements
regarding density and affordability and will engage with all
relevant stakeholders to ensure the development
standards can result in the development of the maximum
number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of
affordable units.
2025
3. Make information on available incentives and concessions
available and evaluate their efficacy regularly.
Ongoing
4. Provide a streamlined and understandable process for the
development of ADUs and JADUs, supported by
incentives and resources as they may be available. Adopt
pre-approved plans. Permit 10 ADUs during the planning
period.
Revise ordinance by
September 2024 and adopt
pre-approved plans by June
2025.
5. Reduce barriers to housing development by streamlining
permit processing consistent with SB 35.
By January 2024
6. Implement SB 9 requirements - Reduce barriers to housing
development through simplified processing and creating
incentives to make units created affordable.
Process 2 SB 9 projects
between 2021-2029.
7. Amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing
consistent with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and
17021.6.
August 2025
8. Allow housing at select locations in the Main Street
Specific Plan. Permit two residential units in the Main
Street Specific Plan during the planning period.
By October 2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 192 25-29 Regional AFH
9. Reduce minimum unit size constraints to housing
development, especially to promote affordable housing.
By August 2025
10. Allow SROs as uses allowed by-right in the RHD Zone. By December 2026
11. Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom
Units.
By December 2026
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 193 25-29 Regional AFH
13. Stanton
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations.
2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.
3. Location and type of affordable housing, including availability of affordable units in a range of
sizes.
4. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs.
5. Quality of affordable housing information programs.
6. Access to transportation for individuals with disabilities.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Support fair housing services provider and efforts to minimize
discriminatory housing practices.
Ongoing
2. Maintain and monitor the residential sites inventory to ensure sufficient sites
remain to accommodate the RHNA allocation throughout the planning
period. Receive and process development applications for residential
projects.
2021-2029
3. Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations at
all income levels throughout the planning period. Report as required through
the HCD annual report process.
2021-2029
4. Collaborate with the development community annually, including affordable
housing developers, to evaluate the viability of developing city-owned land
as affordable housing.
Annually
5. For all project applications, identify the need for replacement of affordable
housing units and ensure replacement, if required, occurs.
Ongoing
6. Monitor the City’s existing affordable housing stock and support affordable
housing developers in their efforts to develop new affordable units in
Stanton. Monitor the City’s options for special needs housing and likewise
support special needs housing developers.
2021-2029
7. Understand the potential for market-force economic displacement and
consider programs to address the issue, if necessary.
2021-2029
8. Ensure that the City’s parking standards for residential uses are adequate
while not unduly constraining housing development.
2021-2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 194 25-29 Regional AFH
14. Villa Park
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement may be a significant contributing
factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Although Orange County is served by two high-
quality private, nonprofit fair housing organizations, they are underfunded and understaffed
in comparison to the total need for their services. Victims of discrimination would be more
able to exercise their rights, thus deterring future discriminatio n, if the capacity of existing
organizations grew to meet the scale of the problem.
2. Lack of local public fair housing outreach and enforcement may also be a significant
contributing factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. There are no local public entities
that conduct fair housing outreach and enforcement, with the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing and HUD constituting the only public enforcement bodies that
operate in Orange County. Advocates across Orange County and the state of California have
reported issues with the timeline of the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing’s investigations and the standards that it applies in making probable cause
determinations. A local public enforcement agency, if created, would have the potential to be
more responsive to victims of discrimination in Orange County than either the state or HUD.
3. Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs may be a significant contributing
factor to fair housing issues in Orange County. Increasing housing affordability would make it
easier for low-income households to access the types of services and am enities that further
social mobility.
4. General lack of a range of affordable housing opportunities, including limited affordable
housing options for families
5. Limited opportunity for residential development in sites accommodating multiple family
development.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. The City will continue to disseminate information regarding fair housing
in a variety of locations including City Hall, the City website and the
library, and conduct ongoing, proactive outreach to engage members of
all socio-economic groups and recruit members of underrepresented
groups to participate in City meetings. The City will continue to seek
funding to support the Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC),
which provides community education, individual counseling,
mediation, and low-cost advocacy with the expressed goal of
eliminating housing discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all
people to freely choose the housing for which they qualify in the area
they desire. The City will invite FHCOC to conduct annual fair housing
outreach targeted to Villa Park residents and landlords.
Ongoing
2. The City will seek to improve access to opportunity for lower -income
households and other protected classes by providing adequate sites for
affordable housing development, encouraging the production of ADUs,
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 195 25-29 Regional AFH
and facilitating the production of housing for individuals with special
needs.
3. Recruit at least five landlords to become a participating voucher
property during three-year period.
4. Coordinate with the County to assist with improving voucher mobility at
local level by:
2021-2024
a. Identifying local staff to commit to 25% administrative function
to support voucher mobility programs.
June 2024
b. Establishing a customer service framework including dedicated
phone number, email and contact information.
June 2024
c. Establishing an annual monitoring program to evaluate the
success of voucher mobility program. Provide for annual
program amendments, as necessary.
By June 2024,
annually thereafter
5. Annually review the Sites Inventory and the location of new, affordable
housing development to ensure equal and fair housing development
practices throughout the whole City.
Annually
6. Annual meetings with developers to explore affordable housing and
non-traditional single-family housing opportunities.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 196 25-29 Regional AFH
15. Yorba Linda
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of effective fair housing outreach to seniors due to digital divide
2. Private discrimination
3. Lack of knowledge of existing resources among the public
4. Low number of HCVs in the City compared to the County overall
5. Lack of affordable housing opportunities throughout the city, including in areas where rent
and sale prices have become exclusive, and for special needs groups such as persons with
disabilities and female-headed households
6. Need for more public investment in infrastructure and accessibility improvements in moderate
resource opportunity areas
7. Challenges for housing/property upkeep due to financial/physical constraints and age of
housing stock.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Increase the distribution of fair housing materials and increase awareness of
fair housing options among residents, including special needs groups and
low-income residents, through the following actions:
a. By the end of 2022 have additional fair housing information posted
at the Yorba Linda Senior Center site and on their digital platforms.
Hold an informational workshop in 2023 and 2025
2022-2025
b. By December 2022, conduct a fair housing information session for
the City Council. Invite local nonprofits (including the Orange County
Human Relations Commission, the Kennedy Commission, Making
Housing Happen and People for Housing O.C.) to attend
2022
c. Publish Fair Housing information, including any community
meetings, on non-traditional media such as Facebook or Instagram,
and conduct targeted outreach to tenants, mobile home park
residents and other lower income populations.
Annually
2. Increase public and private investment in areas of Yorba Linda that have been
identified as moderate resource areas and portions of the City with higher
percentages of special needs groups, through the following actions:
a. Starting in 2022, work with the FHCOC to contact landlords of
affordable multifamily complexes every two years and provide fair
housing information and assistance. This outreach will focus on
promoting the Section 8 voucher program to landlords who have not
previously participated in the program and should include multi -
lingual materials.
Every 2 years
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 197 25-29 Regional AFH
b. Adopt an ordinance to expand the housing supply in High Resource
single-family zones by allowing for lot splits and duplexes under the
parameters of SB 9. In coordination with research being conducted
at the State level, evaluate opportunities to incentivize and provide
funding assistance for homeowners to provide affordable units
under SB 9.
Completed in
2023
c. Continue to improve access to persons with disabilities through ADA
improvement to streets, sidewalks and public facilities. Dedicate or
seek funding, including annual CDBG allocations, to prioritize
infrastructure and accessibility improvements in the moderate
resource opportunity areas
Annually
d. Coordinate with the Orange County Housing Authority in 2023 about
utilizing the mobility counseling program in Yorba Linda. This OCHA
program informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their
residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic
support to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity
areas.
2023
3. Increase affordable housing options throughout the city through the
following actions:
a. Adopt the Affordable Housing Overlay, Commercial Mixed -Use
Overlay and Congregational Land Overlay, providing geographically
dispersed sites for over 600 lower income units which foster a more
inclusive community. Initiate rezoning and the Measure B election in
2024 and pay for all costs associated with the ballot measure.
Completed in
2024
b. Increase the allocation of units in Savi Ranch from 200 to 790 high
density units, creating a better geographic distribution of
development between the eastern and western areas of the
community.
Completed in
2024
c. Promote and support the development of Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs), including pursuing funding for rent -restricted ADUs, and
seek to issue permits for over 50 units annually throughout Yorba
Linda
Ongoing
d. Expand information available on affordable housing in Yorba Linda,
including any community meetings on non-traditional media such as
Facebook and Instagram.
Ongoing
e. Require affordable developers receiving public funds to prepare an
affirmative marketing plan and encourage private developers with
affordable units in their projects to prepare an affirmative marketing
plan. The affirmative marketing plan shall ensure marketing materials
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 198 25-29 Regional AFH
for new developments are designed to attract renters and buyers of
diverse demographics, including persons of any race, ethnicity, sex,
handicap, and familial status.
f. During the public hearing processes for the Affordable Housing
Overlay, Mixed-Use Housing Overlay, and Congregational Land
Overlay, as well as the outreach process for the Measure B election
(in November 2024), utilize tools such as the “Myths and Facts Ab out
Affordable & High-Density Housing” currently on the City’s website
to show what affordable housing means and who it benefits. Contact
Kennedy Commission, Making Housing Happen and People for
Housing O.C. for potential input. Conduct at least five educational
events for the public in locations throughout the community.
Completed in
2024
g. By the end of 2022, research the development of a program that
would provide low interest loans to single -family homeowners and
grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the
Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with
affordability restrictions on their property. This research should also
explore outside funds. If funding is available, establish a pilot
program by December 2023 with a goal of achieving at least two
deed-restricted ADUs annually; evaluate the program by the end of
2025.
2022-2025
4. Preserve the existing housing stock through the following actions:
a. Include information about rehab and maintenance resources
(including the Residential Rehabilitation Program and Community
Preservation Program) in City newsletters and on the website.
Include translated information when feasible. Seek to assist 10
households annually. Starting in 2022, conduct targeted outreach
through annual mailings to Census Tracts 218.20 and 218.26. about
available rehabilitation assistance.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 199 25-29 Regional AFH
B. Aliso Viejo
Issue: Concentration
Most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for a few neighborhoods
with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northern and eastern
parts of the city. Since 1990, levels of concentration have been increasing but remain low.
Contributing Factors:
1. Location and type of affordable housing.
2. Limited access to opportunity due to high housing costs.
3. Insufficient fair housing outreach and enforcement.
4. Availability of affordable housing.
5. Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes.
6. Insufficient Housing Choice Vouchers.
7. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.
Actions:
Expand access to opportunity for all protected classes
through the following actions:
1. Identify sites in high opportunity areas for new hous
ing development.
2. Review policies and programs that increase the sup
ply.
3. Conduct a landlord/tenant education campaign on
fair housing laws.
4. Encourage development of a range of affordable
housing types.
5. Encourage the development of ADUs.
6. Promote Housing Choice Vouchers.
7. Educate renters about their rights.
Timeframe:
Annually and ongoing.
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities may
disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of outreach and education regarding supportive services for individuals with disabilities.
2. Lack of education regarding resources available in the City and County, such as schools,
transportation, and other in-home or community resources, for individuals with disabilities
and single female-headed households.
Actions:
Bring existing resources to protected classes through
the following actions:
Timeframe:
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 200 25-29 Regional AFH
1. Review and amend (if necessary) Reasonable
Accommodation regulations and procedures.
Review and amend regulations and
procedures by the end of FY 25/26.
2. Provide information on supportive services for
individuals with disabilities, single female-headed
households, and homeless individuals via the OC
Social Services Agency.
Conduct annually by Dec. 31st of each
year.
3. Partner with OCTA and publish public transit
program info (OC Flex, OC ACCESS Service, and
youth rider free pass).
Conduct bi-annually by Dec. 31st of each
year.
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element identified substandard housing conditions for low-income
households as an issue facing low-income residents in the city. Additionally, housing cost burden
is an issue for renters throughout Orange County.
Contributing Factors:
Substandard housing conditions due to:
1. Insufficient affordable and healthy homes for very-low incomes.
2. Lack of insufficient outreach and education on code enforcement.
3. Insufficient funding for repairs or rehabilitation.
4. Via Iglesia neighborhood has homes in need of repairs
Actions:
Reduce existence of substandard housing
conditions through the following actions:
Timeframe:
1. Add information about the City's Code
Enforcement service on the City's website
for renters and owners.
Information added on City’s website to be
completed by the end of FY 25/26. Annually,
conduct one informational campaign on Code
Enforcement services with the goal of reaching at
least 10 renters and 10 owners.
2. Create educational materials about
healthy homes, and post information on
the City's website.
Educational materials to be completed by the end
of FY 25/26 and posted to the
City’s website annually.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 201 25-29 Regional AFH
C. Anaheim
Issue: Segregation, including R/ECAPs; and Disproportionate Housing Needs.
While segregation levels overall in Anaheim are low, the city has neighborhoods considered to
be areas of high POC segregation north of downtown and along SR -91, and south of downtown
and adjacent to Disneyland. These areas are predominantly Hispanic . The neighborhoods north
and south of downtown also have a higher percentage of overcrowded units than other
neighborhoods in the city, and the areas north of downtown are home to multiple publicly
supported housing developments. Additionally, housing cost burden is an issue for renters
throughout Orange County. Anaheim also has one R/ECAP to the northeast of Disneyland, along
Ball Rd and I-5. This Census Tract is predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding
neighborhoods. Additionally, Anaheim Hills is considered an area of high White segregation.
Contributing Factors:
Historic practices of redlining and legal racial segregation have created many of the residential
patterns that still exist today. Additionally, the high cost of land and existing housing in Anaheim
(and throughout Orange County) are significant constraints to the development of new affordable
housing and access for families to existing housing.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase the supply of affordable housing in high
Opportunity areas through the following actions:
1. Disseminate on the City’s website,
information material to promote and facilitate
implementation of state and City regulations
and incentives to create affordable housing.
2. Develop and maintain a database of
affordable housing developers working in
California; and hold an annual workshop to
engage and collaborate with affordable
housing developers on these topics.
Develop webpage, including housing element
candidate site list, and developer database
and hold first annual workshop by October
2024.
Update housing element candidate site list
annually in conjunction with Housing
Element Annual Progress Report.
Review by October 2025, and revisions, if
necessary, by October 2026.
3. Disseminate on the City’s website,
information material to promote and facilitate
AMC 18.38.215 Residential Uses of Motels,
Commercial, and Office Structures.
4. Develop and maintain a database of existing
motels, commercial, and office structures for
which conversion could be feasible.
Develop information and database and
participate in annual affordable housing
workshop by October 2025.
5. Encourage the production of ADUs.
6. Continue to seek opportunities to defray costs
associated with construction to homeowners.
Continue to refine existing review process for
ADUs not using pre-approved plans.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 202 25-29 Regional AFH
7. Develop, subject to funding availability, a
program to facilitate the construction of deed-
restricted ADUs.
Continue to refine existing review process for
ADUs using pre-approved plans and expand
pre-approved plan catalog.
Continue to support and promote programs
such as the Orange County Housing Finance
Trust’s Affordable ADU Loan Program, when
offered.
Continue to seek potential local, state, and/or
federal funds to establish an Anaheim
Housing Authority affordable ADU grant/loan
program.
In conjunction with Annual Progress Report,
identify and track ADU construction in high
and highest resource areas/Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs).
Conduct review by October 2025, and if ADU
construction is disproportional to the number
of units, develop targeted outreach with a
goal of improving the ADU/overall dwelling
unit metric for the areas relative to other
residential areas in the City.
8. Continue to regularly monitor deed-
restricted, affordable housing units that exist
citywide.
9. Collaborate with nonprofit housing providers
and develop a preservation strategy to meet
the City’s Quantified Objective for preserving
60 At-Risk Units (30 Very Low- and 30 Low-
Income).
Continue monitoring all deed-restricted
affordable housing units annually and add
new properties as applicable.
Develop preservation strategy for 60 units
converting in 2027 – 2031.
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to
high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human
capital. Geographically, neighborhoods near the downtown have low environmental health, low
education scores, low economic scores; but good access to HQTAs. Conversely, Anaheim Hills,
which is a predominantly White area, has the best access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods with low poverty rates, high education scores, and high economic scores.
Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities
disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 203 25-29 Regional AFH
Contributing Factors:
A lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas (due to the factors discussed above)
contributes to the disparities in access to opportunities. Additionally, specific groups in the city
face the unique housing challenges that impact access to opportunity, including:
• Seniors:
o Having limited and fixed incomes.
o Disproportionately higher healthcare costs, adding monthly living costs.
o Require customized housing features due to mobility and self-care limitations.
o Transit dependency.
o Limited in-home support, due to living alone.
• Individuals with physical and developmental disabilities:
o Need for specialized housing to accommodate disabilities.
o Higher incidence of dependent living needs.
o High incidence of unemployment and having fixed income.
o Need for supportive services.
• Large person households:
o Lack of affordable housing with sufficient bedroom counts.
o Options for larger bedroom counts in rental units .
o Higher monthly cost burden.
o Affordable options for large family households.
o Childcare needs for working families.
• Single parent households
o Affordable housing options.
o Rental and for sale housing options.
o Higher monthly cost burdens with single-income families.
o Childcare needs for working families.
• Farmworker households
o Affordable housing options.
o Higher incidents of cost burden for housing.
o Rental and for sale housing options.
• Extremely Low-Income households:
o Need for increased affordable housing options.
o Markedly higher incidents of cost burden for housing.
o Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s.
o Rental assistance.
o Higher incidents of homelessness.
o Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing.
• Residents experiencing homelessness:
o Need for increased affordable housing options.
o Need for smaller housing unit options such as SRO’s.
o Rental assistance.
o Higher likelihood for transitional and supportive housing.
o Need for emergency shelters.
o Need for stable health care.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 204 25-29 Regional AFH
Actions: Timeframe:
The city will ensure equal access to housing, expand access to
opportunity for all protected class groups, and increase
community integration for individuals with disabilities through
the following actions:
1. Continue to provide an estimated 6,500 Section 8 Rental
Assistance Vouchers annually, subject to federal funding
availability, to qualified tenants.
