Agenda packet — Apple Valley City Council, February 14, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
64 Environmental Constraints
Stormwater
Apple Valley’s primary environmental constraint is associated with storm water management.

Although a Master Plan of Drainage was prepared for Apple Valley, its implementation has been limited, and sheet flow flooding during major storms remains an issue of concern. In addition, the Dry Lake area, located in the east-central area of Town, has limited development potential due to flooding. Sites identified for Multi-Family or Mixed Use on the Land Use Map are located outside flood channels and will not be significantly impacted by flooding requirements, other than those imposed on all developments by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Water
As with all of California, the Town’s water suppliers face continued challenges in providing water in the long term. The Town, as required by law, will provide this Housing Element to all its water providers upon its adoption. As described below under Land Inventory, however, sufficient lands are available to meet the Town’s RHNA allocation during the current planning period.

Sewer
As discussed elsewhere in this Element, sanitary sewer services are not available throughout Town.

All of the lands included in the City’s inventory are located adjacent to water and sewer services, but additional Multi-Family lands in North Apple Valley currently do not have sanitary sewer service available. The Town is aggressively pursuing expansion of the sewer system in this area in anticipation of the development of the Brightline station, which will include mixed-use development, and will provide sewer access to the Multi-Family lands on Dale Evans Parkway.

Biological Resources Protection
Another environmental constraint is associated with the protection of endangered, threatened, and sensitive biological species and habitats. The Town is within the Western Mojave Desert and adjacent to open desert landscapes and linkages occupied by sensitive species. Compliance with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and ESA) and obtaining development permits from the wildlife agencies can be time consuming and expensive, often requiring special studies, mitigation measures, and project redesign that many times are cost prohibitive and result in the abandonment of projects by developers.

Since 2007, the Town has been coordinating with the U.S. and State Departments of Fish and Wildlife and San Bernardino County to develop a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan (MSHCP/NCCP) that would streamline the development permitting process and facilitate buildout of the General Plan (including housing units required by RHNA), while also providing for species and habitat protection over the life of the Plan (30 years).

The MSHCP/NCCP is nearing completion, and implementation of the Plan is anticipated by spring of 2022. Adoption of the MSHCP/NCCP will guide the Town’s conservation efforts, improve the planning process to accelerate future housing production and other development, and provide longterm mitigation and permitting assurances to developers. The MSHCP/NCCP will play a critical role in achieving the Town’s RHNA requirements during the 2022-2029 planning cycle and beyond.

Page 274 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
65 Nongovernmental Constraints
The Town generally sees approved projects submit improvement plans and building permits within 3 to 6 months of receipt of entitlements. This time period is entirely driven by the land owner/developer, and does not pose a constraint to the development of any type in Town.

Energy Conservation
In addition to the requirements of Title 24 of the Building Code, the Town requires the installation of water conserving landscaping for all new projects. Although the cost of installation of energy efficient, “green,” or similar products in a home or apartment may increase costs, cost differentials become smaller as technologies improve, and there are typically long-term cost benefits from decreased energy consumption and lower utility bills. The Town’s Housing Department and website provide information about home improvement energy efficiency programs, including those offering home weatherization upgrades and replacement of old appliances, windows and doors, shower heads with newer energy-efficient models. The Town will continue to work with the development community in implementing energy efficient and green technologies in new projects in the future.

HOUSING NEEDS
Affordable Units at Risk
There are no units at risk of losing their affordability restrictions in Apple Valley in the next ten years.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the housing element planning period. The State and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develop RHNA housing allocations for each Housing Element planning period. Apple Valley’s share for the 2022-2029 planning period is shown in the following table.

Page 275 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
66 Table 41
RHNA by Income Category, 2022-2029
Income Category No. of Units Needed
Extremely Low Income1 543
Very Low Income (0-50% of AMI) 543
Low Income (51-80% of AMI) 600
Moderate Income (81-120% of AMI) 747
Above Moderate Income (more than 120% of AMI) 1,857
Total Units Needed 4,290 1 Extremely Low Income (ELI) category is a subset of the Very Low Income category. ELI households are defined by HCD as those with incomes less than 30% of AMI. The number of units needed is assumed to be 50% of all Very Low-Income units.

Source: SCAG 2021
Quantified Objectives
The following table estimates the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, or conserved/preserved, by income level, in Apple Valley during the 2022-2029 planning period.

Table 42
Quantified Objectives, 2022-2029
New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation
Extremely Low Income 543 5
Very Low Income 543 60 5
Low Income 600 100 5
Moderate Income 747
High 1,857
Total: 4,290 160 15
Land Inventory
The Town’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment for 2022-2029 estimates that a total of 4,290 housing units will be built in Apple Valley. Of these, 1,857 are expected to be constructed for those of above moderate income. These units are expected to be market-driven and constructed as single-family units typical of those already in Apple Valley. As shown in the “Housing Costs and Affordability” analysis above, moderate income households in Apple Valley are able to afford market housing in the community. Lands used in Tables 43, 44 and 45 were also listed in the Town’s 5th Cycle Housing Element, but have not been used in 2 previous element updates.

The Town will need to assure that sufficient land is available for all extremely low, very low, and low income housing units needed during the planning period (a total of 1,686 units). Land and housing costs make it likely that these units will be of higher density, although they may be either ownership or rental units. As previously stated, land costs for multi-family housing projects in Apple Valley range from $57,000 to $226,000 per acre. At a density of 15 units per acre, this equates to $3,800 to $15,067 per unit.

Page 276 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
67 No affordable housing development occurred in Apple Valley during the 2014-2021 planning period. Therefore, data from affordable housing developers in the Coachella Valley was used to estimate construction costs of affordable units. The Coachella Valley and Apple Valley share similar suburban desert environments, and construction cost estimates are believed to be comparable. A survey of five (5) current affordable projects in the Coachella Valley found that the average construction cost of affordable housing is approximately $317,074 per unit. When added to the land costs cited above, this represents a total cost of $320,874 to $332,141 per unit. Projects in this cost range can be funded (when including HOME funds, tax credit funds, or other programs) and built in the range of 14 to 16 units per acre. It is important to note that the project currently under way with the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition will be built at a density of 10 units per acre (100 units on 10 acres). This project is being planned for low and moderate income households. In addition, in the City of Hesperia, which is of similar character to the Town and immediately adjacent to it, several affordable housing projects have been built or entitled at similar mid-teen densities, including:
o Villa Apartments West, built during the 2014-2021 planning period, contains 95 very low and low income units at a density of 20.4 units per acre. o Villa Apartments East, which is approved but not yet constructed, consists of an additional 95 very low and low income units at a density18.1 units per acre. o Village at Hesperia II, currently under review, is proposed for 67 very low and low income units at a density of 17.7 units per acre.

On average, these four projects (one in Apple Valley and three in Hesperia) have a density of 16.6 units per acre. Therefore, the density provided below for Multi-Family lands in the Town’s inventory is realistic and will allow the construction of affordable units for very low and low income households.