2. Develop and maintain a database of existing housing in high
and highest resource areas/Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAAs) which has the potential to provide
voucher-based unit(s), including ADUs.
3. Develop a targeted outreach program to recruit potential
additional landlords in these areas.
Continue to award all funded
Section 8 Rental Assistance
Vouchers annually.
Develop database and conduct
first annual outreach program
by October 2025.
Target and increase the portion
of Section 8 Rental Assistance
Vouchers leased in high and
highest resource areas/Racially
Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAAs) in planning
period.
4. In partnership with the Fair Housing Council of OC,
disseminate and display for public viewing information
regarding fair housing law applicable to landlords, tenants,
sellers, buyers, real estate professionals and others in the
housing industry at City Community Centers / Family
Resource Centers/ Youth Centers.
Include in Scope of Services for
Fair Housing Council of OC no
later than October 2026.
5. Continue to implement the Homelessness Action Plan,
including the four overarching principles:
• Housing First: The City of Anaheim commits to following
nationally recognized best practices in addressing
homelessness including Housing First practices and the
belief that housing and housing support services are the
solutions to homelessness.
• Person-Centered: All programs funded by the City strive
to be person- centered, including prioritizing trauma-
informed care and acknowledging that people
experiencing homelessness understand best what
services and supports are needed to help them gain and
keep housing that will resolve their homelessness.
• Equity: The City commits to incorporating equity into
service delivery systems and using data to evaluate gaps
in service and identify areas of improvement so that
every household in City- funded programs receives
Ongoing with update to the
Homeless Action Plan for July
2024 – June 2028.
The Homeless Action Plan has
the following metrics:
Decrease unsheltered
homelessness by 70% and
overall homelessness by 50%.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 205 25-29 Regional AFH
relevant and affirming support from the City’s network of
providers.
• Data-Driven Solutions: The City commits to the
utilization of data to drive funding decisions and
solutions to homelessness. This includes evaluating the
efficacy of programs and continual monitoring of the
City’s portfolio of interventions to ensure collective
efforts are meeting the needs of the community while
making gains against agreed upon commu nity goals.
The Plan identifies Unsheltered Households, Chronically
Homeless Individual Households, Families, Veterans,
Transition-Aged Youth, and Seniors as unique
populations experiencing homelessness within the City.
6. Increase community integration for individuals with
disabilities by continuing to assist in the development of
housing projects for special needs households by providing
technical assistance with tax credit applications, tax-exempt
bond financing and other public funds, including, ESG,
CDBG, and HOME.
On-going, with annual review
and adjustments, if
adjustments are required and
applicable.
7. The City shall continue to monitor to ensure the
effectiveness of reasonable accommodation standards and
procedures and maintain compliance with federal and state
housing laws.
On-going, with annual review
and adjustments, if
adjustments are required and
applicable.
8. In partnership with the Fair Housing Council of OC, provide
and maintain multi-lingual informational materials on
tenant legal counseling and resources with the goal of
eliminating housing discrimination and guaranteeing the
rights of all people irrespective of race religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, age, family size or
disability to freely choose the housing for which they qualify
in the area they desire.
9. Continue to participate in City of Anaheim Neighborhood
Services Mobile Family Resource Centers as well as
agencies and associations who specialize in supporting
disabled tenants including those with hearing, vision,
cognitive, ambulatory, self - care, and independent living
difficulties consistent with data from Anaheim residents
reporting a disability.
Continue to provide estimated
annual allocation of $100,000,
based on program funding
availability.
Annually evaluate program
effectiveness and adjust Scope
of Services as appropriate and
based on available funding.
Target an increase in the
number of households served
per funding dollar.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 206 25-29 Regional AFH
D. Buena Park
Issue: Segregation
Segregation levels in the city have increased since 1990 but remain low overall. However, the
following areas in the city are considered to have high POC segregation: the northeast corner of
the city, which is predominantly AAPI; and the neighborhood between I -5, Artesia Blvd, Beach
Blvd, and the LA County line, which is predominantly Hispanic.
Contributing Factors:
1. Concentration of Hispanics/Latinos of any race and non-Hispanic Asian groups experiencing
limitation to housing opportunities.
2. Barriers to mobility.
3. Lack of opportunities for residents to obtain housing in higher opportunity areas.
4. Housing Choice Vouchers.
Actions: Timeframe
The city will increase affordable housing opportunities in high opportunity areas
through the following actions:
1. Amend the city's Zoning Ordinance to establish provisions for Low Barrier
Navigation Centers (LBNC) consistent with state law.
By the end
of 2023
2. Continue to annually monitor and facilitate the preservation of at -risk affordable
housing units throughout the community. Facilitate new housing developments
accessible to the elderly and disabled individuals throughout the community.
Through these steps, the city's goal will be to preserve 130 units considered to
be "at-risk" of market-rate conversion.
3. Facilitate new housing developments accessible to the elderly and disabled
individuals throughout the community, with efforts targeting Census Tracts
086801, 086803, 110201, 110202, 110302, and 110500. Through this step, the
city's goal will be to increase the supply of accessible units by at least 25
percent.
4. Continue to administer city-operated programs to assist households with
disabilities with architectural modifications to their homes and continue to
implement the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
5. Provide information in public places regarding the city's reasonable
accommodation ordinance and make information available on this program
more widely available.
6. Continue to facilitate/process Reasonable Accommodation requests to ensure
equal housing opportunities. Through this step, the city's goal is to ensure
approval of 100 percent of the reasonable accommodation applications
submitted.
7. Support Infill, Site Recycling and ADU construction throughout the community.
Through this step, the city's goal will be to reach its RHNA obligation to meet
the community's needs.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 207 25-29 Regional AFH
8. Continue to provide outreach and education to housing providers and
potentially qualified residents regarding Housing Choice Voucher program, with
efforts targeting Census Tracts 086801, 110110, 110116, 110201, 110202, 110303,
110401, 110402, 110500, 110603, and 110606. Through these steps, the City's
goal will be increasing participation in the voucher program by 20 percent.
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities, including Homeownership.
Hispanic and Black residents have less access than other groups to neighborhoods with low
poverty rates and high performing schools. Geographically, the neighborhoods in the center of
the city, between I-5 and the Artesia Freeway (SR-91), have poor environmental health, lower
educational scores, and lower economic scores.
Large disparities in homeownership rates exist between White households, who have the highest
rate, and Black households, who are least likely to own their own home. Additionally, housing
cost burden is an issue for renters throughout Orange County.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing in a range of sizes.
2. Land use and zoning laws.
Actions: Timeframe:
The city will increase affordable housing opportunities in high opportunity areas
through the following actions:
1. Amend the zoning code to enable and promote residential development
through use of the mixed-use overlay zones, religious congregation and
fraternal site overlay zones, and housing opportunity overlay zones, among
other planning tools. These initiatives provide new opportunities for a variety of
residential development types and prices and includes areas where residential
development was previously not allowed.
By end of
2024
2. Prepare educational material, develop pre - approved site/floor plans, and
establish a monitoring program to ensure city is on track to meeting ADU
construction goals. Through these steps, they will be to facilitate construction
of at least 16 ADUs througho ut the community.
By early
2025
3. Provide technical and financial (subject to availability) assistance for single -
family residential additions to eliminate overcrowding conditions, with efforts
targeting Census Tracts 110402, 110603, and 110606. Through these steps, it will
be the city's goal to provide residential rehabilitation assistance to
approximately 160 units.
4. Continue to promote use of the state Density Bonus Law through website
materials and counter assistance.
5. Promote, increase, maintain homeownership for LMI households, as well as
residential rehabilitation assistance for senior and down payment assistance
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 208 25-29 Regional AFH
programs for young families with assistance throughout the community, with
efforts targeting Census Tracts 086803, 110201, 110202, 110302, 110401, 110402,
110500, 110603, 110607). Through these steps, the city's goal will be to increase
assistance to eligible residents by 25 percent.
6. Continue to enforce city codes to eliminate and prevent unsightly or hazardous
conditions in residential areas throughout the community, with efforts targeting
Census Tracts 110603, 110500, 110301, 110302, and 110401 located adjacent to
limited access freeways. Through these steps, the city's goal will be to reduce
blighted conditions by 20 percent.
7. Continue to participate in Orange County assessments and programs as a
participating city in the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing.
8. Continue to promote fair housing among all income categories throughout the
community.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 209 25-29 Regional AFH
E. Costa Mesa
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents in the city, though these
levels declined slightly between 2000 -2010. Geographically, the neighborhoods between
downtown and the Costa Mesa Country Club are areas of high POC segregation, with a
predominantly Hispanic population. The largest number of publicly supported housing units and
the highest concentration of vouchers in the city is in this area. The city’s one R/ECAP is also
located here, in the neighborhood between Newport Avenue and Placentia Avenue, south of 19th
Street. The neighborhoods in East Side Costa Mesa (east of SR-55 and south of Mesa Drive) are
all areas of high White segregation, as are the neighborhoods north of the Country Club and the
neighborhoods between Estancia High School and Canyon Park.
Contributing Factors:
1. Housing discrimination.
2. Lack of affordable housing due to governmental and market constraints.
Actions: Timeframe:
The City will take the following meaningful actions, in addition to
resisting discrimination, to overcome patterns of segregation based
on protected characteristic, as defined by California law:
1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation or other
fair housing service provider and provide information regarding
the Public Law Center to address Housing Discrimination and
unfair lending, including promoting mediation services,
foreclosure assistance and/or multilingual tenant legal
counseling services. Promote available services on the City’s
webpage.
Ongoing
2. Continue to enforce the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
which was approved on August 6, 2024, and became effective on
September 6, 2024.
Ongoing
3. Support the development of affordable housing through the
following efforts:
• Continue to evaluate programs and incentives to encourage
the development of affordable housing.
• Make materials available to applicants regarding the City’s
affordable housing ordinance.
• Develop additional incentives and materials as state
legislation provides additional incentives.
• Continue to pursue funding and partnerships with affordable
housing builders.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 210 25-29 Regional AFH
4. Amend the City’s Zoning Code to meet requirement set forth in
the California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and
17021.6, which requires the City to permit farmworker housing
by‐right, without a conditional use permit, in single‐family zones
for six or fewer individuals and in agricultural zones with no more
than 12 units or 36 beds. Until the zoning code is updated, the
City will process any proposed farmworker housing by-right in
single-family zones pursuant to State Law.
Revise Zoning Code in
2025
5. Review and update the Zoning Code to comply with the State
Density Bonus Law as part of the City’s rezone program. In the
meantime, continue to process State Density Bonus Law
requests and project in compliance with state law.
Revise Zoning Code in
2025
6. Review planning application fees to avoid creating a constraint
to the development of affordable housing, as part of the City’s
rezone program.
Revise Zoning Code in
2025
7. Reduce barriers to construction of housing for extremely low and
lower-income households through the following actions:
• Subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application
processing fees for qualifying developments where all units
are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower, as funding is
available.
• Annually promote the benefits of this program to the
development community by posting information on its
webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land
development applications regarding development
opportunities and incentives.
• Proactively reach out to developers at least once annually to
identify and promote development opportunities.
• Adopt priority processing and streamlined review for
developments with units affordable to lower income
households.
• Support funding development applications throughout the
planning period for projects proposing units affordable to
lower income households.
Ongoing
8. Review and revise the Zoning Code’s requirements for residential
off‐street parking for multi‐family projects to facilitate the
development of multi‐family housing, and specifically affordable
housing.
Revise Zoning Code in
2025
9. Promote the development of ADUs through the following
actions:
Complete the update to
ADU regulations in
municipal code by April
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 211 25-29 Regional AFH
• Review and revise the City’s ADU ordinance as necessary to
comply with state law.
• Maintain a dedicated web page that promotes ADU
development.
2025. Maintain web page
on ongoing basis.
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to
high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human
capital. Geographically, the neighborhoods downtown and west of downtown are less
environmentally healthy and have lower education and economic scores. These are also
predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Conversely, neighborhoods east of Newport Boulevard
(SR-55), which are predominantly White, have higher education and econom ic scores, are more
environmentally healthy, and have lower poverty rates. Additionally, Black, Hispanic, and Native
American residents are less likely to own their home than White and AAPI residents.
Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities
disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
Contributing Factors:
1. Unfair lending practices
2. Approximately 86 percent of housing units were built prior to 1989 before the Fair Housing
Act and state laws regarding accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities were
adopted.
Actions: Timeframe:
The City will take the following meaningful actions, in
addition to resisting discrimination, to foster inclusive
communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined
by California law:
1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation
or other fair housing service provider and provide
information regarding the Public Law Center to address
Housing Discrimination and unfair lending, including
promoting mediation services, foreclosure assistance
and/or multilingual tenant legal counseling services.
Promote available services on the City’s webpage.
Ongoing
2. Continue operating the Owner-Occupied Housing
Rehabilitation Program, which may be used to assist
qualified property owners in improving single-family
residential properties, including health and safety
repairs such as mechanical plumbing, electrical,
roofing, security, medical emergency requirements,
On an annual basis, provide
informational materials on the
Owner‐Occupied Housing
Rehabilitation program; encourage
the participation of seniors,
veterans, and disabled residents in
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 212 25-29 Regional AFH
and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or
elderly.
this program; and evaluate the
effectiveness of this program and,
if necessary, modify program
characteristics.
3. Increase the availability of accessible housing for
individuals with disabilities through the following
actions:
• Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation
procedure to promote access to housing for
individuals with disabilities, address potential
constraints and establish potential objective
standards, and provide guidance and amend as
necessary to promote greater certainty on how
approval findings will be implemented.
• Meet with local organizations and developers to
promote access to housing for individuals with
disabilities and address potential constraints.
The City is currently in the process
of reviewing its Reasonable
Accommodation procedures and
anticipates bringing any
recommendations to Planning
Commission and City Council in
2025. Other efforts are ongoing.
4. Increase the availability of transitional and supportive
housing through the following actions:
• Amend the Zoning Code to include transitional and
permanent supportive housing within the City’s
land use matrix in compliance with Senate Bill 2 and
Government Code Section 65651.
• Monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to
accommodate transitional and supportive housing.
• Proactively engage relevant organizations to meet
the needs of individuals experiencing
homelessness and extremely low‐income
residents, including the Costa Mesa Network for
Homeless Solutions, which aims to provide a
comprehensive system programs and services for
residents experiencing homelessness and those at
risk of homelessness.
Revise Zoning Code in 2025. Other
efforts are ongoing.
5. Review and revise the City’s Zoning Code and
application procedures applicable to group homes to
promote objectivity and greater approval certainty
similar to other residential uses.
The City is currently in the process
of reviewing its Group Homes
procedures and anticipates
bringing any recommendations to
Planning Commission and City
Council in 2025.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 213 25-29 Regional AFH
F. Fountain Valley
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters throughout Orange County, including Fountain Valley .
Contributing Factors:
1. Stigma associated with Housing Vouchers: A large percentage of rental households in
Fountain Valley spend more than 30 and 50 percent of household income on monthly rent and
utilities. While this may be due in part to residents being willing to pay more for access to high
performing school districts, there may also be a stigma associated with the use of Housing
Vouchers, both by property owners and tenants.
2. Lack of additional housing options. The City’s housing supply has not increased at a rate
commensurate with regional demand, driving costs higher and limit housing choices for
existing residents looking to remain in Fountain Valley (adult children eager to move out of
their parent’s house and older adults looking to downsize) and potential new residents looking
for more affordable options in Fountain Valley.
Actions: Timeframe:
Expand voucher use by 50 tenants by 2028, and extend affordability term of 70
units in the Guadalupe Manor an additional 20-30 years by 2029, through the
following actions:
1. Coordinate with OCHA to generate a detailed understanding of where
overpayment rates are highest in the city (as of latest available Census data),
where vouchers are and are not used, and how many tenants could potentially
qualify at each multifamily property in target areas.
By 2028
2. Update Development Code consistent with state law and produce residential
project flow-chart and/or informational sheets, consistent with SB 35 and SB
330.
By 2026
3. Coordinate with OCHA and FHCOC to develop an outreach plan and materials
to communicate the benefits of vouchers.
By 2026
4. Complete study of options to augment/adjust affordable housing preservation
program for possible application of funds for those overpaying.
By 2026
5. Distribute outreach materials through means that reach target populations
(e.g., those receiving subsidized school lunches). Conduct direct outreach to
five properties (tenants and owners) in Census Tracts illustrating high rates of
rental overpayment.
By 2026
6. Secure extended affordability for Guadalupe Manor through at least 2058. By 2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 214 25-29 Regional AFH
Increase supply of affordable housing through the following efforts:
1. Evaluate options to apply affirmative advertising requirements to income-
restricted units in the Slater Avenue project.
By 2026
2. Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. By 2024
3. Establish procedures and requirements that will ensure affirmative advertising
requirements are applied to and conducted for all future income-restricted
housing developments.
By 2026
4. Adopt 2045 General Plan. By 2024
5. Adopt appropriate pre-vetted ADU site plans, with the goal of permitting 100
ADUs affordable to lower income households in high and highest resources
areas by 2026 (as measured from June 30, 2021).
By 2026
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 215 25-29 Regional AFH
G. Fullerton
Issue: Segregation
Areas of the city considered to have high POC segregation include most of the neighborhoods
west of Harbor Blvd and north of Malvern Ave, which have predominantly AAPI populations.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies to conduct more rigorous testing and audits,
outreach, training, public education campaigns.
2. Lack of language access.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Provide informational seminars to area residential real estate
agents and brokers on fair housing laws and regulations.
Provide training to at least
15 real estate agents and
brokers annually.
2. Work with tenants, tenant advocates to identify violations of fair
housing federal and state fair housing laws and support
prospective and existing tenants who are experiencing
discrimination.
Annually
3. Provide trainings for property owners/managers on the
requirements of federal and state fair housing laws to prevent
discrimination.
Provide training to at least
15 property owners and
managers annually.
4. With the Fair Housing Foundation, support an annual Fair
Housing Audit Report that assesses typical or timely market-
based suspected areas of discrimination .
Review methodology for a
Fair Housing Audit by
January 2025
5. Affordable Rental Housing Counseling Services: Provide
funding for information and referral services that direct families
and individuals with financial resources for housing rental or
purchase, locating suitable housing, and obtaining housing
with special needs facilities such as disabled-accessible units.
Hold at least four
informational events
between 2025-2029; assist
at least 50 residents and
landlords annually.
6. Create a Language Access Plan based on HUD guidelines and
publish on the City’s website: The goal of the Language Access
Plan is to survey, maintain and publish a list of multi-lingual
staff capacity at City Hall so that staff may respond to the needs
of Limited English Proficiency households.
Create a Language Access
Plan by January 2025.
Maintain multilingual staff
capacity at City Hall on an
ongoing basis.
7. Ensure that local housing programs respond to the needs of a
culturally diverse community that includes multi-generational
families, a variety of living arrangements, and Limited English
Proficiency households. Collaborate with community groups,
including faith-based and nonprofit organizations, to provide
Review the existing fair
housing marketing plan
every two years to ensure
compliance with current
City policy to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing and
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 216 25-29 Regional AFH
outreach on housing resources to all types of households and
those households with Limited English Proficiency.
make necessary changes
within six months.
8. Add information on fair housing laws and resources on the
City’s website regarding housing programs in several
languages.
By January 2025
9. Seek opportunities to expand outreach and public education
strategies on available tenant protection, fair housing services,
and homeownership education to reach vulnerable households
by offering information in multiple languages, targeted social
media efforts, combining information with other assistance
programs, distributing resources through local schools and
colleges, and partnering with community-based organizations.
2021-2029
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents have the least access to low-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhoods close to
high performing schools, and neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human
capital. Geographically, neighborhoods in southeast Fullerton (which are predominantly
Hispanic), have relatively low economic and education scores, poor environmental quality, and
relatively high poverty rates. Conversely, neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, which
are predominantly White or AAPI, have higher education and economic scores, better
environmental health, and lower poverty. Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing
complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in
housing.
Contributing Factors:
1. Location, type, and supply of affordable housing.
2. Land use and zoning laws.
3. The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation.
4. Location of environmental health hazards
5. Lack of investment in community-based infrastructure and services
6. Lack of access to housing mobility
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Implement changes to the in-lieu fee
structure and the desire and ability of
developers to contribute to an affordable
housing trust fund. Adopt incentives such as
increased densities, increased height limits,
reduced parking standards, and ministerial
review for projects that incorporate increased
affordable units or deeper levels of
affordability.
Complete a feasibility study on in-lieu
payments to a Housing Trust Fund by
January 2026. If feasible, amend the
municipal code to allow for an in-lieu fee
structure by December 2027 and implement
an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by
December 2029.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 217 25-29 Regional AFH
2. Facilitate the development of housing for
individuals with disabilities (including
developmental disabilities) through
incentives for affordable housing
development with services, resources, and
assistance.
Develop 25 housing units for special needs
households between 2021-2029.
3. Provide financial support to organizations
that provide supportive housing for
emancipated foster youth (ages 18-21) who
are homeless or at immediate risk of
becoming homeless.
Assist at least 10 foster youth with
supportive housing between 2021-2029.
4. In compliance with recent updates to the
Surplus Land Act (AB 1255, 2019-Rivas; AB
1486, 2019-Ting), identify City-owned land for
the development of affordable housing. If
surplus properties are identified, pursue
development via a competitive Request for
Proposals or other processes.
Annually, assess the list of surplus sites and
solicit development via a competitive RFP
process or other forms of partnership such
as land lease agreements.
5. Acquire funds from local, state, and federal
grant opportunities, including the HCD Infill
Infrastructure Grant Program, to support the
development of affordable housing, housing
for special needs, and support service
projects. When a critical mass of state
(various HCD programs) and/or federal
(CDBG, HOME) funding is available, the City
will issue a competitive Notice of Funding
Availability with objective criteria to
transparently identify the best non-profit
affordable housing developer to partner with
on new affordable housing developments in
the city.
Partner with at least one nonprofit housing
developer biennially throughout the planning
period and support the entitlement of at least
400 subsidized housing units affordable to
extremely low-, very low-, and low-income
households in the city during the planning
period.
6. Partner with Orange County Housing Finance
Trust to secure funding for affordable
housing in Fullerton.
Conduct feasibility study for an affordable
housing trust fund by January 2027.
7. Develop a web-based Housing Development
Toolkit that outlines a step-by-step process
for residential development, including
identifying steps in the entitlement and
building permit process, detailed information
on development incentives, and funding
Publish Housing Development Toolkit on
City’s website by December 2026.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 218 25-29 Regional AFH
programs and resources for affordable
housing development.
8. Review the General Plan, applicable Specific
Plans, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map to
evaluate opportunities for removing barriers
to housing production such as adding
housing capacity and accommodating a
greater mix of dwelling types and sizes in
High and Highest Resource areas identified
by the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC), focusing efforts in
northeastern and northwestern Fullerton.
Recommend amendments, as necessary, to
accommodate added housing capacity in
these areas. Additionally, review the Zoning
Code to identify opportunities to increase and
encourage a greater mix of dwelling types
and sizes, specifically housing types that may
accommodate moderate-income households
(e.g., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
townhouses, courtyard buildings), in lower-
density residential areas and mixed-use
zones citywide and amend the Zoning Code
as needed (i.e., implementation of LTD).
Review the General Plan, applicable Specific
Plan, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map by
June 2025 and implement any changes by
January 2026. Following adoption of zoning
code changes, monitor at least 1,801
moderate-income units and 2,238 lower-
income units to be constructed annually in
High and Highest Resource areas as
designated by TCAC. Permit the
development of at least 150 moderate-
income dwelling types in the neighborhoods
of E Las Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig
Park, Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway
Isles Dr, Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park
(Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence) by
the end of 2029.
9. Identify and advertise housing opportunity
sites within one-quarter mile of public transit
stops in northern Fullerton. Educate
developers on the Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Housing Program,
and/or pursue funding to increase transit
infrastructure in northern Fullerton.
On an ongoing basis, consult with interested
developers on the TOD Housing Program.
Conduct a study with OCTA to identify capital
projects to increase transit infrastructure by
2026. Apply for TOD Housing Program funds
as NOFA becomes available.
10. Monitor lot splits and two-unit developments
under SB 9, provide technical assistance to
homeowners, and develop or adjust
development standards as needed. Provide
easily accessible information and resources
about SB 9 on the City website. Conduct
outreach to homeowners’ associations in the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park, and the neighborhoods in
Beginning in 2025, meet with at least one
homeowners’ association annually in the
areas of northwest Fullerton and the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park to provide education on
SB 9 implementation. Amend the Zoning
Code to comply with SB 9 by December
2025.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 219 25-29 Regional AFH
northwest Fullerton, and provide information
on SB 9.
11. Conduct outreach to religious institutions and
provide technical assistance for interested
parties to develop affordable housing on sites
zoned religious institution.
Starting in 2025, annually mail or email
resources on developing affordable housing
to all religious institutions in the city with
underutilized land. Conduct follow up calls
with institutions with sites that hold the most
potential based on location and size,
prioritizing potential sites in the
neighborhoods of E Las Palmas Dr/N
Sunnywood Dr, Craig Park, Sunny Hills,
Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr, Acacia Park,
and Byerrum Park since they are Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence. By
December 2026, present information during
at least one meeting with the board and/or
members of OC United. By the end of 2027,
provide technical assistance for the potential
development of at least one affordable
housing development on a religious
institution site.
12. Conduct outreach to people experiencing
homelessness with the Illumination
Foundation and the OC Health Care Agency,
focusing efforts in areas where there is a high
concentration of homeless individuals in the
neighborhoods of Independence Park, Santa
Fe District/SoCo, and Gilbert Park, and along
arterial boulevards and commercial centers.
Provide resources to connect individuals with
shelter space in Fullerton and as needed, to
services in surrounding cities.
Annually allocate funding and City resources
to support outreach efforts in coordination
with the Illumination Foundation and the OC
Health Care Agency to provide information
and resources to those experiencing
homelessness. Annually fund the Fullerton
Police Department’s Homeless Liaison
Officer Unit, and as funding is available and
based on need, increase the number of
officers to provide services for residents
experiencing homelessness.
13. Adopt an ordinance for new development
standards to allow additional ADUs that meet
basic setbacks and square footage
requirements on properties exceeding one
acre in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. The
ordinance shall allow at least two ADUs on
qualifying properties if such properties can
safely accommodate two ADUs (e.g., that the
properties have adequate sewer/septic and
water capacity, can construct the ADUs in
Adopt the ordinance by July 2025.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 220 25-29 Regional AFH
compliance with all building code and fire
prevention requirements, and can meet
parking requirements).
14. Reduce minimum unit sizes and update the
Zoning Code, as necessary, to accommodate
alternative housing types such as housing co-
operatives, Single-Room Occupancy (SROs),
dormitories, tiny homes, and collective home
ownership models in more areas of the city,
including religious sites and publicly owned
land. Stakeholder outreach shall include
discussions with for-profit and non-profit
housing developers.
Amend the Zoning Code by July 2025.
Conduct stakeholder outreach with
developers and community groups and
service providers on alternative housing at
least once by January 2026, with the goal of
achieving 30 units of alternative housing
types by the end of 2029, with at least half of
those units in the neighborhoods of E Las
Palmas Dr/N Sunnywood Dr, Craig park,
Sunny Hills, Bastanchury Rd/Fairway Isles Dr,
Acacia Park, and Byerrum Park since they are
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence.
15. Encourage the development of both smaller
rental and owner units (studio and one-
bedroom) and larger rental units (3 to 4-
bedroom units) in residential and mixed-use
development. In consultation with
developers, identify and provide incentives
and reduction of constraints to encourage the
construction of these housing types and
develop a work plan to implement any
proposed changes to development
standards, City programs, and so forth.
Develop incentives and mitigations to
constraints by July 2025. Starting in 2025,
hold an annual workshop with developers
and provide education about technical
assistance and incentives for larger and
smaller rental units, with a goal of
supporting the development of 50 large (3-4-
bedroom) units and 100 studio/1-bedroom
units by December 2029. At least 50 percent
of large and small rental units should be in
neighborhoods of greater degrees of
overcrowding, including Woodcrest Park,
Artesia Blvd/N Gilbert St, Valencia Park, W
Oak Ave/Lambert Dr, E Wilshire Ave/N
Raymond Ave, Rancho La Paz.
16. Prioritize public health, education, economic,
and safety programs in lower resource areas
as defined by TCAC in coordination with area
public health entities, school districts,
workforce development groups, and the
police department. Identify addresses and
compile mailing list and email addresses to
focus outreach to neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of low-income and minority
residents to prioritize services in these areas.
Increase participation in the City’s first-time
homebuyer seminars and owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation grant program 5
percent annually from lower income and
minority concentration areas between 2021-
2029 (data collection via surveys conducted
at the seminars).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 221 25-29 Regional AFH
17. Assess potential preference policy for
affordable housing opportunities, land use,
transportation, urban design, public facilities
and services, and economic development
strategies. The City will seek involvement
from community organizations and
advocates, business councils, and residents
to further refine the program scope.
Establish a community working group that
meets annually to prioritize funding for
community investments.
18. Apply for funding and coordinate with the
OCTA Safe Routes to School program to
establish at least one partnership in the city
for active transportation projects and/or
safety education campaign, prioritizing
school routes within and from the
neighborhood of E Imperial Highway and N
Harbor Boulevard.
Establish partnership for Safe Routes to
School and apply for grant funding by the
end of 2025. Initiate at least one project or
campaign by the end of the planning period.
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Fullerton. More
than 20% of all units are overcrowded in the neighborhoods south of downtown, which are
predominantly Hispanic.
Contributing Factors:
1. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.
2. Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
3. Land use and zoning laws
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Develop an outreach strategy in multiple
languages for property owners who own
fewer than 10 residential units (either in
single-family or multi-family rental housing)
to assess needs and connect them with
resources, such as housing unit rehabilitation
and financing programs. The intent of this
program is to preserve Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing (i.e., not currently
regulated with affordability restrictions),
particularly in the neighborhoods of
Woodcrest Park and Rancho La Paz. The
program will seek to prioritize communities
vulnerable to displacement, generally in the
Develop an outreach strategy for “mom and
pop” property owners by January 2026.
After the strategy is adopted, conduct
outreach to at least 15 property owners with
less than 10 units and assist at least 5
property owners with a combined total of 20
units or more by December 2029.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 222 25-29 Regional AFH
southern areas of the city, a focus on
neighborhoods with lower median income.
2. Review the City’s Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance program with input from tenants
and property owners/managers, ensuring
representation across the economic
spectrum, and update as appropriate.
Outreach to be conducted to all vulnerable
communities during the update process and
after final adoption in 2027. Fill any gaps
between Section 8 assistance and rent, or to
aid those who may not qualify for Section 8
but need one-time emergency assistance, to
provide relief to tenants to avoid the
displacement in vulnerable communities.
Update the City’s Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance program by January 2027.
Prepare and present a report on
recommendations for programs that would
provide relief to tenants and landlords to
avoid the displacement in vulnerable
communities by December 2026. If a rental
assistance program is approved and
implemented as a result, the program will
assist at least 10 lower income renter
households annually.
3. In consultation with fair housing service
providers and community-based
organizations, evaluate existing state and
federal “just cause for eviction” (AB 1482;
2019-Chiu) and other similar legislation with
provisions to determine if additional
protections through a local ordinance is
warranted.
Assess if additional protections are needed
by January 2026. If warranted, recommend
adoption of a local tenant protection
ordinance to City Council by December 2026.
4. Partner with Cal state Fullerton to develop a
plan to address the need for off-campus
affordable housing for students.
Develop a city-wide student housing plan by
December 2029.
5. Prioritize public health, education, economic,
and safety programs in lower resource areas
as defined by TCAC in coordination with area
public health entities, school districts,
workforce development groups, and the
police department. Identify addresses an d
compile mailing list and email addresses to
focus outreach to neighborhoods with higher
concentrations of low-income and minority
residents to prioritize services in these areas.
Increase participation in the City’s first-time
homebuyer seminars and owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation grant program percent
annually from lower income and minority
concentration areas between 2021-2029
(data collection via surveys conducted at the
seminars).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 223 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Homeownership
Homeownership rates are lower for all groups than the County overall, except for AAPI
households. Racial/ethnic disparities exist, with Native American households the least likely to
own their home, and AAPI households most likely.
Contributing Factors:
1. Racial discrepancies in loan origination.
2. Lack of funding for consumer rights and responsibility education on Fair Lending practices
and identification of predatory lending practices.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Work to promote fair lending practices throughout the
city, including:
a. Ensure that low-income and minority residents
have fair access to capital resources needed to
acquire and maintain housing.
b. Prevent predatory lending through information
and referrals to the Fair Housing Foundation.
Annually conduct and publish
third party review of City or
regional HMDA data to identify
areas of need regarding fair
access to lending.
2. Add information on fair housing laws and resources on
the City’s website regarding housing programs in several
languages.
By January 2025
3. Seek opportunities to expand outreach and public
education strategies on available tenant protection, fair
housing services, and homeownership education to reach
vulnerable households by offering information in multiple
languages, targeted social media efforts, combining
information with other assistance programs, distributing
resources through local schools and colleges, and
partnering with community-based organizations.
2021-2029
4. Partner with the County and/or community-based
organizations to increase participation in homeownership
education and assistance programs for historically
underrepresented residents in the homeownership
market. Organizations may include teachers’ associations,
school districts, and community-based service providers
to increase awareness of, and access to, housing
resources and financial planning services.
Facilitate homeownership
workshops, counseling, and/or
education campaigns by January
2025. By October 31, 2029,
connect at least 30 residents to
education on homeownership-
related topics.
5. Prioritize public health, education, economic, and safety
programs in lower resource areas as defined by TCAC in
coordination with area public health entities, school
districts, workforce development groups, and the police
department. Identify addresses and compile mailing list
Increase participation in the
City’s first-time homebuyer
seminars and owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation grant
program 5 percent annually from
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 224 25-29 Regional AFH
and email addresses to focus outreach to neighborhoods
with higher concentrations of low-income and minority
residents to prioritize services in these areas.
lower income and minority
concentration areas between
2021-2029 (data collection via
surveys conducted at the
seminars).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 225 25-29 Regional AFH
H. Garden Grove
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunities, and Disparities in Access
to Homeownership
The majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation except for West Garden
Grove. In West Garden Grove, the residential neighborhoods west of Knott St are considered
areas of high White segregation. In the high POC segregation areas, AAPI residents are the
predominant group west of 9th St and Hispanic residents are the predominant group east of there.
Additionally, there are lots of publicly supported housing units in the center of city along Garden
Grove Boulevard, which is a high POC segregation area. There are no publicly supported housing
units in West Garden Grove, which is an area of high White segregation.
There is a R/ECAP in the northern part of the city to between Brookhurst St and Gilbert St, north
of Chapman Ave. The R/ECAP tract is predominantly Hispanic and is surrounded by Census Tracts
that are predominantly AAPI.
Hispanic and AAPI residents have the least access to low poverty neighborhoods and
neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Additionally, Hispanic
residents also have the least access to neighborhoods with high performing school s.
Geographically, the neighborhoods with access to the most opportunities are in West Garden
Grove, where education and economic scores are high, environmental quality is high, and poverty
is low. West Garden Grove is a predominantly White area.
The Black and Hispanic homeownership rate in the city is half the White homeownership rate.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.
2. Inadequate supply/production of affordable housing.
3. Displacement of residents due to regional economic pressures.
4. Housing discrimination.
5. High land and development costs in the region.
6. Public opposition to new development and land use and zoning laws.
7. Access to financial services.
8. Lack of meaningful language access for individuals with limited English proficiency.
9. Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation to promote public
awareness of federal, state, and local regulations regarding fair housing.