Table 43 and Table 44 list vacant parcels in the Multi-Family Residential (R-M) district. They include the Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), acreage, and potential number of units that could be developed on each parcel. Although the Development Code allows for densities up to 20 units per acre in the R-M district, a density of 17 units per acre is assumed in Table 43 to allow for infrastructure and open space. The estimate is based on constructed and approved projects in this district. All of the sites listed in Table 43 are within 100 feet of a sanitary sewer line, and adjacent to all other utilities. No un-serviced lands are considered in the inventory. Additional Multi-Family lands located within ¼ mile of a sewer line would result in availability of land for an additional 2,143 units, as shown in Table 44. However, the extension of sanitary sewer could be a constraint to the development of affordable housing, so these lands have not been included in the Vacant Land Inventory. A program has been added for the Town to work with the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority to expand sanitary sewer service in Town (please also see Constraints section regarding the availability of sanitary sewer). No other known parcel-specific infrastructure, environmental or other constraints have been identified that would impede development during the planning period.

Page 277 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
68 Table 43
Vacant Land Inventory
For Lower Income Units
Multi-Family District within 100’ of Water and Sewer
APN GP Zoning Size (RM
Acres)
Permitted
Density
Realistic
Density
Potential
Units
44101106 RVLD,
RM RVLD, RM 3.93 of 10.1 20 17 67
44101107 RVLD,
RM RVLD, RM 1.69 of 4.5 20 17 29
44101111 RVLD,
RM RVLD, RM .89 of 2 20 17 15
44101124 RM RM 4.8 20 17 82
44101125 RVLD,
RM RVLD, RM 4.54 of 4.7 20 17 77
44101126 RVLD,
RM RVLD, RM 4.6 of 4.8 20 17 78
44101130 RM RM 8.1 20 17 162
44101132 RM RM 8.1 20 17 162
44101139 RVLD,
RM RVLD, RM 1.11 of 1.3 20 17 19
44101141 RM RM 0.9 20 17 18
44101142 RM RM 1.1 20 17 22
44101143 RM RM 1.1 20 17 22
44113301 RM RM 4.6 20 17 92
44114154 RM RM 5.5 20 17 110
308005105 RM RM 1.5 20 17 30
308005106 RM RM 1.2 20 17 24
308005107 RM RM 1.9 20 17 38
308005108 RM RM 4.3 20 17 86
308737205 RM RM 4.7 20 17 94
308740118 RM RM 12.73 20 17 255
308748106 RM RM 4.1 20 17 82
308748108 RM RM 8.8 20 17 176
Totals: 1,739

Page 278 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
69 Table 44
Vacant Land For Lower Income Units
within One Quarter Mile of Sanitary Sewer Service
Multi-Family District
APN GP Zoning Size (RM
Acres)
Permitted
Density
Realistic
Density
Potential
Units
43939225 RM RM 10 20 17 170
43939233 RM RM 5 20 17 85
43939234 RM RM 2.5 20 17 43
44101106 RVLD,
RM
RVLD,
RM 3.93 of 10.1 20 17 67
44101107 RVLD,
RM
RVLD,
RM 1.69 of 4.5 20 17 29
44101108 RVLD RVLD 0.5 20 17 9
44101111 RVLD,
RM
RVLD,
RM .89 of 2 20 17 15
44101124 RM RM 4.8 20 17 82
44101125 RVLD,
RM
RVLD,
RM 4.54 of 4.7 20 17 77
44101126 RVLD,
RM
RVLD,
RM 4.6 of 4.8 20 17 78
44101130 RM RM 8.1 20 17 138
44101132 RM RM 8.1 20 17 138
44101139 RVLD,
RM
RVLD,
RM 1.11 of 1.3 20 17 19
44101141 RM RM 0.9 20 17 15
44101142 RM RM 1.1 20 17 19
44101143 RM RM 1.1 20 17 19
44113301 RM RM 4.6 20 17 78
44114154 RM RM 5.5 20 17 94
47234211 RM RM 37 20 17 629
47234214 RM RM 34.9 20 17 593
308005107 RM RM 1.9 20 17 32
308005113 RM RM 19.76 20 17 336
308737205 RM RM 4.7 20 17 80
308740118 RM RM 12.73 20 17 216
308748105 RM RM 10.1 20 17 172
308748106 RM RM 4.1 20 17 70
308748108 RM RM 8.8 20 17 150
308748109 RM RM 3.1 20 17 53

Page 279 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
70 Table 44
Vacant Land For Lower Income Units
within One Quarter Mile of Sanitary Sewer Service
Multi-Family District
APN GP Zoning Size (RM
Acres)
Permitted
Density
Realistic
Density
Potential
Units
308748110 RM RM 2.5 20 17 43
308748111 RM RM 6.4 20 17 109
308748112 RM RM 6.4 20 17 109
308005105 RM RM 1.5 20 17 26
308005106 RM RM 1.2 20 17 20
308005108 RM RM 4.3 20 17 73
Totals: 3,882
A map of vacant lands is provided in Exhibits 1 and 2. As shown on the map, inventory lands are geographically distributed throughout the Town and are not concentrated in any areas. As such, they further fair housing efforts. The Fair Housing analysis concluded that the Town has a low segregation level, equal access to opportunity, and no racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or disproportionate housing needs. The sites identified in the Land Inventory will not exacerbate any such conditions. Available parcels are served by trunk lines and are along on paved streets. Therefore, there is more than enough land available to meet the Town’s RHNA for the 2022-2029 planning period.

Page 280 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
71 Exhibit 1
Multi-Family Vacant Land Map
100’ from Water and Sewer

Page 281 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
72 Exhibit 2
Multi-Family Vacant Land Map
1,250’ from Water and Sewer

Page 282 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
73 As described in the Land Use Element, there are 459.4 acres of vacant land designated M-U within the Town boundaries. The Residential Land Use Designation Build Out Summary table assumed half (229.7 acres) of vacant M-U acres would develop as residential uses and would have the potential to accommodate 2,068 housing units. The Mixed Use District assumes a density of 22 units per acre on 25% of the parcel, to account for infrastructure and open space, and also for the commercial component of the Mixed Use project. The development standards and policies in the Land Use Element require that residential development be included in all Mixed Use projects, and the maximum density allowed is 30 units per acre. As a result, and consistent with the analysis of realistic capacity described above, the density calculated below, at 22 units per acre, is conservative. As shown in Table II-45, Mixed Use lands within 100 feet of existing water, sewer and dry utilities could generate 1,009 residential units, and Mixed Use land within 1,250 feet of water, sewer and dry utilities could generate an additional 3,376 units. Maps showing the locations of these vacant properties are provided in Exhibits 3 and 4.

Table 45
Vacant Land Inventory
For Lower Income Units
Mixed Use District (Up to 30 Units per Acre)
APN GP Zoning Size
(Acres)
Maximum
Density
(30/acre)
Realistic
Density
(22/acre)
Vacant/ within 100 ft of sewer
043404216 MU MU 1.12 34 26
043495124 MU MU 2.51 75 55
308005110 MU MU 18.73 562 412
308005111 MU MU 18.72 562 412
308720116 MU MU 4.77 143 105
Totals: 45.86 1,376 1,009
Vacant within 1250 ft of sewer
043403202 MU MU 1.31 39 29
043403203 MU MU 0.97 29 21
043403208 MU MU 4.78 143 105
043404201 MU MU 1.32 39 29
043404202 MU MU 1.04 31 23
043404205 MU MU 11.78 353 259
043404206 MU MU 1.72 52 38
043404216 MU MU 1.12 34 25
043404217 MU MU 1.12 34 25

Page 283 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
74 Table 45
Vacant Land Inventory
For Lower Income Units
Mixed Use District (Up to 30 Units per Acre)
APN GP Zoning Size
(Acres)
Maximum
Density
(30/acre)
Realistic
Density
(22/acre)
043404218 MU MU 1.23 37 27
043404219 MU MU 1.23 37 27
043404220 MU MU 4.95 148 109
043404221 MU MU 4.96 149 109
043404222 MU MU 4.98 149 110
043405189 MU MU 3.05 91 67
043405191 MU MU 3.89 out
of 30.70 117 86
043495124 MU MU 2.51 75 55
043902205 MU MU 5.70 of

15.74 171 125
308005110 MU MU 18.73 562 412
308005111 MU MU 18.72 562 412
308720113 MU MU 3.75 113 83
308720114 MU MU 4.77 143 105
308720115 MU MU 4.81 144 106
308720116 MU MU 4.77 143 105
311218103 MU MU 35.21 of

99.50 1,056 775
311246201 MU MU 5.04 151 111
TOTAL: 153.46 4,604 3,376
When both Multi-Family and Mixed Use lands are considered together, there are vacant lands available to accommodate 2,748 units within 100 feet of water, sewer and dry utilities, and 6,258 units within ¼ mile of water, sewer and dry utilities. Therefore, the Town can accommodate all of its 1,686 extremely low, very low and low income units on lands which have immediate access to water, sewer and dry utilities; and could also accommodate the Town’s moderate income RHNA of 747 units and its 1,857 above moderate income units, although as shown in the “Housing Costs and Affordability” analysis above, moderate income households in Apple Valley are able to afford market housing in the community. In addition to inventory sites, the Town includes over 3,000 acres of Single Family Residential and Estate Residential vacant land which could develop as above moderate income housing on septic systems, and do not require connections to sanitary sewer. The Town has sufficient designated lands to accommodate its RHNA.

Page 284 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
75 A total of three sites within 100 feet of water, sewer and utilities are over 10 acres in size. The State believes that these sites are less likely to develop solely on the basis of size. In order to assure that the Town provides incentives for the subdivision of larger parcels for affordable housing, Program 1.E.5 has been included below.

The Town will direct developers to the Land Inventory and require the construction of the units identified for each parcel, or assure that sufficient land remains or is added to provide for the Town’s lower income RHNA. Compliance will be assured through the findings for each project, and the requirements of State law, in particular AB 330.

Page 285 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
76 Exhibit 3
Mixed Use Vacant Land Map
100’ from Water and Sewer

Page 286 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
77 Exhibit 4
Mixed Use Vacant Land Map
1,250’ from Water and Sewer

Page 287 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
78 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
California Government Code requires that local governments make a diligent effort to achieve public participation from all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element. The Town’s public outreach efforts focused on community and stakeholder workshops, information provided on the Town website, electronic mail notifications, and public hearings.

The Town held two community workshops for the Housing Element. The first, held on January 28th, 2021, was attended by 35 individuals. The workshop was advertised on the Town’s website, and email invitations were sent to 67 people, and forwarded by the Board of Realtors to over 500 of its members. The attendees were a mix of affordable housing developers, residents, and representatives from housing advocacy groups. The attendees’ concerns included:
• Need for expanded infrastructure.
• Difficulties in finding affordable rentals for limited-income seniors. • Concerns that development standards and fees can make development difficult. • Concerns regarding the recent increases in the costs of construction materials in the past year.

A second workshop was held on February 24, 2021 and attended by 13 individuals. Email notifications were sent to 52 people, and the workshop was advertised on the Town’s website and Facebook page. Attendees’ concerns included:
• Concern about reduced resale value of foundation homes when adjacent to apartment complexes.
• Concerns regarding the extension of services, particularly water and sewer. • Support of higher densities in the area surrounding the Brightline station. • Post-COVID economic conditions, and the likely expansion of logistics in the North Apple Valley area, and associated employment opportunities to broaden the Town’s job base.

The High Desert Intersections Collaborative provided written comments to the Town in the form of policy recommendations. The Town reviewed these recommendations and modified some programs to reflect their recommendations. Most of the recommendations were already in place as policies and programs, including the Town’s existing Mixed Use zone, which already has a minimum requirement set for commercial uses; and developer incentives, including reductions in development standards for affordable multi-family projects, fee waivers, and those already provided in Programs 1C.1 and 1.E.5.. Some of their suggestions did not apply to the Town, and some were not appropriate, including the deferral of property maintenance and repair for NGOs who purchase affordable housing projects, were not considered appropriate, given that this policy would result in sub-standard living conditions for low income households; the Town does not require renter permits from anyone, including NGOs; their recommendation that Crime Free MultiFamily Housing Programs be eliminated on the basis that it “keeps people away from multi-family housing” is not based in fact, and the Program has proven effective in lowering crime in multifamily projects in Town.

Page 288 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
79 The Town posted its second draft Housing Element on the Town’s website prior to resubmittal to HCD, and notified all workshop attendees of its availability for comment from September 29 to October 13, 2021. In addition, the Town announced the comment period on its social media. No additional comments were received. The Town posted the draft Housing Element for public comment again for 10 days prior to Planning Commission hearing, and continuously until the Town Council hearing, 30 days later.

Finally, the Town met with representatives of the Building Industry Association regarding the Housing Element update. That discussion centered on the lapsing of Measure N, and the potential for smaller lot subdivisions in the future, and the improved development standards in the MultiFamily zone, which will allow more flexibility in higher density projects.

The list of invitees, materials presented at the workshops, and related materials are included in Appendix A.

Page 289 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
80 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Goal 1
Housing of all types to meet the needs of current and future residents in all income levels.

Policy 1.A
Maintain a wide range of residential land use designations, ranging from very low density (1.0 dwelling unit per 5 acres) to medium density (4 to 20 dwelling units per acre) and mixed use (4 to 30 units per acre), on the Land Use Map.