Provide information to the public about local, state, and federal housing
programs and fair housing law. Maintain referral information on the City’s
website, social media, newspaper ads, and at a variety of other locations such
as community and senior centers, local social service offices, in City utility
bills, and at other public locations including City Hall and the library. Add or
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 226 25-29 Regional AFH
translate resources and information in Vietnamese, Korean, and Spanish and
make available to the public through communications materials and online.
2. Direct homebuyers and property owners with property deeds, covenants,
and other real estate property documents that contain restrictions intended
to limit where certain people could live or buy property, based on race,
religion, or other characteristics, to the Orange County Clerk-Recorder’s
Office to have such discriminatory language removed at no charge.
Ongoing
3. Continue to target dissemination of Fair Housing Outreach information and
notices of available services and workshops in neighborhoods identified with
disproportionate housing needs and displacement risks. Fair Housing
Foundation holds regular workshops an d 1-on-1 counseling sessions at the
City’s Senior Center and Family Resource Centers.
Ongoing
4. Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and
approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the
development application’s compliance with all entitlement requirements.
Ongoing
5. Pursue funding and target neighborhoods of concentrated poverty for
investment in rehabilitation, parks, transit, active transportation, and other
needs identified in the City’s Environmental Justice Element. To the extent
possible, ensure funding plans reflect the needs of lower-opportunity
neighborhoods.
Annually
6. Continue to implement the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
and HUD Consolidated Plan.
Annually
7. Annually monitor building and home sales activities in historically under -
market neighborhoods to identify any adverse trends.
Annually
8. Investigate ways to incentivize housing developers to increase the number
three-bedroom units in their developments.
Ongoing
9. In concert with Code Enforcement, develop a proactive cooperative code
compliance program that targets areas of concentrated rehabilitation needs,
results in repairs, and mitigates potential cost, displacement, and relocation
impacts on residents.
Ongoing
10. Implement programs to increase housing choices and affordability (e.g.,
duplex, triplex, multifamily, accessory dwelling units, SB 9 housing
developments, transitional and supportive housing, and group homes), with
a particular focus in High Opportunity Ar eas. Establish a protocol to annually
monitor development progress towards housing creation that increases
housing choices and affordability in High Opportunity Areas. Should
monitoring reveal a shortfall in development progress towards housing
creation of increased housing choices and affordability, the City will commit
to developing additional actions, as necessary, including, but not limited to
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 227 25-29 Regional AFH
incentives, waivers, concessions, expedited processing, and other regulatory
approaches, including examination of development standards) to ensure the
City satisfies its identified housing need (RHNA).
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 228 25-29 Regional AFH
I. Huntington Beach
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities and Disproportionate Housing Needs
In Huntington Beach, Hispanic residents have relatively low access to neighborhoods with good
environmental health, low poverty, high education scores, and high economic scores. Overall,
access to opportunities in the city is high compared to the region.
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Huntington Beach.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of knowledge of fair housing and associated laws.
2. High cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.
Actions: Timeframe:
Promote fair housing practices through the following actions:
1. Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing
services, including fair housing and discrimination investigations, tenant and
landlord counseling, education and outreach activities, and affirmatively
further fair housing activities.
Ongoing
Preserve quality and affordability of existing housing through the following
actions:
1. Provide financial assistance to low-income households for home repairs
through the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program.
2. Provide rental assistance to extremely low (ELI) and very low income (VLI)
households through the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 229 25-29 Regional AFH
J. Irvine
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunities, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
There are several Census Tracts considered to be areas of high POC segregation, including the
neighborhoods between I-405 and UC Irvine, the Westpark community north of I-405, the
neighborhoods between Como Channel and I-5, and the Northwood community north of I-5.
There are also areas of high White segregation in Irvine, including the neighborhood bounded by
Turtle Rock Dr, the area surrounding the Strawberry Farms Golf Club, the Woodbridge community
north of I-405, and the neighborhood west of the Oak Creek Golf Club.
Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately
experience discrimination in housing.
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Irvine.
Homeownership rates are lower for all racial/ethnic groups compared to the County overall, and
racial/ethnic disparities are similar to the County, with Black and Hispanic households having the
lowest homeownership rates (15.7% and 18% respectively).
Contributing Factors:
1. Shortage of affordable rental and homeownership options due to market and governmental
constraints
2. Underutilized properties (i.e., retail centers and hotels) could provide new affordable housing
opportunities for Irvine residents, but current land use and zoning laws inhibit this
development
3. Lack of supportive housing in community-based settings
4. Lack of renter protections and economic uncertainty from pandemic increased risk of
displacement for lower income households
Actions: Timeframe:
1. The City will continue to pursue alternative options for meeting the
RHNA through preservation, legislative changes, and regional
cooperation. The City will apply for all available funding to pursue
acquisition/rehabilitation of affordable housing projects and
preservation of at-risk housing.
Annually
2. The City will incorporate changes in State law (particularly affordable
housing, employee housing, emergency shelters, and
transitional/supportive housing, ADUs) into the Land Use Element
and Zoning Ordinance. This will involve allowing for increased
densities or FAR in both residential and non- residential areas to
adhere to RHNA requirements. Other General Plan elements will be
updated to ensure consistency with the updated Housing and Land
Use Elements, as well as the Zoning Ordinance
Completed
3. The City will establish zoning overlays to allow for multifamily
residential in nonresidential areas (which may include properties
By October 2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 230 25-29 Regional AFH
designated for religious institutions and schools) to provide
flexibility in land use and development standards, including mixed-
use developments. These flexible standards shall be directed toward
meeting the physical, social, and economic needs of the community.
The City will adhere to the requirements of California Government
Code, Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), as part of the rezoning
program, including applicable by-right provisions, and the
residential overlay zones in nonresidential areas will allow for
densities of 30 units/acre, allow for 100 percent residential use, and
will require residential use to occupy 50 percent of floor area on
mixed use projects.
4. The City will encourage the subdivision of sites that are 10 acres or
more to provide more opportunities for development of affordable
housing, which the HCD has determined is more feasible on sites
between 0.5 and 10 acres in size.
City will conduct a
review every 2 years
5. The City will work with UCI to draft an agreement regarding
approving, permitting, certifying occupancy, and/or reporting new
units to the California State Department of Finance (DOF). The
agreement will involve documentation from UCI on planned housing
that has been approved to be built as well as information on the
timing of the project construction and unit affordability by household
income category.
By January 2022, and
ongoing
6. The City will seek to amend the fee collection process for land
divisions and lot line adjustments resulting in parcel sizes that
facilitate multifamily developments affordable to households with
lower incomes (including extremely low income and farmworker s) in
light of State, Federal, and local financing programs (i.e., 2–10 acres).
Within 12 months of
Housing Element
certification
7. The City will also identify potential property owners and nonprofit
developers by the end of FY 2022-23 and work with them on an
annual basis to target and market the availability of sites with the best
potential for development. In addition, the City will offer incentives
for the development of affordable housing.
Within 12 months of
Housing Element
certification
8. The City will expedite development of housing projects for seniors,
people with disabilities, and lower-income people and/or households
As projects are
proposed
9. The City will review the current Development Standards and update
as appropriate to encourage residential, mixed-use, and transit-
oriented developments
By October 2022
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 231 25-29 Regional AFH
10. To expedite the process of finding resources and incentives, the City
will gather information on the available incentives/concessions for
developers within a year of the City’s Housing Element Update
certification. The City will then develop and post an overview of the
available incentives/concessions for developers on the City’s website
and updates will be performed on an annual basis. The goal of this
program is either expedite the time it takes to obtain development
approvals and/or incentives that provide cost savings on housing
projects, thereby improving and increasing the financial feasibility of
affordable housing projects
Within one (1) year of
Housing Element
certification
11. To decrease the entitlement and construction process, following the
adoption of the Housing Element the City will designate a dedicated
planner, plan checker, and building inspector(s) to provide expedited
processing for affordable housing projects, with a n emphasis on
projects that include extremely low-income units. The goal of this
program is to expedite the affordable housing development process
to accelerate the availability of affordable housing units in the
community, which also has the effect of reducing development costs
By October 2022
12. Hold one (1) outreach meeting or survey with affordable housing
developers and providers each year after the state budget funding
for the next fiscal year are made public (by October of each year) to
discuss available funding sources (City, state and feder al), sites
identified in the Housing Element sites inventory that are available,
developer needs and opportunities for affordable housing projects.
Provide technical assistance to developers regarding City’s lower
income sites, funding opportunities, as well as mixed use zoning and
density bonus incentives
October of each
program year
13. The City will establish streamlined, ministerial review procedures
and processes for qualifying multi-family residential projects
consistent with SB 35
By May 2023
14. The City will update the current Zoning Ordinance to establish higher
density in areas with underdeveloped/underutilized property, such as
Planning Areas 32 (adjacent to the Irvine Station served by
Amtrak/Metrolink passenger rail services and Orange County
Transportation Authority bus services), 33, and 36 (a.k.a., Irvine
Business Complex or “IBC” near John Wayne Airport). This update
will maximize land utilization for residential development to
accommodate RHNA requirements, including allowing residential
overlays in commercial areas to allow for residential to be added to
commercial areas or to allow existing underutilized commercial uses
to be converted to residential (i.e., hotels)
By October 2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 232 25-29 Regional AFH
15. Multiple State laws have been passed since 2019 establishing
statewide standards for local regulations governing ADU
development. State law requires that ADUs be allowed in residential
and mixed-use areas despite local ordinances or homeowner’s
association rules and requirements. Additionally, State law requires
jurisdictions to develop a plan to encourage and incentivize ADUs in
an effort to address the current California housing crisis.
By January 2023
16. Assembly Bill (AB) 671 requires local agencies’ Housing Elements to
include a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs
that can offer affordable rents for households with very-low-, low-, or
moderate-income households. As part of the ADU or dinance update
(including public outreach), the City will research feasible options to
facilitate affordable housing options for ADUs
By October 2024
17. Housing Elements to include a plan that incentivizes and promotes
the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for households
with very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households. As part of the
ADU ordinance update (including public outreach), the City will
research feasible options to facilitate affordable housing options for
ADUs
By the end of 2022
and begin providing
incentives by January
2023
18. The City will provide financial and other available assistance to
affordable housing property owners to preserve units. The
committed assistance may consist of both financial and non -
financial, in-kind services to incentivize the preservation of affordable
units. The total number of units to be preserved are seven extremely
low, 517 very low and 299 low-income units
By June 30, 2025
19. The City will continue to monitor and preserve the affordability of all
publicly assisted housing units, and support applications by
nonprofits
Ongoing
20. The Sites Inventory includes four non- vacant sites with existing
residential uses. The sites are currently combined and house an 880-
unit apartment building. In considering a demolition and new
construction of residential development at the site (that increases the
total number of units), the City is proposing the incorporation of 465
deed- restricted units affordable to very low - and low-income
households on this site, generating replacement units for any units
that may be inhabited by very low- and low-income families.
As development
projects are proposed
(timing dependent on
development
community)
21. In addition to providing funding opportunities related to HUD
programs on the City’s website, funding opportunities will be
disseminated via targeted email notifications and may also be posted
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 233 25-29 Regional AFH
on all City social media accounts and include information on vacant
land currently owned by the City.
22. The City will access information from HCD and other State agencies
to identify grant application opportunities for affordable housing.
When grant opportunities are known, the City will reach out to
affordable developer stakeholders to identify projects and/or
opportunities to include on grant applications. The City will apply or
support a minimum of three (3) grant application each year. The goal
of this program would be to increase the amount of funding available
for affordable housing projects, which require public subsidies to be
built.
Timing dependent on
State HCD and other
departments
23. The City will retain a consultant to conduct a feasibility study on
increasing the inclusionary housing requirement from 15 percent (5
percent very low, 5 percent low, and 5 percent moderate) to 20
percent (9 percent very low, 6 percent low, and 5 percent moderate).
The policy changes proposed to Planning Commission and City
Council, if deemed feasible in the study, will include increasing the
inclusionary requirement to 20 percent with corresponding updated
in-lieu fee
By October 2024
24. The City will identify and analyze local funding options for affordable
housing and monitor new funding and financing resources each year.
This program will also include using State and Federal funding
received by the City to partner with nonprofit organizations (such as
the ICLT), as the commitment of City funding can enhance the scoring
of 100 percent affordable projects to secure important funding
sources, such as low- income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) that have
become highly competitive.
Annually
25. The City will identify and utilize State programs and/or potential
public/private partnerships with major employers to acquire existing
market rate housing units or develop new housing units to create
moderate or workforce housing (available to households with
incomes at 80 percent to 120 percent of AMI)
Ongoing
26. The City will follow all requirements of the Surplus Land Act, Article
8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division
2 of Title 5, including holding a public hearing designating the
properties as “surplus properties” under California Law. The City will
also conduct an analysis to determine, based on market conditions,
if selling or leasing the properties would maximize the development
of affordable units. The City will then send a Notice of Availability to
all required parties regarding the availability of County-owned land
available for purchase or lease. It is the City’s intent to facilitate the
Surplus Land Act
activities to be
completed by October
2024 and Notice of
Availability by
December 2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 234 25-29 Regional AFH
development of 100 percent affordable housing projects on vacant
or underutilized City- owned sites. The City will also coordinate with
the public entities that own a site (or sites) to ensure that the legally
mandated surplus property process is followed
27. The City seeks to continue to strengthen its relationship with the ICLT
to collaborate and partner on efficiently and effectively maximizing
affordable housing opportunities.
As opportunities arise
for acquisition,
development, and
legislative initiatives
the City will work with
ICLT. Additionally,
City will meet at least
quarterly with ICLT
starting in November
2021 to coordinate
efforts. City will
document progress
on these items in its
Annual Progress
Report.
28. The City will coordinate with public agencies to facilitate the
development of affordable housing projects on vacant and
underutilized sites, including sites owned by the County of Orange,
the State, and the Irvine Ranch Water District. Activities could include
collaboration with public agencies on master -planning and
disposition efforts for large vacant and underutilized sites.
Coordination with
County of Orange, the
State, and the Irvine
Ranch Water District
and any other
relevant public
agencies in
connection with the
Land Use Element
Update and Zoning
Ordinance
amendment from
2022
through October 2024
29. The City’s Land Use Element allows for the entitlement of affordable
housing units beyond the maximum unit counts established in the
Zoning Ordinance, thus considered additive to the General Plan
intensity thresholds, which allows additional units to be developed
under the City’s established land use designations.
As development
projects are proposed
(timing dependent on
development
community).
30. The City will amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance By October 2024
31. Encourage and incentivize ADUs through various programs By January 2023
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 235 25-29 Regional AFH
32. Encourage innovative design prototypes and/or construction, such as
smaller units with increased energy efficiency (i.e., sustainable
designs and operations), modular units or other innovative building
types
On an ongoing basis
33. Streamline permitting to encourage a diverse housing stock On an ongoing basis
34. The City will make appropriate zoning changes as part of the General
Plan - Land Use Element Update and Zoning Ordinance Amendment
to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance in compliance with State law
changes related to parking, by right uses, and other requir ements.
By October 2024.
35. The City will work with UCI to draft agreement regarding approving,
permitting, certifying occupancy, and/or reporting new units to the
California State Department of Finance (DOF).
By January 2022 and
ongoing tracking.
36. The Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental
subsidies to extremely low and very low-income households,
including families, seniors, farmworkers, and the disabled.
Ongoing
37. The City will study the benefits associated with creating an Irvine
Housing Authority with the ability to allocate Federal Housing Choice
Vouchers
By January 2023
38. The City will analyze incentives to encourage affordable housing
developers to consider extending the terms of affordability in
perpetuity
By January 2023
39. The City will monitor legislative changes to ensure that City policies
and regulations comply with State and Federal laws
Annually
40. The goal of this program is to ensure that fees (both the dollar
amount and timing), incentives, development standards/review
processes do not constrain the development of housing units or
render housing development infeasible
Annually
41. The City will develop and establish specific written procedures for
requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation for housing
for persons with disabilities.
6/30/2023
42. The City will update the Zoning Ordinance and related policies
pertaining to emergency shelters, Low- Barrier Navigation Centers
(LBNCs), transitional and supportive housing, and group care
facilities to conform to State requirements, as established by AB 139,
AB 2162, and Senate Bill 48. Generally, this update would allow these
land uses in all of the City’s residential zones and with fewer
conditions.
Completed by
October 2024
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 236 25-29 Regional AFH
43. Any funding sources have specific eligibility criteria or other
requirements that may not always align with potential projects in
Irvine. The City will pursue relevant State and Federal funding
sources to provide additional options for developers of lower-income
housing that serve veterans, individual, and families at-risk of and
currently experiencing homelessness in the City. The City will ensure
that such housing options will include reasonable accommodations
and transitional and supportive services for people with disabilities.
Ongoing as funding is
released and
available.
44. The City will explore the feasibility of joining the Orange County
Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT), a joint power authority composed
of many Orange County cities.
Explore by October
2023
45. The City will ensure that housing options will include reasonable
accommodations and supportive services for people with
disabilities.
Explore by October
2023
46. The City will continue to make information about services for people
experiencing homelessness available on the City’s website and at City
facilities.
Ongoing
47. The City will continue to provide resources for non-profits that
provide transitional housing, motel vouchers, food pantry,
emergency rent and utility payment assistance, life-skills counseling
and clothing.
Ongoing
48. The City will continue to provide CDBG grant funding to non-profits
such as Families Forward, South County Outreach, Human Options,
and Stand Up for Kids that provide these services. Information on
these resources is included in the City’s Affordable Housing Guide
and the City’s website.
Ongoing
49. The City will explore establishing a crisis response protocol for local
service providers to render rapid crisis support, including after -hour
services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
By October 2022
50. The City will reach out to other California cities currently
implementing shared housing programs that help match individuals
experiencing or at risk of homelessness and seniors for a mutually
beneficial living situation. Individuals in need of housing can provide
needed physical assistance around the home for seniors.