Program 1.A.1
Require that housing constructed expressly for low and moderate income households not be concentrated in any single area of Apple Valley.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.A.2
Locate higher density residential development in close proximity to public transportation, community services, and recreational resources.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.A.3
Periodically review the Development Code for possible amendments to reduce housing construction costs without sacrificing basic health and safety considerations.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Annually with Development Code updates
Policy 1.B
The Town shall promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code Section 65008, and any other applicable state and federal fair housing and planning law.

Program 1.B.1
Continue to allocate CDBG funds annually to the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board to assist at least 5 residents, landlords, and other housing professionals annually with housing discrimination, mediation, and finance issues throughout the community, and particularly in the area surrounding Dale Evans Parkway south of Highway 18, and south of Bear Valley Road.

Responsible Agency: Town Manager’s Office
Schedule: Annually with budget adoption

Page 290 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
81 Program 1.B.2
Prepare and provide bilingual (English/Spanish) educational resources, including but not limited to publications, internet resources, and workshops, to inform residents, landlords, housing professionals, public officials, and other relevant parties about fair housing rights, services, and responsibilities. The goal will be to reach at least 50 low income residents throughout the community annually throughout the planning period.

Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Development
Schedule: Preparation of materials in 2022, annual updates thereafter Program 1.B.3
So long as there is a shortage of Housing Choice Voucher assistance for new households, petition for additional assistance from the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase the County’s allocation of vouchers by at least 5 households annually.

Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Development
Schedule: Annually
Program 1.B.4
Collaborate with the Victor Valley Transit Authority to expand services that provide reliable public transportation options to low income, disabled, senior, and other residents with limited access.

Responsible Agency: Town Manager’s Office
Schedule: Throughout the planning period through participation in Transit Authority governance Program 1.B.5
Continue to implement a proactive code enforcement program to help maintain property values in all neighborhoods, particularly those with foreclosed and/or abandoned properties.

Responsible Agency: Code Compliance
Schedule: Ongoing when inspections are conducted or requested Program 1.B.6
Conduct a Town-wide Fair Housing Assessment (FHA) to include an assessment of fair housing issues, enforcement, outreach, and future goals and opportunities. The FHA shall be prepared consistent with HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule Guidebook (December 2015) and/or other guidance recommended by HCD.

Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Development
Schedule: 2022, every five years afterwards
Program 1.B.7
Annually review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to assure that projects within the area identified as having high segregation and poverty, at Dale Evans Parkway south of Highway 18, are identified and given priority; and throughout the community where lower income households occur. The Town will target 2 CIP projects being completed during the planning period.

Responsible Agency: Housing and Community Development, Town Engineer Schedule: Identify CIP projects by December 2023. Implement CIP projects as funding is available, with a target of 2 projects within the planning period.

Page 291 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
82 Policy 1.C
Encourage housing for special needs households, including the elderly, single parent households, large households, the disabled and the homeless.

Program 1.C.1
Offer incentives such as density bonus and reductions in parking requirements for senior housing and housing for disabled residents. Target assistance to provide 200 very low and low income units throughout the community through these incentives.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Develop list of incentives 2022. Provide on Town website 2022. Provide to developers as projects are proposed.

Program 1.C.2
Process requests for the establishment of State licensed residential care facilities, in accordance with Section 1566.3 of the Health and Safety Code, as a means of providing long-term transitional housing for very low income, disabled and homeless persons.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.C.3
Pursuant to State law, require apartment complexes with 20 or more units to provide a minimum of one handicapped-accessible unit, with two units required of developments over 100 units.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Annually meet with residential care providers active in Apple Valley; and Staff review as development proposals are brought forward
Program 1.C.5
Pursuant to State law, require apartment complexes with 16 or more units to provide an on-site property manager.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.C.6
Encourage the development of ADUs and JADUs, consistent with the requirements of State law and the Development Code, as a means of providing affordable housing opportunities in the single family residential districts. The goal of the Town is to permit 4 ADUs or JADUs annually through the planning period.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.C.7
Expedite processing for elderly, disabled, low and moderate income housing applications; waive fees for shelters and transitional housing.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Establish fast-track program (including timelines) in 2022. Provide fast-track program on Town’s website 2022. Provide to developers as projects are proposed.

Page 292 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
83 Program 1.C.8
Participate in regional, state and federal programs which assist very low, low and moderate income households, disabled and senior households in buying their own home, and provide information at Town Hall on these programs.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Annual participation in Consortium activities. Maintain all assistance programs on Town website.

Policy 1.D
Continue to encourage mobile homes as an affordable housing option for all segments of the community.

Program 1.D.1
Allow the placement of mobile and manufactured homes in all single family districts.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.D.2
Ensure high quality development standards through the implementation of the new Mobile Home Park zone, consistent with the Development Code in mobile home developments.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Policy 1.E
Affordable housing should be distributed throughout the community, and should blend with existing neighborhoods.

Program 1.E.1
Support and encourage local developers to participate in County-sponsored mortgage revenue bond and scattered site housing programs by including the programs in literature provided by the Community Development Department on local and regional housing programs, with a particular focus encouraging the development of housing for extremely low and very low income households. The Town will utilize all available funding sources to meet its extremely low income housing allocation of 543 units. The Town will establish an incentive program that includes reducing, waiving or subsidizing development and impact fees for developments targeted toward affordable housing throughout the community; assisting developers in site identification; or using HOME funds to assist in development of housing for lower income housing, including extremely low income households.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, San Bernardino Housing Authority Schedule: Establish incentive program by January of 2023. Allocate funds annually, with CDBG and HOME funds allocation in budget

Page 293 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
84 Program 1.E.2
Support the efforts of non-profit organizations, private developers, and the County of San Bernardino Housing Authority to obtain State and/or Federal funds for the construction of affordable housing for extremely low, very low and low income households by writing letters of support, and expediting permit processing for projects requiring pre-approval of development projects.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, San Bernardino Housing Authority Schedule: Annually, with CDBG and HOME funds allocation in budget Program 1.E.3
New multiple housing projects shall incorporate designs which are compatible with surrounding single family residential neighborhoods, and provide setbacks and stepbacks to assure compatibility.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.E.4
Amend the Development Code to ensure compliance with the density bonus provisions of AB 2345.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: 2021-2022
Program 1.E.5
In order to encourage and incentivize the subdivisions of the three large sites in the Town’s Inventory, the Town shall allow planning fee waivers for the processing of Tentative and Final Tract or Parcel Maps which subdivide these sites to less than 10 acres, and provide affordable housing units for extremely low, very low or low income households on any or all of the subdivided parcels. The Town will implement these incentives by contacting all three land owners and providing them a complete description of the incentive annually starting in 2022.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: 2022, annually thereafter.

Policy 1.F
Permit childcare facilities in single-family and multi-family residential zones, as well as in commercial and industrial areas where employment is concentrated.

Policy 1.G
New residential development must assure the provision of infrastructure and public services.

Program 1.G.1
Actively pursue grants and loans to expand sanitary sewer in Town, particularly in the center of Town where sewer has not been extended, and in North Apple Valley along Dale Evans Parkway.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Public Works Schedule: Annually, as grant and loan opportunities are released Policy 1.H

Page 294 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
85 Encourage energy-conservation and passive design concepts that make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency and reduce housing costs.

Program 1.H.1
Encourage development that minimizes greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the latest adopted update of the Apple Valley Climate Action Plan.

Responsible Agencies: Community Development Department, Building and Safety Department Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.H.2
Continue to allow energy conservation measures as improvements eligible for assistance under the Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 1.H.3
Provide brochures, web links and contact information to local utilities for energy audits and energy efficient appliance programs, as they are available.

Responsible Agency: Building and Safety Department
Schedule: Regularly restock brochures at Town Hall public counters.

Program 1.H.4
The Community Development Department shall maintain a brochure which describes the improvements eligible for the Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program, including energy conservation measures, and shall distribute the brochure at Town Hall, the Community Center, the Senior Center, the Library, churches and other sites where they can be available to the community at large.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department and Building and Safety Department Schedule: Annually update the brochure; restock as needed throughout the year.

Policy 1.I
Provide housing opportunities for the homeless in the community.

Program 1.I.1
The Town shall encourage the development of Homeless Shelters, Transitional Housing and Single Room Occupancy by complying with Government Code Section 65583, which requires these uses to be identified in the Development Code. Application fee waivers shall also be given to these projects proposed in the Town. In addition, those that apply for reasonable accommodations shall also be given fee waivers.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Create website information and post by end of 2022. Meet with NGOs annually to publicize the program. Staff review as proposals are brought forward Program 1.I.2
Review and amend, as necessary, the Development Code to ensure:

Page 295 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
86 o Compliance with AB 101 as it pertains to Low Barrier Navigation Centers. o Modify the definition of “homeless shelter” to include this use. o Amend parking standards to require parking for employees only for emergency shelters. o Modify permitted uses table in residential zones to assure that transitional and supportive housing shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
o Modify Development Code to assure that supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. o Modify the Development Code consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17000 et. Seq. to require that employee housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a single family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
o Modify the Development Code to allow group homes for 7 or more residents as a permitted use in residential zones, subject only to a Development Permit. o Modify the Development Code to allow multi-family projects of 50+ units with approval of a Development Permit, instead of a Conditional Use Permit. o Modify the Development Code to allow reduced parking standards based on unit size, particularly for studios and on-bedroom units.
o Modify the Development Code to remove finding B. for Development Permits.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: 2023
Goal 2
Housing which is safe and properly maintained, to assure that the best quality of life is provided to all residents.

Policy 2.A
Maintain the code enforcement program as the primary tool for bringing substandard units into compliance with Town Codes, and for improving overall housing conditions in Apple Valley.

Program 2.A.1
Enforce Town codes on property maintenance, building and zoning code compliance.

Responsible Agencies: Community Development Department, Code Enforcement Division.

Schedule: Staff review as development proposals are brought forward Program 2.A.2
Actively market rehabilitation programs available through CDBG or HOME programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to lower income property owners to make housing repairs, by including them in the brochure described in Program I.H.4, to be distributed throughout the community. Endeavor to assist 160 very low and low income households through these programs.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Page 296 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
87 Schedule: Quarterly announcements in town-wide publication, quarterly announcements on Town’s website
Program 2.A.3
Continue to pursue HOME funds for rehabilitation of single-family and multi-family housing, and provide information on these programs in brochures distributed by the Town to the community.

Endeavor to assist 100 very low and low income households through these programs.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Annually with HOME fund allocation in budget
Policy 2.B
Prohibit housing development in areas subject to significant geologic, flooding, noise and fire hazards, and in environmentally and archaeologically vulnerable areas.

Policy 2.C
Encourage neighborhood watch programs that promote safety and protection in residential neighborhoods.

Program 2.C.1
Encourage landlords and property managers to participate in the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program sponsored by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s office.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Schedule: Quarterly through Sheriff’s Department outreach efforts Goal 3
Unrestricted access to housing throughout the community.

Policy 3.A
Continue to promote the removal of architectural barriers in order to provide barrier-free housing for handicapped or disabled persons.

Program 3.A.1
Enforce the handicapped accessibility requirements of Federal fair housing law that apply to all new multi-family residential projects containing four (4) or more units.

Responsible Agency: Department of Building and Safety
Schedule: Through regular Code Compliance inspections throughout the year; and Staff review as development proposals are brought forward
Policy 3.B
Prohibit practices that arbitrarily direct buyers and renters to certain neighborhoods or types of housing.

Program 3.B.1
Provide fair housing information at Town Hall, the Library, the Senior Center and local churches to inform both landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities. The information shall

Page 297 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
88 direct landlords and tenants to the San Bernardino Housing Authority, which has an established dispute resolution program.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, San Bernardino County Housing Authority
Schedule: Regularly restock brochures at all locations.

Page 298 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
89 Appendix A
Public Outreach Materials

Page 299 of 463 ends

.VIRTUAL. COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP NOTICE

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Thursday, January 28, 2021 – 3:00 p.m.

A community workshop for the Town’s Housing Element Update (2021-2029 planning period) will be held Thursday, January 28, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. via Zoom. At this workshop, the Town will discuss background information regarding its upcoming Housing Element Update including new State Housing Element law, the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the Town and take public comments on the Update from those attending. All members of the public are encouraged to attend.

The Housing Element is a series of goals, policies, and implementation measures for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, which would apply throughout the Town.

To participate in the workshop via Zoom, please RSVP by email to [email protected], by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting (requests received after 10:00 a.m. on meeting day may not be processed). Specific questions regarding the workshop or Housing Element may be directed to Daniel Alcayaga, Planning Manager, at (760) 240-7000 x 7205 or [email protected].

The Town of Apple Valley promotes fair housing and makes all programs available to low-income families and individuals, regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, political affiliation, sex, age, sexual orientation or other arbitrary factor.