Explore by October
2024
51. Compile a list of local organizations and reach out to inquire about
possible collaborations. This will help the City cooperate with
community-based organizations that provide services or information
about services to any special needs or linguistically isolated groups.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 237 25-29 Regional AFH
52. The City’s primary (and very effective) effort in displacement
prevention is facilitating the development of affordable housing in
the community, as referenced in the AFFH section of this HEU.
Displacement prevention activities will also include connecting
residents to resources to minimize the displacement of households
with lower incomes and special needs whenever possible and where
necessary to ensure that displacement is carried out in an equitable
manner.
Ongoing
53. The City will participate in the Orange County United Way’s Eviction
Task Force and associated study. This work includes identifying and
coordinating community resources to support households facing
eviction.
Ongoing
54. The City will provide a link on its website to landlord/tenant
meditation services and landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities,
which may include information from service providers such as the
Fair Housing Foundation. The City will also add information on the
City’s website and provide resources on non-profits such as
Community Legal Aid SoCal and the Legal Aid Society of OC.
Annual
55. The City will encourage homeownership through education, sharing
information, and links to existing nonprofit, County, State, and
Federal resources on the City’s website
Ongoing basis and
updated annually for
accuracy
56. This existing program provides financial assistance to lower-income
Irvine homeowners for critical home improvement projects.
Ongoing basis and
updated annually for
accuracy
57. The City will update its Land Use Element and amend the Zoning
Ordinance
Ordinance by October
2024
58. The City will continue implementation of its One Irvine program to
revitalize individual neighborhoods through a work program
uniquely developed with community input for each neighborhood.
By January 2023.
59. The City will reach out to community organizations and collaborate
with them on outreach to different communities
By January 2023.
60. The City will provide links to Fair Housing Foundation (a nonprofit
the City currently contracts with) to provide Irvine residents with
information regarding fair housing law, tenant and landlord rights
(including information on mediation services)
Within six months of
Housing Element
certification.
61. Compile a list of local organizations and set up an annual meeting or
meetings to discuss community housing needs and potential
solutions. Cooperate with community-based organizations that
Within six months of
Housing Element
certification.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 238 25-29 Regional AFH
provide services or information about services to any special needs
and linguistically isolated groups.
Meet annually with
identified
organizations starting
in fiscal year 2022- 23
(meetings will be
conducted by June 30
of each year).
62. The City will connect developers of projects with affordable density
bonus units and local non-profits/community organizations to
coordinate efforts and determine if the units could be set aside,
where feasible, for special groups including but not limited to
veterans and special need adults.
Within three months
of a density bonus
project application.
63. The City will provide translations or interpretation in all applicable
languages to ensure access to programs, services, and materials
Ongoing
64. The City will conduct an internal audit at a minimum of every other
year to evaluate that we are addressing all language needs for the
City.
Annually or as
needed
65. The City is in the process and has taken several steps to identify
climate impacts, reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG), and prepare for a climate resilient future
Completed by
December 31, 2022
66. Continuing to require added greenery throughout the City to reduce
exposure to environmental pollution such as vehicle emissions
through the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Section 3-15-4)
Annually
67. Irvine Cool City Challenge will reduce climate emissions and utility
bills while building resiliency and local emergency preparedness
against climate disasters such as extreme heat, floods, wildfires, and
extreme storm events.
The Cool Block
Challenge was
initiated in January
2022 and will be 2
years in length. There
will be a new team
established roughly
every 4.5-5 months. In
year 3 of the Cool City
Challenge, the City
will present a game
plan to the
Empowerment
Institute. After that,
the City will work to
implement the carbon
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 239 25-29 Regional AFH
neutrality plan.
68. Provide adequate parks and open space to all parts of the
community, the City will prepare a comprehensive design strategy to
include passive urban park setting for every project and include other
placemaking strategies. This program, as implemented, will reduce
unsustainable energy use, reduce pollutants, improve air quality,
reduce extreme heat events and improve the health outcomes of
residents, employees and others in the community.
By December 2024.
69. The City will contact the Irvine Unified School District to inquire about
expanding access to enrollment in the district’s schools for residents
that may not be within the district’s boundaries
Within six months of
Housing Element
certification.
70. The City will conduct a bi-annual survey of homeowners to obtain
input on existing programs and to identify additional ways to support
the City’s homeowners and their unique needs
At least one survey
every two years
71. The City shall strengthen its relationship with the local fair housing
provider and explore ways to expand services and mutually pursue
additional funding resources for that expansion.
Ongoing with check in
meeting one time per
year
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 240 25-29 Regional AFH
K. La Habra
Issue: Segregation
There are various neighborhoods considered to have high POC segregation, including
neighborhoods in the center of the city north of Guadalupe Park and between Idaho St to the west
and Sonora High School to the east. These neighborhoods are predominantly Hi spanic. Publicly
supported housing units are in the city’s center and north neighborhoods, which are all low-
medium or high POC segregation areas.
Contributing Factors:
1. Zoning Code regulations and land use controls that constrain/ restrict housing opportunities.
2. Historic limited available land for new development of multiple- family housing.
3. General lack of affordable housing for low-and moderate-income residents.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase production of affordable housing through the following
actions:
1. Adopt streamlined ministerial approval process to expedite the
development of housing.
2. Revise density bonus ordinance and remove CUP requirement
to facilitate higher density housing.
3. Remove 1-acre minimum for mixed use projects and 20%
standard for multiple-family on a block.
4. Adopt objective design standards to facilitate multi -family and
mixed-use production.
5. Remove the CUP neighborhood compatibility finding in the
design review process.
6. Adjust story height and parking requirement to facilitate
multiple-family housing production.
7. Allow transitional, supportive housing, and low barrier
navigation centers in accordance with state law.
8. Allow residential care facilities req. by state law and remove
filing fee for reasonable acc. request.
Adopt 8 ordinances by
2024. By 2025, approval of
at least 2 multiple-family
residential projects and
permitting of at least 2 care
facilities.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 241 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Neighborhoods in the city’s center and southeast of the center have poor environmental quality,
low education scores, and low economic scores. These neighborhoods are also predominantly
Hispanic.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lower ranking schools compared to wealthier districts in the County.
2. Lower graduation rate among Hispanics and other groups compared to County results.
3. Lower incomes due to either under- employment and or unemployment.
4. Need to continue investments in the children and youth of La Habra.
Actions: Timeframe:
Improve access to opportunities in low resource areas through the following
actions:
1. Operate the Child Development Division programs and assist up to 600 La
Habra children from lower-income families
Ongoing
2. Administer City workforce training and employment programs for 600
participants in the County; increase staff fourfold
Ongoing
3. Continue to support La Habra Boys and Girls Club, serving 3,000 La Habra
residents each year
Ongoing
4. Continue to work with housing, employment, and community service
partners, as needed, evaluate, and expand partnerships and resources
Quarterly or as
needed
5. Retrofit two parks or recreation facilities (e.g., El-Centro-Lions, Vista) in
low-mod resource areas in central La Habra
By end of 2025
6. Remediate landfill hazards with vapor devices underneath the Vista
Grande Park
Ongoing
7. Continue to support the children’s museum, accommodating nearly
95,000 visits each year
Ongoing
8. Update safety element to address climate change, EJ, and resiliency;
implement programs to address hazards
By June 2023
9. Operate the Hillcrest Health and Wellness Center to serve residents in
need, including Central La Habra
Ongoing
10. Ensure 25% Love La Habra projects in Central La Habra Complete NTMP
projects in K, M, F Neighborhoods
Annually
11. Expend $2.5 million to install East Bishop storm drain By end of 2024
12. Apply for SR2S grants citywide for all schools; if received, develop plan,
make improvements during planning period
By 2029
13. Market services to eligible lower income residents through affirmative
marketing at Hillcrest Center
By end of 2023
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 242 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in La Habra. More
than 10% of homes have incomplete kitchen facilities in one Census Tract in the north central part
of the city.
Contributing Factors:
1. High levels of overcrowding and overpayment; mismatch with housing needs.
2. Rising prices and rents for housing far exceed recent increases in incomes.
3. Several affordable housing projects remain at risk of conversion.
4. Age of housing stock; most homes were built more than 50 years ago.
5. Housing rehabilitation and repairs are expensive, especially for retirees.
6. Limited staff for building/ code compliance make it difficult to address needs.
Actions: Timeframe:
Reduce housing instability through the following
actions:
1. Encourage ADUs, including 20% in higher
resource areas through annual publication
citywide.
Permit 30 ADUs; 20% in high resource
areas by the end of 2022
2. Support and advertise HCV program to increase
participants.
Ongoing
3. Assist up to 200 lower-income households over
the planning period with ARPA-funded bill
assistance.
Assist 200 households by the end of
2023.
4. Retain affordability and condition of mobile home
parks and deed-restricted apartments affordable to
lower income households.
Preserve affordability of 50% of units in
the two city-owned mobile home parks
between 2021-2029.
5. Require replacement units per Gov’t Code 65915
for lower income units demolished.
Ongoing, as projects are proposed
6. Implement inclusionary housing ordinance and
prioritize funding (fees) for affordable housing.
Develop all 100 inclusionary units, 25%
of which are in highest income tracts,
between 2021-2029.
7. Target affirmative marketing in low resource areas
at the Hillcrest Center, Boys & Girls Club, and
others.
Prepare and distribute fliers on City
programs by 2023.
Improve quality of existing housing through the
following actions:
8. Hold regular Love La Habra events to assist
income- qualified residents with home repairs
Annually in September
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 243 25-29 Regional AFH
9. Hire additional code enforcement staff to address
backlog and provide capacity for proactive work
By end of 2023
10. Purchase Land Management System (LMS) to
track code compliance, building and planning
permits
By end of 2023
11. Issue housing rehabilitation grants/loans for 25
households over the planning period
Make 3 grants per year
12. Evaluate feasibility of rental housing inspection
program and, if feasible, develop program
By end of 2023
13. Seek collaborative partnership which can assist in
addressing local housing rehabilitation needs
Annually
14. Target affirmative marketing in low resource areas
at the Hillcrest Center, Boys & Girls Club, and
others
By end of 2023
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 244 25-29 Regional AFH
L. Laguna Niguel
Issue: Concentration
Most of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for a few neighborhoods
with low-medium concentration (which are predominantly White) in the northeastern and eastern
parts of the city.
Contributing Factors:
1. Historical land use development patterns and zoning, environmental constraints, and lack of
vacant land limit opportunities for larger and higher density project types.
2. Current high cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.
3. Lack of affordable housing and need for greater access to opportunities.
4. Regional coordination affects transit services, funding sources, and allocation of housing
resources including vouchers.
5. Community resistance to development.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase fair housing knowledge through the following actions:
1. Promote Fair Housing Council programs and expand knowledge of
first-time homebuyer programs on the City’s website, newsletters, and
through social media.
By December 2025,
review annually
thereafter
2. Promote affirmative marketing plans in all new housing developments
that are designed to attract renters and buyers of diverse demographic
backgrounds, including race, ethnicity, income, disability, and familial
status.
Ongoing
3. Develop an outreach plan and materials to communicate the benefits
of vouchers and tenant rights regarding just cause evictions,
limitations on rent increases, and replacement housing requirements
if any existing residential units would be removed, based on state law.
By December 2025
Increase housing opportunities in high opportunity areas through the
following actions:
4. Incentivize multi-family and mixed- use development in the Gateway
Specific Plan area (northeast portion of city) through the following
actions:
a. Amend the Gateway Specific Plan to mandate that any public
benefit provided to achieve a density of higher than 50 du/ac
shall include a provision of affordable housing, and to
encourage the production of workforce housing and missing
middle housing.
By July 2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 245 25-29 Regional AFH
b. Allocate CDBG or other available funding assistance to projects
in the Gateway Specific Plan area that include multi-family units
targeted for extremely-low-income households, as feasible.
Annually
c. Provide administrative assistance to affordable housing
developers in preparing grant applications.
Ongoing
d. Post and maintain a current inventory of vacant sites in the
Gateway Specific Plan area suitable for multi-family residential
or mixed-use development on the City website.
Ongoing
e. Contact local developers and publicize development
opportunities within the Gateway Specific Plan area at least
once each year.
Annually
f. Assist in facilitating subdivision of large parcels where
necessary to create building sites through concurrent
processing and project coordination.
Ongoing
5. Contact the property owners of vacant properties to assist
development of the site for residential purposes.
Annually
6. Continue to implement state Density Bonus Law as amended from time
to time.
Ongoing
7. Engage and assist developers seeking funding and/or tax credits for the
construction of low- and moderate-income housing.
Annually
8. Incentivize affordable housing development through modified
development standards, expedited processing, or other financial
incentives for affordable housing projects.
Ongoing
9. Provide administrative assistance to developers of low- or moderate-
income projects.
Ongoing
10. Promote options for assistance to developers on the City website. Ongoing
11. Prioritize funding assistance for Extremely Low-Income units. Ongoing
12. Review City-owned properties annually to identify any surplus land
that could be made available for affordable housing development and
distribute list of suitable sites to regional affordable housing
developers.
Annually
13. Work cooperatively with the County of Orange and other local cities to
create a regional housing bond program to help fund affordable
housing and permanent supportive housing.
Ongoing,
consultation with
County at least
annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 246 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities disproportionately
experience discrimination in housing.
Contributing Factors:
1. Insufficient fair housing monitoring and limited outreach capacity
2. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
3. Limited understanding of fair housing laws
Actions: Timeframe:
Improve fair housing education and outreach through the following
actions:
1. Direct fair housing inquiries to the Fair Housing Council of Orange
County (FHCOC).
Ongoing
2. Post and update information annually regarding fair housing and
request that FHCOC conduct a presentation every two years about the
services available.
Annually
3. In cooperation with the FHCOC, contact all low-income apartment
complexes annually to provide education and materials about the
Section 8 program, including multi- lingual materials.
By July 2025 and
annually thereafter
4. Publish and update fair housing information on the City website and
via social media annually.
Annually
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Laguna Niguel.
Contributing Factors:
1. Historical land use development patterns and zoning, environmental constraints, and lack of
vacant land limit opportunities for larger and higher density project types.
2. Current high cost of housing limits access to lower income households of all races/ethnicities.
3. Lack of affordable housing and need for greater access to opportunities.
4. Community resistance to development.
5. Regional coordination affects transit services, funding sources, and allocation of housing
resources including vouchers.
6. Age of housing stock.
7. Cost of repairs/rehabilitation.
Actions: Timeframe:
Encourage the development of ADUs and SB 9 units through the
following actions:
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 247 25-29 Regional AFH
1. Monitor the production and affordability of ADUs every three
years to ensure the City is meeting ADU production targets and
act if projections are not consistent.
Perform review in
December 2026
2. Conduct increased outreach and education on ADU and SB 9
unit/lot split opportunities.
Ongoing
3. Continue to promote ADUs on the City’s website, social media,
and at City offices.
Ongoing
4. Promote SB 9 units and lot splits on the City’s website, social
media, and at City offices.
Ongoing
5. Expedite ADU permit processing. Ongoing
Provide support to individuals experiencing homelessness through
the following actions:
6. Participate in meetings of the Orange County Homeless Issues
Task Force as they occur
Ongoing
7. Allocate an appropriate level of CDBG funding in relation to the
local need.
Annually
8. Explore and consider Project Homekey and opportunities to
work with the County.
Ongoing
9. Assist applicants proposing permanent or interim supportive
housing by helping to apply for funding.
Ongoing
Expand the use of Housing Choice Vouchers through the following
actions:
10. Contact all low-income apartment complexes annually to
provide education and materials about the Section 8 program
including multilingual materials.
By July 2025 and annually
thereafter
11. Encourage the development of missing middle housing types
and evaluate specific methods to encourage their production in
RCAAs, areas of higher density, and in the central areas of the
City.
Between 2021-2029,
facilitate 80 “missing
middle” units, with at least
20% located in targeted
areas, including RCAAs,
higher density areas,
central areas of the City.
Preserve existing affordable housing units and prevent
displacement through the following actions:
12. Monitor assisted units to assess the risk of conversion to market
rate.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 248 25-29 Regional AFH
13. Offer financial incentives to encourage owners of at-risk
properties to maintain their rental units as affordable housing.
Three-year, twelve-month,
and six-month
coordination with at-risk
property owners and
OCHCS.
14. Allocate a portion of CDBG funds to assist in extending
affordability covenants for at-risk units.
Annually
15. Provide educational materials to tenants of properties with
expiring covenants regarding options for securing other
affordable housing.
Ongoing
16. Continue the City’s active property maintenance program run by
the Code Enforcement Division of the Community Development
Department.
Conduct windshield
surveys covering all
properties in the City every
six months.
17. Seek CDBG funding for housing rehabilitation.
Facilitate rehabilitation of
15 housing units between
2021-2029.
18. Survey older areas of the City and connect property owners to
rehabilitation programs.
Six property owner
contacts per year.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 249 25-29 Regional AFH
M. Lake Forest
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
While residents overall have relatively good access to opportunities, compared to the region,
residents living below the FPL in the city generally have less access to opportunities than the rest
of the population.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of opportunity due to high housing costs.
2. Lack of access to public transportation.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase housing supply in high opportunity areas through the
following actions:
1. Implement Program 1: Land Use Policy, Entitlements, and
Development Capacity (Shortfall Program), to rezone sites
to accommodate new residential and mixed-use
development at densities consistent with the City’s General
Plan (adopted in 2020) to meet the City’s RHNA at all
income levels.
2. Implement Program 2: Monitor Residential Capacity (No
Net Loss), to ensure that replacement sites identified to
continue to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA
throughout the planning period are consistent with the
City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
3. On an ongoing basis, actively recruit residents from
neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to serve or
participate on boards, committees, and other local
government bodies as positions are made available due to
the regular appointment process or vacancies.
Between 2021-2029, the City’s
goal is to promote the
development of 1,648 new
units (including 303 lower
income units and 167 moderate
income units, consistent with
the City’s Quantified Objectives
for 2021-2029) with 75% of the
new units located in areas of
moderate or high opportunity;
rezone 158 acres to allow for
the development of up to 2,965
multifamily units, with 75% of
the units located in areas of
moderate or high opportunity;
and increase the number of
applications from residents
living in low or moderate
resource areas for open Board
and Commission positions by
20%.