Page 300 of 463 ends

AB 1486 - List of Developers that have notified the Department of Housing and Community Development of Interest in Surplus Land, Table Range A2:J486 Revised: 12/1/2020 County Organization CalHFA Certified Housing Sponsor? Address City State Zip Contact Phone Email Address INVITES SENT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY A Community of Friends 3701 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 700 Los Angeles CA 90010 Mee Heh Risdon (213) 480-0809 [email protected] City staff: Zoom link confirmed SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Affordable Homestead LLC 915 W Foothill Blvd Ste 488C Claremont CA 91711 William Leong (213) 375-8248 [email protected] Lori Lamson SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Bibi Foundation 1514 N. Raymond Ave Fullerton CA 92831 Riaz Chaudhary (714) 213-8650 [email protected] Daniel Alcayaga SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY City Ventures, LLC 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150 Irvine CA 92612 Anastasia Preedge [email protected] Sylvia Urenda SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G Indio CA 92201 Julie Bornstein (760) 347-3157 [email protected],
[email protected] Pam Cupp, Sr. Planner Maryann Ybarra [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Cypress Equity Investments 12129 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 801 Los Angeles CA 90025 Mike Diacos (310) 405-0314 [email protected] Nicole S Criste, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Decro Corporation 3431 Wesley Street, Suite F Culver City CA 90232 Laura Vandeweghe (310) 595-4421 [email protected] Andrea Randall, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Integrity Housing 4 Venture, Suite 295 Irvine CA 92618 Paul Carroll (949) 727-3656 [email protected] Kelly Clark, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Olivecs Foundation 328 E. Commonwealth Ave Fullerton CA 92832 Rubina Chaudhary (562) 972-2786 [email protected] Bitian Chen, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY The Kennedy Commission 17701 Cowan Ave. #200 Irvine CA 92614 Cesar Covarrubias (949) 250-0909 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Universal Standard Housing 350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 3050 Los Angeles CA 90071 Eduardo Santana (213) 320-3554 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY USA Properties Fund, Inc 3200 Douglas Blvd Ste 200 Roseville CA 95661 Gabriel Gardner (916) 239- 8458 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Workforce Homebuilders LLC 546 Via Zapata Riverside CA 92507 Tony Mize (951) 530-8171 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ZMCO Inc. 5660 Panorama Dr Whittier CA 90601 William Dobrenen (562) 858-5856 [email protected] CITY STAKEHOLDERS LIST added 1.12.21kc
Real Estate Professionals Bob Basen [email protected] Bob Basen [email protected] Ryan Travis [email protected]
James Langley [email protected]
Joseph Brady [email protected]
Offered to forward to 500 plus
Commercial brokers; he can't
attend as he will be out of town
Victor Valley Assn. of Realtors [email protected]
Developers
Barbara Monroy [email protected]
Craig Carl [email protected]
Rim Properties Ian Bryant [email protected] Ian Bryant [email protected] Star-West Homes 13600 Hitt Road, #A Apple Valley CA 92307 Stan Mullins phone disconnected
no email
Architects/Designers
Mike Pontious [email protected]
Tom and Sophie Steeno
[email protected],
[email protected] Thomas Steeno
[email protected]
sophie
Omega Designs Michael P Wauhob [email protected] Ryan McGowan [email protected]
St. Mary's Medical Center
Kevin Mahaney, Director
Community Health
Investment [email protected] Kevin Mahany [email protected] Kevin fwd'd flyer to:
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Family Assistance Center Darryl Evey, CEO [email protected] High Desert Homeless Jimmy Waldron [email protected] VVCSC Midge Nicosia [email protected]
Cedar House [email protected]
Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board IFHMB Ilene Garcia [email protected] Christ of Solid Rock Israel Riley
[email protected],
[email protected]
Rockin My Disabilities JoAnn Wilkes [email protected] JoAnn Wilkes [email protected] Assistance League of the Victor Valley
Linda Elliott or Sani
Maberry
[email protected],
[email protected]
AVPAL Jackie Alban [email protected]
First Assembly of God Josh Gerbracht [email protected] Victor Valley Domestic Violence Inger Robertson [email protected] Moses House of Ministries Matthew Coughlin [email protected] Casa of San Bernardino Cesar Navarrete [email protected]

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
CITY LIST - DUPLICATE National Community Renaissance
9421 Haven Aven., Rancho Cucamonga,
CA 91730 CA
Tony Mize, VPAcquisitions 909-727-2783 [email protected] CITY LIST Urban Housing Commuinties
2000 E. Fourth St., #205, Santa Ana, CA
92705 CA Mark Irving
714-835-3955 ext
114 [email protected]
Community Housing Opportunities Corporation
5030 Business Center Drive #260,
Fairfield, CA 94534 CA
Vince Nicholas
Joy Silver
Charles Liuzzo
Yegor Lyashenko
Minami Hachiya 707-759-6043
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] www.chochousing.org Joy Silver [email protected] Pacific West
430 E. State Street, Ste 100, Eagle, ID
83616 CA Darren Berberian 949-599-6069 [email protected] www.tpchousing.com

RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services 9551 Pittsburgh Avenue Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Jenny Ortiz (909) 988-5979 [email protected] RIVERSIDE COUNTY Habitat for Humanity for the Coachella Valley 72680 Dinah Shore Dr. #6 Palm Desert CA 92211 (760) 969-6917 [email protected]
[email protected]
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste 200 Palm Desert CA 92260 Cheryll Dahlin Tom Cox (760) 346-1127 [email protected] RIVERSIDE COUNTY Lift to Rise 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100 Palm Desert CA 92260 Araceli Palafox 760-636-0420 [email protected] www.lifttorise.org Sharon Green [email protected]
Countrywide Homeless Provider
Network Chair and Board member
of the SBC Interagency Counci on
Homelessness
Jennifer Neri [email protected]
Kevin sent email saying Thank you,
but did not rsvp, he did forward to
Jennifer Neri, whom RSVPd yes
Jessica Leal [email protected]
David Yrigoyen [email protected]
Don Brown [email protected]
Randy Coe [email protected]
Mac O'Donnell [email protected]
Stephanie Pazarin [email protected]
Dan Tate [email protected]
Melissa Hughes [email protected]
Tesoro Lopez [email protected]
Joel Harrison [email protected]
Mike Arias Jr. [email protected]
Kari Leon [email protected] Council Member
Brigette Martinez [email protected]
Gisele White [email protected]
Zoom RSVP Confirmations

Page 301 of 463 ends

Name (Original Name) Organization User Email Join Time Leave Time Duration (Minutes) Guest *Terra Nova Planning & Research# Inc. Nicole S. Criste - TN [email protected] 1/28/21 14:54 1/28/21 16:17 83 No #VM Kline Bess R 27 1/28/21 14:54 1/28/21 16:17 83 Yes
Alma Perez CVHC 1/28/21 15:32 1/28/21 16:05 33 Yes
Bob Tinsley 1/28/21 14:57 1/28/21 16:17 80 Yes
Brad 1/28/21 15:00 1/28/21 16:17 77 Yes
Brigette Martinez Family Assistance [email protected] 1/28/21 14:59 1/28/21 16:17 78 Yes d.alcayaga Town of Apple Valley [email protected] 1/28/21 15:00 1/28/21 16:17 77 Yes David Yrigoyen (David) CVHC [email protected] 1/28/21 15:01 1/28/21 16:17 77 Yes Diane Carlton [email protected] 1/28/21 14:57 1/28/21 16:17 81 Yes Don Brown Lee Associaters [email protected] 1/28/21 15:02 1/28/21 16:17 75 Yes Gisele DUPLICATE devices 1/28/21 15:04 1/28/21 16:17 73 Yes gisele white [email protected] 1/28/21 15:05 1/28/21 16:01 57 Yes Ian Bryant Rim Properties [email protected] 1/28/21 15:03 1/28/21 16:17 74 Yes Israel Riley Good Will So Cal [email protected] 1/28/21 15:05 1/28/21 15:30 26 Yes Jennifer Neri Global IPS [email protected] 1/28/21 15:00 1/28/21 16:17 77 Yes Jessica Leal CVHC [email protected] 1/28/21 14:59 1/28/21 16:03 65 Yes JoAnn Wilkes Rolling Start [email protected] 1/28/21 15:04 1/28/21 16:13 69 Yes Joel Harrison [email protected] 1/28/21 14:55 1/28/21 16:17 83 Yes John’s iPad 1/28/21 14:55 1/28/21 15:58 63 Yes
Joy Silver (Joy Silver) CHOC Housing [email protected] 1/28/21 14:57 1/28/21 15:40 43 Yes judy Wagner 1/28/21 14:59 1/28/21 15:55 57 Yes
Kari Leon Town Council Member [email protected] 1/28/21 14:56 1/28/21 16:18 82 Yes Keisha 1/28/21 14:59 1/28/21 16:17 78 Yes
Kevin Mahany St. Marys Med Center [email protected] 1/28/21 15:02 1/28/21 16:17 75 Yes Lori LAMSON Town of Apple Valley [email protected] 1/28/21 14:58 1/28/21 16:17 80 Yes Mary Ann Ybarra CVHC [email protected] 1/28/21 15:03 1/28/21 15:59 57 Yes Melissa Hughes Cedar House [email protected] 1/28/21 14:54 1/28/21 15:37 44 Yes Nichole 1/28/21 15:01 1/28/21 16:16 76 Yes
pcupp Town of Apple Valley [email protected] 1/28/21 15:00 1/28/21 16:17 77 Yes perrm Realtor - Fwd from Kevin Mahany of St. Mary's [email protected] 1/28/21 15:11 1/28/21 15:57 47 Yes Rebecca M. (Rebecca Merrell) 1/28/21 14:54 1/28/21 16:17 83 Yes Regina Weatherspoon-Bell Realtor - Fwd from Kevin Mahany of St. Mary's [email protected] 1/28/21 14:54 1/28/21 16:17 83 Yes Sharon Green
Countrywide Homeless Provider Network Chair and
Board member of SBC Interagency Council on
Homelessness [email protected] 1/28/21 15:02 1/28/21 16:17 76 Yes Silvia Urenda Town of Apple Valley [email protected] 1/28/21 15:05 1/28/21 16:17 72 Yes Stephanie Pazarin Global IPS [email protected] 1/28/21 14:59 1/28/21 16:14 76 Yes TC Amy 1/28/21 15:05 1/28/21 15:51 47 Yes
tom.s Steeno Design [email protected] 1/28/21 14:58 1/28/21 16:17 79 Yes ZOOM PARTICIPANTS 1.28.21

Page 302 of 463 ends

Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 15:59:40 Pacific Daylight Time

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 303 of 463 ends

Page 304 of 463 ends

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
JANUARY 28, 2021

Page 305 of 463 ends

Background and
Requirements
§ The Housing Element is one of the Elements
required in our General Plan
§ It is the only Element that must be updated on a
regular schedule.
§ Upcoming planning period: 2022-2029
§ The purpose of the Housing Element is to assure
that the Town facilitates the development of
housing for all economic and social segments
within the community.

Page 306 of 463 ends

About Apple
Valley
§ 2018 Population: 72,359
§ Median Age: 37.3 years
§ Households: 24,161
§ Median Household Income: $53,023 (below the County median of $60,164)
§ 26,030 residents work (36% of the population)
§ Management (31%)
§ Sales and office (23%)
§ Service (19%)
§ 16.6% of residents work in Town

Page 307 of 463 ends

About Apple
Valley
§Median housing value is $237,100
§Median rent is $1,026
§ 959 housing units are overcrowded
§ 218 overcrowded units are owner-occupied.
§ 741 overcrowded units are renter-occupied.
§ 9,105 households are overpaying for housing
(more than 30% of income)
§ 3,250 lower income owners are overpaying
§ 4,025 lower income renters are overpaying

Page 308 of 463 ends

Regional
Housing Need
Allocation
(RHNA)
RHNA by Income Category, 2022-2029
Extremely Low Income 541
Very Low Income 542
Low Income 599
Moderate Income 745
Above Moderate Income 1,853
Total Units 4,280

Page 309 of 463 ends

Available Sites
§ The Town needs to identify sites for 2,427
units for very low, low and moderate income
households.
§ The Town has identified sites for 6,027 units
for these income levels.
§ Sites are located throughout Town, and have
water and sewer available within 1,000 feet.

Page 310 of 463 ends

Next Steps
§ The Housing Element Draft will be completed in
early spring, and submitted to the State for
review.
§ Planning Commission and Town Council hearings
are expected in late summer of 2021.

Page 311 of 463 ends

Discussion
We want your input!
• Does housing in Town meet residents’ needs
now?
• What concerns do you have about housing in
Town?
• What do you think are the greatest needs for
housing?
• How do you think the Town should help with
providing housing for the next 8 years?

Page 312 of 463 ends

VIRTUAL COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP

TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
2nd COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.

A second community workshop for the Town’s Housing Element Update (2021- 2029 planning period) will be held Wednesday, February 24, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. At this workshop, the Town will discuss background information regarding its upcoming Housing Element Update, the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the Town. The Town would like your input on the ways that we can facilitate new housing for everyone in Apple Valley. Everyone is encouraged to attend.

The Housing Element is a series of goals, policies, and implementation measures for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, which would apply throughout the Town.

Page 313 of 463 ends

Monday, January 25, 2021 at 11:14:53 Pacific Standard Time

Page 1 of 3 ends

Page 314 of 463 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Good Morning,
This is a reminder that the virtual workshop is this Thursday at 3pm.

If you have not yet RSVP’d for the zoom link please do so now.

Thank you!
From: Kimberly Cuza <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, January 18, 2021 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Apple Valley Housing Element Update - Virtual Community Workshop No>ce - Join us!