Preserve existing affordable housing opportunities and prevent
displacement through the following actions:
4. Implement Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units, to
ensure that affordable units that are removed from the
City’s housing stock are replaced in accordance with state
law.
5. Implement Program 5: Facilitate Affordable and Special
Needs Housing Construction, to encourage the
development of housing units to serve the needs of larger
Between 2021-2029, the City’s
goal will be to maintain at least
202 affordable housing units in
the City; increase the
proportion of new multifamily
units that are 3 or more
bedrooms by 10%; promote the
develop of 70 new extremely
low income housing units
(consistent with the City’s
Quantified Objectives for 2021-
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 250 25-29 Regional AFH
households, including large extremely low-income
households.
6. Implement Program 23: Economic Displacement Risk
Analysis, to proactively identify potential issues related to
economic displacement as a result of new development.
2029); and commit $70,500 to
implement programs and
improvements serving the
Southwest Lake Forest
neighborhood with a focus on
programs and improvements
that protect existing residents
from displacement.
Increase access to opportunities for individuals with disabilities
through the following actions:
7. Implement Program 1: Land Use Policy, Entitlements, and
Development Capacity (Shortfall Program), to rezone sites
adjacent to transit corridors and activity centers to allow for
higher density residential development, suitable for
affordable and special needs housing, including new
opportunities for individuals with disabilities.
8. Implement Program 5: Facilitate Affordable and Special
Needs Housing Construction, whereby the City will
proactively reach out to developers of housing for special
needs populations to share details about special needs
groups in Lake Forest and promote the development of
housing for special needs groups in areas of moderate and
high levels of opportunity.
9. Implement Program 6: Monitor and Implement Changes in
federal and state Housing, Planning, and Zoning Laws to
proactively identify changes in federal and/or state
regulations required to be implemented at the local level to
improve access to opportunity for individuals with
disabilities.
Between 2021-2029, the City’s
goal will be to rezone 158 acres
to accommodate the
development of up to 2,965
new units with a focus to
promote the development of
units affordable to lower
income households in areas of
moderate or high opportunity;
increase the number of local
individuals with disabilities
taking transit by 10% by
encouraging the development
of new housing for individuals
with disabilities to be located
close to transit routes; increase
the proportion of new
multifamily units that are 3 or
more bedrooms by 10%; and
resolve 100% of reasonable
accommodation requests
consistent with the
requirements of state law.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 251 25-29 Regional AFH
N. Mission Viejo
Issue: Concentration and Disproportionate Housing Needs
Most of the city has a high concentration of White residents, although there are neighborhoods
in the southern, northern, and western parts of the city where there's more diversity. Overall,
residents have good access to opportunities, though getting around on public transit or finding
affordable transportation can be a challenge. Additionally, data on fair housing complaints shows
that people with disabilities often face challenges when it comes to housing. Renters across
Orange County, including in Mission Viejo, are also struggling with housing costs.
Contributing Factors:
1. Limited affordable housing overall due to land use designations and zoning regulations.
2. Limited availability of affordable units in a range of sizes and types.
3. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.
4. Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive needs.
5. Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for individuals with
disabilities.
6. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods.
7. Housing discrimination in the private market.
Actions: Timeframe:
Increase housing opportunities through the following actions:
1. Proactively outreach to developers about development
opportunities.
Annually
2. Actively market Site 3 and reach conclusion regarding the
importation of dirt to be able to deliver a Pad-ready site to
potential developers.
By July 2026
3. For Site 3 development, establish a priority processing
procedure, with fee waivers and grant other incentives and
concessions as appropriate, including the need and
applicability for CDBG Funding.
By July 2026
4. Conduct an outreach and education program regarding SB
4 opportunities for religious facilities and nonprofit colleges.
By December 2025
5. Promote funding available from Orange County Housing
Finance Trust’s Affordable ADU Loan Program.
Annually
6. Apply for funding available at the state to assist lower and
moderate-income homeowners to develop ADUs.
Annually
7. Prioritize funding for projects that set aside units for special
needs populations and those with extremely low incomes.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 252 25-29 Regional AFH
8. Assist OCHA, FHF, and United Way in promoting the HCV
program
Hold promotional workshops
annually.
9. Study and pursue a home sharing program Establish program in 2025 and
begin implementation in 2026.
Improve conditions in neighborhoods through the following
actions:
10. Assess and expand MV Shuttle services and Safe Routes to
School program to serve new developments and
underserved neighborhoods.
Assess transit services at least
every three years. Assess and
expand Safe Routes to School
program to align with new
developments.
11. Target outreach to two neighborhoods where there are
issues of housing conditions.
Annually
12. Study and develop appropriate strategies for adaptive reuse
of underutilized commercial properties.
By the end of 2026.
Preserve existing affordable housing units through the
following actions:
13. Monitor status of all affordable units. Annually
Increase fair housing education and enforcement through the
following actions:
14. Provide fair housing and tenant/landlord dispute resolution
services
Annually
15. Expand promotion of housing resources, including fair
housing services, via a multi-media approach, such as
eNewsletter with circulation of 20,000, message boards,
senior newsletter, and other social media outlets.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 253 25-29 Regional AFH
O. Newport Beach
Issue: Segregation and Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities, however, all of the city’s
neighborhoods are predominantly White and are classified as areas of high White segregation.
Homeownership rates are lower for all groups compared to the County overall, except for AAPI
households, who have slightly higher homeownership rate in the city. Housing cost burden is also
an issue for renters in the city.
Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities
disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
Contributing Factors:
1. High cost of housing and limited supply of affordable housing.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Adopt and codify accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
regulations that facilitate and incentivize ADU
development beyond state law minimum requirements,
create new housing development incentives and fee
waivers, and that provide for access into areas of high
opportunity that contribute to the following community
development actions:
a. Increase residential development opportunities;
b. Maximize infill development in “built out”
neighborhoods; and
c. Increase affordable housing options.
2. Conduct two community workshops that will accomplish
the following:
a. Identify local issues that are influencing access to
opportunity;
b. Identify potential solutions to address those local
issues;
c. Identify opportunities to increase the housing
supply for all income levels; and
d. Establish economic development priorities to help
stimulate the creation of jobs and access to
services.
By June 2023, the City will adopt
revised ADU regulations. By
December 2023, the City will
conduct two community
workshops. The City will seek to
produce 20 to 30 ADUs per
calendar year within higher
resource areas.
3. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure lower
income units are developed in conjunction with new
market-rate development equitably throughout the City
and higher resource Census Tracts.
By December 2026, the City will
aspire to have approved
between 750 and 1,000
affordable housing units or to
have collected a commensurate
in-lieu affordable housing fee for
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 254 25-29 Regional AFH
use to subsidize future
affordable housing projects.
4. Maintain and promote the City’s Business Ambassador
Program to residents to support local businesses and
entrepreneurship.
5. Target outreach to two low-access Census Tracts via
mailers or by other means including social media to
provide website information about local entrepreneurship
and educational opportunities.
The City will improve upon its
existing Business Ambassador
Program and will seek to assist
at least 35-45 individuals
annually with establishing their
own business opportunities.
The Business Ambassador
Program will be advertised
within the lower-opportunity
Census Tracts with a goal of
reaching at least 50% of the
households.
6. Continually update the City’s housing-related webpages to
ensure current available data.
Starting 2023, the City will
annually review and update its
housing-related webpages.
7. Improve access to mortgage loans through the following
actions:
a. Disseminate online information to the community
about home loans and the loan application and
approval process.
b. Conduct biannual affordable housing workshops
with invited guests from the local lending industry
and local affordable housing advocates.
c. Conduct annual report of loan dispositions in the
City and identify any trends or issues. Provide
findings to local lenders and financial institutions.
By June 2023, the City will
provide information to the
community about home loans
and the loan process. By
December 2023, the City will
conduct its first biannual
affordable housing workshop
with affordable housing lenders
and local affordable housing
advocates. The City will seek to
reach between 10,000 and
15,000 households with loan
information and will further seek
to reduce any occurrence of loan
disposition discrimination, if
found to be prevalent.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 255 25-29 Regional AFH
P. Orange
Issue: Segregation and Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Most of the city to the north and east of Villa Park is considered an area of high White segregation,
and there are concentrations of predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods west of Glassel Street.
Additionally, all publicly supported housing units and households with vouchers are located to
the west and south of Villa Park. There are no publicly supported housing units or vouchers in use
to the east of Villa Park, where it is a high White segregation area.
Geographically, the neighborhoods west of Glassel Street, have lower education and economic
scores, and worse environmental quality. Conversely, neighborhoods to the north and east of
Villa Park, have high education and economic scores, and good environmental quality. Related to
this geographic distribution of opportunities, Hispanic and Black residents (especially Black
residents living below the FPL) have relatively low access to neighborhoods close to high
performing schools, and to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities
disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of public investment in certain neighborhoods
2. Lack of sufficient affordable housing due, in part, to community opposition to affordable
housing and land use and zoning regulations
3. Lack of fair housing knowledge
Actions: Timeframe:
Improve access to opportunity through the following actions:
1. The City will continue to utilize the Public Works and Community Services
Departments for the as‐needed removal of graffiti and other deferred
maintenance issues on public property, including sidewalks, parks, bus shelters
signs and other structures adjacent to the public right‐of‐way, to enhance the
quality of Orange’s residential neighborhoods.
Ongoing
2. Provide public information related to housing development and how the
provision of affordable housing benefits the community.
Ongoing
3. The City will continue gathering community input on affordable housing,
housing for special needs populations, and ADUs. The continued outreach will
be City‐wide with a focus on traditionally under‐represented communities.
Ongoing
4. Continue to follow current state Density Bonus law. Ongoing
5. Update the Transitional Housing Ordinance that establishes guidelines and
regulations for the development and operation of transitional housing in the
city.
2025
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 256 25-29 Regional AFH
6. Prepare and adopt a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance that sets regulations
for buildings designed for single room occupancy.
2025
7. Prepare and adopt a Residential Care Facility Ordinance that establishes
regulations and standards for non-medical care facilities providing care to
individual requiring assistance.
2025
8. Prepare and adopt a Farmworker and Employee Housing Ordinance that sets
standards and regulations for housing provided to farmworkers by their
employers.
2025
9. Adopt a program to subsidize application processing fees for qualifying
developments where all units are affordable to 80% AMI or lower when funding
is available.
Ongoing
10. Continue providing CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair
housing activities to the community.
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in the City of Orange.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of sufficient affordable housing
Actions: Timeframe:
1. The City will assist in preserving at‐risk units by, but not limited to, supporting
non‐profit applications for funding to purchase at‐risk units, work with property
owners to maintain affordability and develop preservation strategies, and assist
with funding when available.
Ongoing
2. The City will continue to seek qualified non‐profit organizations for acquisition,
construction, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Funds will be available
annually, contingent on funding availability.
Annually
3. The City will continue to encourage through outreach to private and non‐profit
housing developers, the development of rental and for‐sale housing for larger
(5 or more individuals) families. The City will support developers/builders that
incorporate larger bedroom counts (3 or more bedrooms) to accommodate the
needs of larger families and reduce incidents of overcrowding in the existing
housing stock. The City will evaluate providing regulatory incentives such as
density bonuses that encourage and support the development of housing for
large families on a project‐by‐project basis.
Ongoing
4. The City will develop a program to subsidize application processing fees, when
funding is available, for qualifying developments where all units affordable to
80% AMI or lower. The City will also promote the benefits of this program to the
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 257 25-29 Regional AFH
development community by posting information on its webpage and creating a
handout to be distributed with land development applications.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 258 25-29 Regional AFH
Q. Rancho Santa Margarita
Issue: Concentration
Most of the City’s population is predominantly White, with greater diversity in the neighborhoods
east of SR-241. There are no publicly supported housing units. Some vouchers are in use in the
northeast part of the city, which is a low-medium concentration area.
Contributing Factors:
1. Location and type of affordable housing available
2. Land use and zoning laws that limit affordable housing development
3. Limited resources for fair housing agencies and organizations.
4. Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Continue to serve as a liaison between the public and appropriate agencies in
matters concerning housing discrimination within the City.
Ongoing
2. Provide annual fair housing literature to schools, libraries, and post offices.
Make information available via the City’s fair housing service provider. Review
annually to ensure that the posters and literature being provided are up to date.
Annually
3. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider, conduct biennial
landlord education campaign to educate property owners about state law
prohibiting discrimination based on household income. Provide public
information and brochures regarding fair housing/equal housing opportunity
requirements, including how to file a complaint and access the investigation
and enforcement activities of the state Fair Employment and Housing
Commission. Make said information available on the City’s website and at City
Hall. Review information annually to ensure that any materials, links, and
information provided are current.
Biennial
campaigns;
annual
review of
information
on website
4. In collaboration with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA):
a. Attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee to enhance the
exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and
policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher program and
regional housing issues.
b. Support OCHA's affirmative fair marketing plan and de-concentration
policies by providing five-year and annual PHA plan certifications.
Ongoing
5. Monitor FBI data annually to determine if any hate crimes are housing-related
and if the City’s fair housing service provider can take action to address
potential discrimination linked to the bias motivations of hate crimes.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 259 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Residents across the city have relatively high access to opportunities, except for access to transit.
Homeownership rates in the city are higher for all groups when compared to the County.
However, Hispanic households have the lowest homeownership rate, and it is 20 percentage
points lower than the AAPI homeownership rate, which is the highest rate in the city.
Contributing Factors:
1. Location of employers
2. Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation
3. Location and type of affordable housing available
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Request the Orange County Transportation Authority explore bus route
options to ensure neighborhoods with concentration of low-income or
protected class populations have access to transportation services.
Ongoing
2. Update the City’s Circulation element to better facilitate multimodal
transportation to/from the lower opportunity Census Tracts to goods and
services.
By mid-March
2025.
3. In cooperation with the Orange County Transportation Authority, provide
community education regarding transport services for individuals with
disabilities.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 260 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Rancho Santa
Margarita.
Contributing Factors:
1. Economic displacement
2. Environmental hazards such as wildland fires and the interface with urban areas
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Support local eviction prevention strategies
to reduce the number of homeless
individuals and families (homelessness
prevention services).
Annually
2. Update the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan by December 2024 to ensure
community resiliency from hazards.
By mid-2025
3. Conduct outreach to landlords and support
OCHA’s mobility counseling program to
increase Housing Choice Vouchers in the
city.
Increase Housing Choice Vouchers through the
Orange County Housing Authority by 5%
between 2021-2029.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 261 25-29 Regional AFH
R. San Clemente
Issue: Concentration, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
The majority of the city is considered an area of high White concentration, except for one Census
Tract encompassing neighborhoods north and east of Max Berg Plaza Park, which is classified as
low-medium concentration. There is a cluster of publicly supported housing units in this low -
medium concentration area.
Based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with disabilities may
disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in San Clemente.
Contributing Factors:
1. Unaffordable rents and sales prices in a range of sizes, the l ocation and type of affordable
housing, and an overall shortage of subsidized housing units
2. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
3. Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
4. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family
housing
5. Lack of fair housing education and outreach
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Annually promote equal access to fair housing information for
all residents. Expand outreach methods beyond traditional
media (newspaper or City website) to include other social
media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Focus fair housing outreach efforts in the area along the
western side of Interstate 5 where racial/ethnic minorities and
LMI households are concentrated.
Annually, with the goal to
increase distribution of
information by 20%
between 2021-2029
2. Continue to work under contract with the Fair Housing
Foundation (FHF) and/or other qualified fair housing service
providers to provide fair housing services for all segments of
the community.
Serve at least 50
households each year.
Annually evaluate and
adjust the scope of services
to ensure the City address
any emerging trends in fair
housing issues.
3. In coordination with OCHA and fair housing services provider,
provide outreach and education to landlords and tenants
regarding the state’s new source of income protection (SB 329
and SB 229) that recognizes public assistance such as Housing
Choice Vouchers (HCV) and Veterans Assistance Supportive
Housing (VASH) as legitimate source of income for rent
Conduct outreach and
education annually;
increase vouchers from
Orange County Housing
Authority by 10% between
2021-2029.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 262 25-29 Regional AFH
payments. Specifically, provide fair housing responsibility to
new ADU applicants.
4. Help non-profits acquire and convert market-rate housing to
affordable housing
Ongoing
5. Work to preserve the City’s affordable housing inventory Ongoing
6. Offer a variety of housing opportunities to enhance mobility
among residents of all races and ethnicities by facilitating
affordable housing throughout the community through the
following actions:
Goal of creating 446
affordable units for lower
income households
between 2021 and 2029
a. Promote by-right approvals to facilitate at least one new
multi-family housing project with at least 20% of units
for lower income households
2021-2029
b. Promote Lot Consolidation program and incentives to
at least three developers.
2021-2029
c. Implement the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay to
facilitate at least one new multi-family housing project
2021-2029
d. Promote the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program to
facilitate at least one multi -family housing project with
units affordable for lower income households
2021-2029
7. Provide rehabilitation financing assistance through the
Neighborhood Revitalization Program and advertise this
program to the western and southern areas of the City with
older housing units and overpaying households.
Assist at least two
homeowners per year
8. Increase public outreach to at least once a year and encourage
residents to learn about available housing programs.
Annually
9. Through the City’s fair housing service provider (FHF) increase
materials distribution by 25% through the following actions:
a. Provide fair housing education and information to
apartment managers and homeowner associations on
why denial of reasonable modifications/
accommodations is unlawful through fair housing
service contract at least once a year.
Annually
b. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach at least
once a year to tenants, landlords, property owners,
realtors, and property management companies.
Methods of outreach may include workshops,
informational booths, presentations to community
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 263 25-29 Regional AFH
groups, and distribution of multilingual fair housing
literature.
c. Provide general fair housing counseling and referral
services to address tenant landlord issues and
investigate allegations of fair housing discrimination
and take appropriate actions to reconcile cases or refer
to appropriate authorities.
Ongoing
d. Periodically monitor local newspapers and online
media outlets to identify potentially discriminatory
housing advertisements.
Annually
e. Include testing/audits within the scope of work with fair
housing provider.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 264 25-29 Regional AFH
S. Santa Ana
Issue: Segregation and R/ECAPs
There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents, and between AAPI and
White. The majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a
predominantly Hispanic population except for the Riverview West community which is
predominantly AAPI. There are lots of publicly supported housing units downtown and southeast
of downtown, which are high POC segregation areas. There is a higher concentration of vouchers,
as well as some publicly supported housing units, west of the Santa Ana River, which is also a
high POC segregation area.
There is a R/ECAP covering multiple Census Tracts in the downtown area. These tracts are
predominantly Hispanic, as are all the surrounding neighborhoods .
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of fair housing education and outreach
2. Lack of affordable housing
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Ensure all City programs and activities relating to housing and
community development are administered in a manner that
affirmatively furthers fair housing.
Ongoing
2. Hold annual small apartment managers’ workshop to train and
educate property owners, HOAs, property managers, and tenants
about best practices in property management, neighborhood safety,
and landlord/tenant responsibilities.
Annually
3. Periodically prepare the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice to identify, remove, and/or mitigate potential impediments to
fair housing in Santa Ana.
Every 5 years
4. Partner with legal assistance organizations to provide legal clinics for
tenants on tenants’ rights and recourse for intimidation and unjust
evictions.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 265 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their
neighborhoods and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing
schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
Geographically, neighborhoods downtown, west of downtown, and southeast of downtown have
low economic scores, low education scores, high poverty rates, and poor environmental quality.
Neighborhoods in the north and south of the city have better economic and education scores.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing
2. Lack of public investment in low opportunity areas
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Publish preapproved ADU plans and publicize ADU program through
dedicated web page in various languages to facilitate ADU construction.
Facilitate
construction of
723 ADUs
between 2021-
2029
2. Enforce the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance, known as the
Affordable Housing Opportunity & Creation Ordinance (AHOCO), to
require eligible housing development projects of five or more units,
including condominium conversions, to include at least 15 percent of the
units as affordable to low-income households; or 10 percent of the units
affordable to very low-income households; or 5 percent to extremely low-
income households; or a minimum of 10 percent available affordable
households with five (5)5 percent to low- income, 3 percent to very low-
income, and 2 percent to extremely low-income households, for rental
housing. Require 5 percent of the units as affordable to moderate-income
households for for-sale housing.
Ongoing
3. Establish guidelines as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
for new housing development projects to include a variety of unit sizes,
including units for large families, that are affordable to extremely low-,
very low-, and low-income families.
By December 2025
4. Annually monitor the status of at-risk housing projects, specifically the
Warwick Square, Highland Manor, and other projects that may come due.
Contact owners of properties at risk of conversion within one year of
expiration to discuss City’s desire to preserve projects as affordable
housing.
Annually
5. Assist low-income households with down payment assistance loans of
up to $120,000 and moderate-income households with loans of up to
$80,000.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 266 25-29 Regional AFH
6. Create, assist, and support neighborhood associations, especially in
R/ECAP and TCAC Census Tracts, to collaborate on projects and sponsor
and hold annual events.
Annually
7. Complete infrastructure improvements in residential neighborhoods
consistent with the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
Ongoing
8. Through the City’s RFP process for Affordable Housing Development (see
program 2), facilitate and encourage the development in the Transit
Zoning Code plan area of varied housing types at a mix of affordability
levels, including for lower income households using appropriate
incentives, such as awarding bonus points to developers whose projects
provide at least 75% or more for the units for extremely low-income
families at 30% Area Median Income.
Annually
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Santa Ana.
Additionally, more than 20% of housing units are overcrowded in most of the city’s
neighborhoods.
Contributing Factors:
1. High cost of housing in the private market
2. High cost of housing repairs/rehabilitation
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Implement the City’s Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
for tenants facing housing instability, including ongoing outreach and
education, a program monitor system, and a schedule of penalties that may
be imposed for noncompliance. Provide tenant protections beyond state
mandates.
Annually
2. Provide housing assistance payments to eligible households participating in
the Housing Choice Voucher Program and adhere to policies and procedures
in the federal regulations and the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Administrative Plan. Administer 100 percent of the funding provided to the
Housing Authority annually for eligible households. This includes Special
Purpose Vouchers including the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
Program; Mainstream Voucher Program; Foster Youth to Independence
Program; and Emergency Housing Voucher Program. The objectives are to:
1) Utilize 100 percent of the Annual Budget Authority provided by HUD for
each CY; 2) Apply for new funding opportunities for additional vouchers; 3)
Retain High Performer SEMAP status; 4) Communicate on a regular basis
with active landlords by providing information on key program updates.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 267 25-29 Regional AFH
3. Contract with a local nonprofit organization (currently Habitat for Humanity)
to implement the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program. Provide
grants for the repair and rehabilitation of single -family and mobile homes,
prioritizing applicants in R/ECAP and TCAC Census Tracts and low-income
households.
Annually
4. Enhance local preferences program for residents working and living in Santa
Ana who are seeking affordable housing. Explore a right-of-first-refusal
ordinance for mobile home parks and publicly supported multifamily
residential properties to minimize tenant displacement and preserve
affordable housing stock. Evaluate and pursue collective ownership models
for mobile home parks as a tool to prevent displacement.
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 268 25-29 Regional AFH
T. Tustin
Issue: Segregation
There is moderate segregation between Hispanic and White residents. There is a concentration of
publicly supported housing units in the south, in neighborhoods that are predominantly AAPI.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing opportunities.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Engage linguistically isolated communities by translating official City
announcements (i.e., community meeting, hearings, etc.) to Spanish and
disseminating printed copies of information to renters, property owners, and
via social media, to expand knowledge of affordable housing options in High
Opportunity Areas.
Ongoing
2. Conduct at least one community informational meeting in areas that lack
affordable housing opportunities and that exhibit high segregation, on an
annual basis.
Annually
3. Improve housing conditions in segregated areas establishing a multi -family
quality rental housing inspection program that focuses on high segregation
areas. The City will receive at least one monthly referral from the City’s
Neighborhood Improvement Task Force (NITF) (NITF includes Code
Enforcement, Police, Social Service/County, School District representatives,
City staff form various Departments) to identify households in need of this
tenant protection and anti-displacement focused program; focused on
improving the quality of single family and multi-family residential dwellings by
providing technical assistance and funds to repairs substandard housing
conditions. The City will conduct at least five multi-family quality rental housing
inspections in the program’s first year and will increase the number of annual
inspections by 2, each year thereafter, until 2029.
2025
through
2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 269 25-29 Regional AFH
Issue: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Hispanic residents (especially those living below the FPL) are less likely than other groups to live
in close proximity to high performing schools, or in neighborhoods with high labor force
participation and human capital; and are more likely to be exposed to poverty in their
neighborhoods. Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data, individuals with
disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
Homeownership rates are very low for Black and Hispanic households, equaling less than half of
the homeownership rate for AAPI and White households .
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas.
2. Lack of public and private investment in low-resource neighborhoods.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Create an ADU/SB 9 accelerator program and focus in
High Opportunity Areas within the northeast portion of
the City where there are predominately single-family
residences to expand housing choices. This program
could include a permit fee waiver for affordable housing
units, permit fast tracking, and technical assistance.
By 2025, the City will adopt a
program and mail out
information pertaining to the new
accelerator program for ADUs
and SB 9 developments,
specifically to high opportunity
areas.
2. Provide technical assistance and permit fast -tracking for
new ADU/SB9 development proposals and at least six
projects that include housing affordable to lower income
households annually through 2029.
Fast track a minimum of 10 ADU
and/or SB 9 developments in
high opportunity areas on an
annual basis; reduce review
times by 25% compared to year
2022.
3. Translate the City’s Tustin Housing Authority website and
factsheets promoting affordable housing opportunities
and ancillary support services, such as transit and
childcare, into Spanish, and distribute to low resource
areas.
Annually, 2023 through 2029
4. Tustin Legacy (Tract 744.15) is a Master Planned
Community being developed. Although the tract has
been identified as low resource, it has been substantially
enhanced with new resources within recent years. The
area comprises 1,500 acres, of which 800 acres remain for
future development of a diverse housing stock,
community amenities, and resources. By 2029, the City
will continue to implement projects that increase assets
in the Specific Plan area as proposed by developers and
identified in the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure
By 2029, the City anticipates the
Tustin Legacy (Tract 744.15) to be
identified as a “high resource”
area according to TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map criteria.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 270 25-29 Regional AFH
Program. Improvements will provide increased access to
safe and decent housing, transportation, recreation, and
a healthy environment.
5. Create a “Financial Assistance for Child Care” webpage
with information and links to Children’s Home Society of
California (CHS) and the Orange County Department of
Education (OCDE). These programs provide funding to
low-income families for childcare services. The City will
work with Tustin Preschool, Kiddie Academy of Tustin, or
other local preschool programs within Census Tract
755.14 to advertise and promote financial assistance
through pamphlets, e-blasts, and other applicable online
community forums (such as Facebook and NextDoor).
By December 2022; update
annually thereafter
Issue: Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Tustin.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of affordable housing.
2. Substandard housing in low-resource areas.
3. High cost of housing repairs/rehabilitation.
Actions: Timeframe:
1. The City will partner with a non-profit to develop and
launch a CDBG funded Housing Rehabilitation Program
to facilitate the repair of dilapidated housing to address
lack of plumbing, kitchen facilities and repairs to provide
relief of overcrowding. Program partici pants will be
provided grants and/or loans to conduct necessary
housing updates.
Starting in July 2024, the program
will facilitate four (4) rehabilitation
projects to assist with reducing
overcrowding per year and
another four (4) projects will assist
with general habitability repairs,
with a total of eight (8) dwellings
assisted annually.
2. The City will amend the zoning code to require all new
multi-family projects to provide at least five (5) percent
large family units (3+ bedrooms) which will prevent
overcrowding and further cost burden, by addressing
demand for such units and increasing t he large units
into the local housing inventory.
Zoning code amended by January
2024. Four (4) large family units
will be generated annually, and 32
total by 2029.
3. Improve housing conditions in segregated areas
establishing a multi-family quality rental housing
inspection program that focuses on high segregation
areas. The City will receive at least one monthly referral
2025 through 2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 271 25-29 Regional AFH
from the City’s Neighborhood Improvement Task Force
(NITF) (NITF includes Code Enforcement, Police, Social
Service/County, School District representatives, City
staff form various Departments) to identify households
in need of this tenant protection and anti-displacement
focused program; focused on improving the quality of
single family and multi-family residential dwellings by
providing technical assistance and funds to repairs
substandard housing conditions. The City will conduct at
least five multi-family quality rental housing inspections
in the program’s first year and will increase the number
of annual inspections by 2, each year thereafter, until
2029.
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 272 25-29 Regional AFH
U. Westminster
Issue: Segregation, Disparities in Access to Opportunities, and Disproportionate Housing Needs
The majority of the city is considered an area of high POC segregation and has a predominantly
AAPI population with a few exceptions. The northwestern corner of the city, between I-405 and
Bolsa Chica Rd is an area of high White segregation. The location of publicly supported housing
units and areas with highest concentration of vouchers aligns with the high POC segregation areas
in the central part of the city. There are no publicly supported housing units, and fewer vouchers
in use, in the western parts of the city that are high White segregation, racially integrated, and
low-medium segregation areas.
AAPI residents are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods
and are less likely than other groups to live in close proximity to high performing schools or jobs.
Native American residents living below the FPL are also less likely to live in close proximity to
high performing schools or jobs. Additionally, based on analysis of fair housing complaint data,
individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience discrimination in housing.
There are large racial/ethnic disparities in homeownership. Black, Hispanic, and Native American
households have the lowest rates (around 30%), and these rates are less than half the
homeownership rate for White households, which is the highest in the city. The AAPI
homeownership rate in the city is lower than in the County overal l and is nearly 20 percentage
points lower than the White homeownership rate in the city.
Housing cost burden is an issue for renters across Orange County, including in Westminster.
Contributing Factors:
1. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
2. Land use and zoning laws.
3. Displacement of residents due to economic pressures.
4. Location and type of affordable housing.
5. Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods.
6. Lack of community revitalization strategies
Actions: Timeframe:
1. Maintain an inventory of the available sites for residential development
and post it online (with annual updates) and provide it to prospective
residential developers upon request. Monitor development trends to
ensure continued ability to meet the RHNA.
Ongoing
2. Continue to perform project-by-project evaluation to determine if
adequate capacity remains for the remaining RHNA.
Ongoing
3. Adopt new mixed-use zoning districts and rezone all sites identified in
the City’s most recent Housing Element to accommodate shortfall
housing need, consistent with the densities, acreages, and capacity
Completed
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 273 25-29 Regional AFH
levels identified in the Housing Element. Complete all rezoning pursuant
to Government Code Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).
4. Encourage and facilitate construction of ADUs through the following
actions:
a. Update the City’s ADU Ordinance to reflect state law. 2025
b. Prepare pre-approved ADU design templates, tailored to meet
specific zoning and building standards. Use of these design
templates by a potential developer would ensure that the proposed
ADU meets most, if not all, required standards at the outset of the
development process, minimizing and streamlining the review
process. This is expected to significantly incentivize production of
ADUs by removing costs, reducing approval timeframes, and
providing high application certainty.
Completed
c. Promote development of ADUs by continuing to provide written
information at the City’s planning counter and on the City’s website
and update it annually.
Ongoing
d. Monitor ADU permit applications and approvals annually through
the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) process;
identify and implement additional incentives or other strategies
including rezoning, as appropriate, to ensure adequate sites during
the planning period. Should ADU production fall short of projections
for three consecutive APR reporting periods then new incentives,
strategies, and/or rezoning shall be implemented within six months
of the third submitted APR.
Annually
e. Promote the City’s ADU Process Guide (available on the City’s
website).
Ongoing
f. Host an annual workshop on accessory dwelling units, including
guidance for development and common questions and answers.
Annually
g. Continue requesting information on rental rates to determine their
affordability and review this information annually against the
projects identified in the Housing Element.
Annually
5. For all project applications, identify need for replacement of affordable
housing units and ensure replacement, if required, occurs.
Ongoing
6. Use HOME Funds and Housing Successor Funds to increase affordable
housing production through the following actions:
a. Provide HOME Funds and Housing Successor Funds to assist
development such as for the purpose of acquisition and/or
2021-2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 274 25-29 Regional AFH
subsidizing the cost of land acquisition and off-site improvements
for construction of 100 new affordable housing units.
b. Use HOME Funds and Housing Successor Funds to acquire 16
multifamily or single-family units to be rehabilitated by a nonprofit
and restricted to low-income rental housing.
2021-2029
c. Contact local service providers and developers annually and inform
them of the potential partnerships with the Housing Division
through paperless methods such as phone calls, email, and online
postings.
Annually
7. Encourage development of affordable and special needs housing
opportunities
a. Contact affordable housing providers (including non-profit
providers) annually to encourage them to develop affordable
housing for low-/very-low-income households and the disabled in
Westminster.
Annually
b. Maintain on the City’s website an inventory of sites suitable for the
development of affordable housing for low-income households and
households with special needs and update it annually.
Ongoing
c. Support and prepare applications for funding annually. Annually
d. Provide incentives and concessions to developers to assist in the
development of housing for lower income households or
households with special needs, such as flexible development
standards, expedited processing, and support from state funding
including SB 2 Planning Grants and Permanent Local Housing
Allocation. The preparation of flexible development standards and
expedited processing for projects including affordable units will be
addressed through the City’s Zoning Code Update.
2022-2025
e. Explore additional funding sources and strategies such as
boomerang funds and financing districts to assist the development
of housing for lower income households on a biennial basis.
Ongoing
8. Continue to make available the City’s application submittal packet to
provide interested builders or service providers with Density Bonus
information through paperless methods such as online postings.
Provide printed copies at the front counter. Meet with developers to
explain the process and requirements.
Ongoing
9. Maintain a Zoning Code that is consistent with state law regarding low
barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, employee housing, and
Ongoing
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 275 25-29 Regional AFH
farmworker housing; and update the Zoning Code as needed to comply
with future changes.
10. If an application to convert a residential development to a
condominium/stock cooperative is submitted to the City, the provisions
of the City’s condominium conversion ordinance shall be implemented
and enforced.
Ongoing
11. Implement the mobile home park conversion ordinance by requiring
applicants to (a) identify the quantity and conditions of each lower-
income household/unit, and (b), upon approval of a permit to convert a
mobile home park, implement mitigation measures that fully mitigate
the net loss of low-income households.
Ongoing
12. Conduct a Displacement Risk Analysis Study to identify the local
conditions that lead to displacement and develop and implement an
action program based on the results. Identify potential partners to
participate in the study that specialize in eviction -related topics related
to displacement, such as the Fair Housing Foundation. Annually monitor
program effectiveness.
2021-2029
13. Implement incentives that will facilitate lot consolidation and increase
the overall feasibility of affordable housing projects; as part of the City’s
Zoning Code Update, incorporate specific development standards that
support lot consolidation, such as a reduction in parking standards,
shared parking arrangements in mixed-use projects, a reduction of
minimum unit size, and modification of setback requirements. Apply
annually for grant funding to prepare conceptual development plans on
consolidated lots.
2022-2025 for code
update and
annually for grant
funding
14. Address substandard housing through the following actions:
a. Using the land use data generated from the General Plan Update,
adopted in 2020, combined with the data generated from the 2007
Housing Conditions Survey, identify multifamily projects with the
most significant level of deterioration for the purpose of providing
loans for rehabilitation of multifamily units, subject to the applicable
funding source requirements.
2021-2029
b. Provide funding through the Neighborhood Pride Multi-Family
Rental Rehabilitation Program to bring at least 14 substandard units
up to code.
2021-2029
c. Continue to conduct annual community workshops explaining code
compliance issues. Prepare and distribute a Good Neighbor Guide
describing how residents can maintain a healthy, safe, and
appealing property.
2021-2029
EXHIBIT 6
Orange County 276 25-29 Regional AFH
d. Continue to utilize the Community Preservation Unit to assist with
community education and neighborhood maintenance.
2021-2029
15. Increase fair housing knowledge and enforcement through the
following actions:
a. Continue to make available a program directory or list of housing
resources (including resources and regulatory opportunities such as
the Secondary Unit Ordinance) to the public through the City’s
website and in City Hall.
Ongoing
b. Continue to advertise the City’s reasonable accommodations
provisions using the City’s website, brochures, and other forms of
appropriate media. Ensure continued use of the City’s reasonable
accommodation provisions, by processing in a timely manner any
application requesting a reasonable accommodation.
Ongoing
c. Continue the City’s commitment to working with the Fair Housing
Foundation and disseminating fair housing information at City Hall,
public libraries, the Chamber of Commerce, and on the City’s
website. Include within the annual budget adequate funding to
continue the contract with the Fair Housing service provider.
Annually
EXHIBIT 6
The Orange coamv Register
1920Main St.. Suite 225 Irvine, Ca 92614
714-796-7000
5211379
CNSB / CNSB-ACCOMMODATIONS
915 E 1ST ST
ORDER EXPEDITING
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-4050
FILE NO. 3915395
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
} ss.
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I
am the principal clerk of The Orange County Register, a
newspaper of general circulation, published in the city of
Santa Ana, County of Orange, and which newspaper has
been adjudged to be a newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of
California, under the date of November 19, 1905, Case No.
A-21046, that the notice, of which the annexed is a true
printed copy, has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement
thereof on the following dates, to wit:
04/28/2025
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct:
Executed at Anaheim, Orange County, California, on
Date: April 28, 2025.
Signature
1111\ll!II m ni Ill! 111111.111111111111111111ml �1111161 1111
r.LPt.lZ/15115 • A D O O O O 7 D 8 7 6 6 6 *
EXHIBIT 7
r.l.P1-11115Jl6. 2
L __ --
EXHIBIT 7
r.L.Pl-12115/16 3
EXHIBIT 7
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.SC.C.P) II LaOpini0n
915 Wilshire Blvd Ste 800, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213)896-2260 • Fax: (213)896-2238
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of La Opinion a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the city of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of July 28, 1969, Case Number: 950176; that the notice, of which the an nexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
April 28
all in the year 20 2 5
I certified (or declared) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Los Angeles, California, this
__ 2 ___9 _ day of April
Signature
AVD #017 Controlled
Rev. 03/12
,2025
This space is for the County Clerk's filing Stamp
Proof of publication:
r.3LC'i.!rl:,. . -... -� ,._ - ,.... •
� .-.��m:.::��!' .. !.-::,.:;,;_ �.l·:� ��� -L� � !-':�_,·-:�JU !lt-l.o\�X. .• � .. -� .. l,('l"". -0 :;,a • • .... ""•:-J ;......'»'$ .... ... ,.. .. illtG� • ::1•, � K.1111 • • .. C�'t..,._ • �• � .;.• wr� ........ ._. ,atc:icae...-r.-1c..l)w '>{�"'),=-.. a.Is..-.---,� .. liOI.IC"IAlo M • :..-,f X t.�a_,4· ••--,r. I....,.. ll.'?. .... •ll"'-'fl t -"� t1tJ.•� t:olf t,;(.C,OI� ---.1-........ ria..,��•Slr'la··• �:............. ,. .... ._ ..........�-4_,�..._ .. , ........ .._. o�-_,,..., ��� ---nen, �-.--... .__ .. _..:aor--u--�----w ... ..-.. r.�o .:.TI ..._,__ .. .....,., .. •--=--� ,,.,..,, af'\11-,t,,, ....... � ti":-t"""I �
,,
,..,..
�
An lmpremedia Company
EXHIBIT 7
California Newspaper Service Bureau
Public Notice Advertising Since 1934
Tel 1-800-788-7840 Fax 1-800-4 7 4-9444
Local Offices and Representatives in:
Los Angeles, Santa Ana, San Diego, Riverside/San Bernardino,
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento
Special Services Available in Phoenix
DECLARATION
I am a resident of Los Angeles County, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the matter noticed.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy appeared in the:
NGUOIVIET
On the following dates:
04/28/2025
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Los Angeles, califomia, this
29th day of April 2025
DEBBIE YERKES
Signature
3916581
"The only Public Notice which is justifiable
from the standpoint of true economy and the public interest,
is that which reaches those who are affected by it"
I illln!li 1H 111� lll 11,� IU!lllll ll1II In 1mm, i�ll 1!1111 1 * A O O O O O 7 0 8 7 3 2 4 •
TKONU.lovf PH!IJIOIW TR.IN OlNGC0"1; rRT/0: 1lT w PK.IT m!H cO!«i OOHG vA �oONGm11r1Pll6olrn1.iHHN!tl11111-IUHAU.O{OL(pNRIJtcJ.CUlfil* 1"'Pvl<J.clllJ TIIHOIJ if HDIOIHQP NiUT T\i llll.l l021·1�9Yl If HOA(K MINH I ltlil.llllN U 111161 IOJi,lut
lhlnh pho bn1t A.Ila th tty In khi<h <E1t1 d':lin9 lhmg�doq;i trinh tll�<h� qll)'tlljr.h. lMng hiosau4'.\rl�tu� cfp 41 qaj � c6 thl d!t c.iu 1,6;, nh!n 1ft d dlf?: thing b.io ,t ch d� in <6 tht 4u,n t,�9 doi n1 quj Yj. ChU"9 16i U111rfnlll!dl quj ,10"1 h!Yll ch;n1 Ill nt11clbltijcbhllnlo. l�NGBjOl!/,U�A�bOlr • liye., 1'1\11 Trilo C!ng 06<vJ VI Ii;; Oo"l ihlnh lhl >i1&ct.lt m!' ff;io Oilu T1ln(lt,J1N;di Lipnl.!,11:1111,hl j ll!n eciq 1'1'"'""9 ffll89'ttdcwtilnUi�dAl\ucWNI <!09 <lo<,/ dlo 11 llo!(!I 1:c;;, nlul lti 0... IOIS-lal9 ti II ll,!(II IQ:tl � -I llilo l�lll!o l01S-l0l6cllo<l<dl""'!llllil rlll�i,!111blla1(ngcldr4rldlllhdo� '69><1do�HlllddPNtlilin oat�ll>I ljOIID)�l!JV. Tlleofl�!Jwmgi,aloCblgdlnllllc/1 !Ill low IN, Thln!J pll6 11 iin lllr.\ NI �d'iatdnbbgn!m!lnllj:,c.kjliin rlii,lnlllial.icllr4ct.ilngd<Jcw!lnYI n/,idol.llttv<III clcd:o::-,g 1Mllmll, phi! trilo �d6oj ,I •;i:h 6? «1du;r tllttvlh!,,jq,ilf!Du>m/1\irilyO..t!op-mm1 Bin Gun! ((IIIIGJ, °""'I o1m o.s tic OS. 111HOMI OIJ.ll!Jtl clcm.tf9 blr� TlluqG\ll�lhlndp(llGJ.T!ll.u�'1ldu ll!nlln\!n<IJ/(s6tilolllttv11Ud»T!i lll6o �lal&(OB& S4,IG8,0S7, MOM� 11,601,667,,1156; $4!7J4 9. Qlob§tUflfit!ll1l!blolil Sin =,rltJ:>llltlfdl ll;1p lllll ti 111¥ Hi.'dlO!rqtiltg,dccr.;,,li!l1'l4,,,g,;.j (J)IIG.lllll.!.,1ElGalo!l\lm¢,III� c!c,qtllli!lc!n9du9..,dll1"9iloh<1 l0agly.lllroddltimit1�\/�d!l11clo llll>!d>Jl;,ph?Ji ni.llpll61111,upo Well l\ll!wm9<N1tlldatdli\dj<bi!t�atdl.1 bllhlm!,IIJ;,tl'"'91W\dlo ��.:lo ,4ng,i:i�n!itilngk:lltlo;,iltl:uyfi �l illlnl>pll611�1l6tfllo!<fldx>ll«l dca!ldmd61!loil7lS!hl11J l�, 10IS 4', ll!IIJIO lhlnglU�, lOli. Thll'llpll6>i4jldus6�ckbl>dl/lhlo Ulij<,cli""�CM9""'riltji(j,C... w Offla of lhl O!J Of<\ (Yin Phlll!I llldli llllnH!,6)lOChi;(ffll8 flw. ri llnm,ptilil&llllllJ1llNM,-tq,,ll S.nu.l.-.,CA!l10l.
�Hll!U�!!!l�-!li!ml!!!!!l!l•· illlnl>pll611111'AN(g,;,l�1U"'-lrJl"'6J ld-,jnfl.r/ll.lllJll�Clbo trtBHt.l!W!I 1111! tl 06fli 11» II 011D1 c!l,;111 qqftuc • nhlclutNJtilodnJO!:,plr!llblhl< r:11ou.D1111po,11t�,&1;<<Jcl!l>inti!s>fll7, Thtlbp116rf'Md..L,lljt1njpfnll!6tli� l!Ptfbafdlqoin�lllbjdlli;!IIOW.U 1¥> H.,.\ � Krq lib ti &lo Clo DIM Wd161olcill�li!llillo,glllffl� •llll>fdl11DN!lftllli!iijpl1lod,p/111 111/n�&!l'IJ'lnhUal,Tblnilpt,!c!mg w dch ti>&> 116 w dt"'J trhll mi � 1!1!111!• 111m 111m. • JI llofdi lilntl °" Mlog ltl"" H!II dlJlillcJ<IIO!f dlnl cy�lft.\1( lt.y< l,in blog nlol di gill IJIJi( d( n.•,ulu 1.11 lin <nlfW<ll<�b""'9Jlllljdl�hllll � ill! r.! ar,a1 Im-� li!v "'1 (blglhcidbllmll4.l;t0,llltl Pllll 1"1n �°"9tilnl'.l:lhtlolldlU!PIII IIIMglllnt,lW ill<(jl)<WV'llftiln �W.<lr9Nlldllllllll>;r K!l!idng �f!>i!l6,Nd>dollda,.*1 1hlog U., llll Iii I :JO OOaJ liol< lOldl I �!II <VA lt!!!i 91ll!Hl< INrlllllll c!n;"'11gn:tml>'>l'lilulllJlt0,blolo!( H!ldl,gllllmpl!a!lllllll\l/li!Ollr>m!I lnnJ�dc!lwcr ·U/AOIQN"11THll�inl;fol!(blng •In blt>-IC\!ftriloio dnJ <MJ,;1111 "" � <1/n: o:rn of !ht Cily Oet Mn fl>!c,g!hu!jlhl:t>Pl>l.lOOnc<a:!«Rlzl 11-10, l,n1, IN. U. 91Jnl. Ill cJ cl< dllRj Iii Elli I/< bing tin llb �\!:1 fl.r/l q.o �; IJ\Jltllllgilco"11M,&mlllt41ua.!<ll!l> llfl.r/l i(l d6> Hjl!ldng ThHI PhStl dJ;l 61nlolljlh/rlg.,.,�Ul�c(o lhW\pl! �,a!c!ldnJdvqmndl. .<,j))U/AotqlOIIAHWl-lQ!,lll<lil </Jo9dl\J:ooja!Oll�jllQJl1m•H<lin,t, Jl'«l9Tll•!jrt.l.�PhS�;--1>-u1t� 'AiieoQUliouctua,,01\1
EXHIBIT 7
foregoing Is true and correct.
Dated at Los Angeles, California, this
29th day of April 2025
DEBBIE YERKES
Signature
3916581 "Tho only Public Nolico which is Justifiable from the standpoint of troo economy and the public Interest. Is that which reachas those who are affected by ii'
Thl�pMj�l��-�t.!cWtltfl/lh.la lllflf\ldf�dllklgx«r1utqldjld!t!rn 1R t'Jk Ill lflt Qty Otrl Mn Pha19 Thlllf TMnh fhd')lOOvk fult«ffAl.l.¥1 l!ewtlC\1tl'liblk linry U2 H IINlqltSI. �llb,Afta.Gl.9!10. (dft\lllfNqfdlfflrdJblllmHbl; llllrti¢'1,S"Sw.Mllf,itltlt!h1Mpi61 ""..,. m """"" • q ""111,
..... n; .. �OllOJ""'""''"IW/ Iii Jt4t Wit� d&Jj r! nl•,U thk .WU.tiflllp�mjti�dcliltllntl6:\� tlllM!Mfillldltl&�li!W��w� "'"""'""""'u"""'""""'u \¥i!W�'Ut9MlrllfllUoUoOh't!I
... IGl>5o!!Ho>"'1""'"'""" , U!iot<hllf,111'1:'lltl&Qprtn11'-i1"M lrltn�d&,gli11MJal1TN.nhph,Sdn!I n!llfddlpMnb6��bblhrm,g l!ruJ�IJ,.lnlllmnb:l. • U lfof(fl Hlnfl CW IUJ19! H.!m: 11111 dillQrkhott�<lllhfliNlt�hif!'t r.klgo\lrndfjllipr,Qtknlu.)d�itudffl IMldlt;td(iljlb!m9Ullo¢l�l!htt. n@§IAN\lll/MJHW�ffltfl!Wu� .,, ....... ..,.11, ... .,. ... (liiall&,glifilhbhdofftdfit.ll'jlyl8 JMn9 JGm, JOB 14'1 -4:00 cmru ,11m1 �lrln(lag!M'dllhllli!&,;x�D&-, r!IWIPM'lllnhMlhdo!btB-,f¥1,
�$.ta,20lSlllcJ(IOO!ltDh,,l(lllUai roa <9Nfi QIQXIHk !Mn11 '1ln 11.'!gchliYJd/tl.llbltrubll\t)ybu� ��1lillhlfl&c6l\!'lhi,t�[fall$!m)l tm,,lfllltb)ddlWZ • U/A�Jt6Cillllllf'jjig!lll Nft!+(l/lng vJ.IWll,.�ndtcll'6fl\ld!lln9@tllf �g{l�OlinollheCifY(kd;Mn �llulkflllWlfh6,200ritCent(Jffatl _M.lf,jw_W,i_AJ2il)1,_l{t_d_c4(_1Mng __ Ulliln��l'W}Ylllllln��qlll,'61� lMl:hilg0iallilhll&!mfriltd!uruOt:� ll&,;tgllfd&\flOIO&lglllltillPhhl&t;t 611niollt�lrO�l�nlt!MA�pM ll�uldfcdngdllngre'n� ,altl\fA(l!qll<lUAOOIL�llM!iutM dn9ih!r.;lW111f--�peiMl'61Y3n ptblfllntXjThlnhAlllt.fh(�nlHN-.(4 \Ill �Wjm,:dil.lmg lririll bgh/l\lmll!Uf,j&hlHMIJIBWlg� tMUMffllllliil<lci<tffl.lil��il'lt Mgla-!MlrW�)iwW1&usidilfc� Mn�n&ig:lhlMlb¼fl�lllliYillht ltl6t4�tdltlllifi/ru!Th.lnlifit6llf<&l9 �dll'lfxt111. •l\ll0/9NlolR1/<TI&-0< .. h"' �ffll}dlungullli!4.la11QCNnhf11$n "'"'""wl<""'"""'i/,)h>!< �li<fllOINifil.llilham;ablngddi ...... 11,, • .,.,, ...... .,, .. ddwurkbWJillR!WlflrC.i(M'Yjhtlpl:1/ ll!�IIIJ)/)1!ffil49". £14 ltdmija f1141:G;�tbkiJ),1a1\Sl&fll9Wlllhi nlijj!HII.IIIIGID-,JIS%S1'9J.
0 LVA,(�Mlf!VCTI(P-r.kl!lanlil!ftlrot c6ngdiMJl61fidlJi1irN!IIe!ll\l(tllpl4! �lfie!itlwyfttr�l'hro,,)�061"9-PIIMg IIOl�i<6slnd'ii0!!&®WIMnllv1&1
al.l\'611g:dtun;!Nllldl/�hWb\tUlp. � Ut d tk b.» <M®Mblilnlilftqt.11n!fuW1ljlffl/t nki OV119 im,ng IIWI � W Mf db.!16 WI dWig<hlllw}1t1t1C!IVl�Phiing th�� llllnlil'Mtrlll'IJJbl!mrif(tM1'19�Yl 4'1\1( �Ilg lmtr,ng lffll(tl} Jhj-tllJ � Ylo llill841rdk��lt)ltr&l9qi:h!tp$!I wwwloll!U-1111�igl.igel'd!l·al'lil,1111nuW.
lHg lff'@tUNfyt.l@I l@;llroq,J ti. @bftijdrl!i{i .. Nl!n;Jr.t1l�tl!l!oo:I fw1':6{r;li):1¥il'b,llli1(n((tlg�lm0� dil�.mgb,!<l11t/617�1. SI llfflt p!tgUl\tH fll t!p1M1, lmw de ll111ur al(1l41647·6Ul. Nlud11H111f(lr.btgl!li19Yift,lin� 11\o�<hil Krbt!elb{JU)S6H6J:J. fhl./M;ll{u//Q111ln1r!W'16fllh rlrt:brJi ll'M.-,pjti/Jlhh/11/1/r;(rilllron/ill19vln�I llrdfl/rjh"'1(flfl/MWrdlnlut0IJ'ph/in lil:lltrdrr&r9���tdl1MVIM119� ilol1,M;l<�rlilfgtJtln�li&i1111dtinPM fW IMlhPIIIS.WaAMYOIIM;//1:4( 1111« pNintilu'1lll'ltM]i/Jd. kllniftlllln.CMC INl'kjlMMMl6 J.n blllh: f'hor,g 'Mn Qjjn (Im • Pllln Khu fMplt l�lr. lliJ.i, l3 lt·,.'it1 hi. !Oll vi n9i, 10 IM�gl!lm,1\llS t/18115 (NS.J9MJJlf HGUOIVIU
EXHIBIT 7
EXHIBIT 7