Page 315 of 463 ends

Page 316 of 463 ends

AB 1486 - List of Developers that have notified the Department of Housing and Community Development of Interest in Surplus Land, Table Range A2:J486 Revised: 12/1/2020 2nd Workshop 2.24 County Organization CalHFA Certified Housing Sponsor? Address City State Zip Contact Phone Email Address INVITES SENT NOTES INVITES SENT - 52 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY A Community of Friends 3701 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 700 Los Angeles CA 90010 Mee Heh Risdon (213) 480-0809 [email protected] City staff: Zoom link confirmed Zoom link confirmed SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Affordable Homestead LLC 915 W Foothill Blvd Ste 488C Claremont CA 91711 William Leong (213) 375-8248 [email protected] Lori Lamson SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Bibi Foundation 1514 N. Raymond Ave Fullerton CA 92831 Riaz Chaudhary (714) 213-8650 [email protected] Daniel Alcayaga SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY City Ventures, LLC 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150 Irvine CA 92612 Anastasia Preedge [email protected] Sylvia Urenda SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G Indio CA 92201 Julie Bornstein (760) 347-3157 [email protected], [email protected] Pam Cupp, Sr. Planner Maryann Ybarra [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Cypress Equity Investments 12129 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 801 Los Angeles CA 90025 Mike Diacos (310) 405-0314 [email protected] Nicole S Criste, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Decro Corporation 3431 Wesley Street, Suite F Culver City CA 90232 Laura Vandeweghe (310) 595-4421 [email protected] Andrea Randall, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Integrity Housing 4 Venture, Suite 295 Irvine CA 92618 Paul Carroll (949) 727-3656 [email protected] Kelly Clark, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Olivecs Foundation 328 E. Commonwealth Ave Fullerton CA 92832 Rubina Chaudhary (562) 972-2786 [email protected] Bitian Chen, TN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY The Kennedy Commission 17701 Cowan Ave. #200 Irvine CA 92614 Cesar Covarrubias (949) 250-0909 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Universal Standard Housing 350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 3050 Los Angeles CA 90071 Eduardo Santana (213) 320-3554 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY USA Properties Fund, Inc 3200 Douglas Blvd Ste 200 Roseville CA 95661 Gabriel Gardner (916) 239- 8458 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Workforce Homebuilders LLC 546 Via Zapata Riverside CA 92507 Tony Mize (951) 530-8171 [email protected] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ZMCO Inc. 5660 Panorama Dr Whittier CA 90601 William Dobrenen (562) 858-5856 [email protected] CITY STAKEHOLDERS LIST added 1.12.21kc
Real Estate Professionals Bob Basen [email protected] Bob Basen [email protected] Ryan Travis [email protected]
James Langley [email protected]
Joseph Brady [email protected]
Offered to forward to 500 plus
Commercial brokers; he can't
attend as he will be out of town
Victor Valley Assn. of Realtors [email protected]
Developers
Barbara Monroy [email protected]
Craig Carl [email protected]
Rim Properties Ian Bryant [email protected] Ian Bryant [email protected] Star-West Homes 13600 Hitt Road, #A Apple Valley CA 92307 Stan Mullins phone disconnected no email Architects/Designers
Mike Pontious [email protected]
Tom and Sophie Steeno [email protected], [email protected] Thomas Steeno [email protected]
sophie RSVP Link sent - Tom
Omega Designs Michael P Wauhob [email protected] Ryan McGowan [email protected]
St. Mary's Medical Center
Kevin Mahaney, Director
Community Health Investment [email protected] Kevin Mahany [email protected] Kevin fwd'd flyer to:
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected] RSVP Link sent
Family Assistance Center Darryl Evey, CEO [email protected] High Desert Homeless Jimmy Waldron [email protected] VVCSC Midge Nicosia [email protected]
Cedar House Jaime Lamb [email protected] RSVP Link sent Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board IFHMB Ilene Garcia [email protected] Christ of Solid Rock Israel Riley [email protected], [email protected] mailto:[email protected] - undeliverable Rockin My Disabilities JoAnn Wilkes [email protected] JoAnn Wilkes [email protected] RSVP Link sent Assistance League of the Victor Valley Linda Elliott or Sani Maberry [email protected], [email protected] AVPAL Jackie Alban [email protected]
First Assembly of God Josh Gerbracht [email protected] Victor Valley Domestic Violence Inger Robertson [email protected] Moses House of Ministries Matthew Coughlin [email protected] Casa of San Bernardino Cesar Navarrete [email protected]

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
CITY LIST - DUPLICATE National Community Renaissance 9421 Haven Aven., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CA Tony Mize, VP-Acquisitions 909-727-2783 [email protected] CITY LIST Urban Housing Commuinties 2000 E. Fourth St., #205, Santa Ana, CA 92705 CA Mark Irving 714-835-3955 ext 114 [email protected] Community Housing Opportunities Corporation 5030 Business Center Drive #260, Fairfield, CA 94534 CA Vince Nicholas
Joy Silver
Charles Liuzzo
Yegor Lyashenko
Minami Hachiya 707-759-6043
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] www.chochousing.org Joy Silver [email protected] RSVP Link sent Pacific West 430 E. State Street, Ste 100, Eagle, ID 83616 CA Darren Berberian 949-599-6069 [email protected] www.tpchousing.com

RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services 9551 Pittsburgh Avenue Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Jenny Ortiz (909) 988-5979 [email protected] RIVERSIDE COUNTY Habitat for Humanity for the Coachella Valley 72680 Dinah Shore Dr. #6 Palm Desert CA 92211 (760) 969-6917 [email protected]
[email protected]
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Ste 200 Palm Desert CA 92260 Cheryll Dahlin Tom Cox (760) 346-1127 [email protected] RIVERSIDE COUNTY Lift to Rise 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100 Palm Desert CA 92260 Araceli Palafox 760-636-0420 [email protected] www.lifttorise.org Sharon Green [email protected]
Countrywide Homeless Provider
Network Chair and Board member
of the SBC Interagency Counci on
Homelessness
Jennifer Neri [email protected]
Kevin sent email saying Thank
you, but did not rsvp, he did
forward to Jennifer Neri, whom
RSVPd yes
Jessica Leal [email protected]
David Yrigoyen [email protected]
Don Brown [email protected]
Randy Coe [email protected]
Mac O'Donnell [email protected]
Stephanie Pazarin [email protected] RSVP Link sent Dan Tate [email protected]
Melissa Hughes [email protected]
Tesoro Lopez [email protected]
Joel Harrison [email protected]
Mike Arias Jr. [email protected]
Kari Leon [email protected] Council Member
Brigette Martinez [email protected]
Gisele White [email protected] RSVP Link sent
Antonio Brown [email protected]
Darlene Mendez [email protected] Transportation Planner, Caltrans Enrique Arcilla [email protected]
Greg Raven [email protected]
Gregory Benson [email protected]
Zoom RSVP Confirmations
2nd Workshop RSVPs not on list

Page 317 of 463 ends

Name (Original Name) User Email Join Time Leave Time Duration (Minutes) Guest Terra Nova Planning & Research# Inc. [email protected] 2/24/21 17:50 2/24/21 19:03 73 No 17602175922 2/24/21 18:05 2/24/21 18:06 2 Yes
19518097045 2/24/21 18:03 2/24/21 18:27 25 Yes
Antonio Brown [email protected] 2/24/21 17:55 2/24/21 17:55 1 Yes Antonio Brown [email protected] 2/24/21 17:55 2/24/21 18:09 14 Yes Daniel Alcayaga [email protected] 2/24/21 18:00 2/24/21 18:00 1 Yes Daniel Alcayaga [email protected] 2/24/21 18:00 2/24/21 19:03 64 Yes Daniel Alcayaga 2/24/21 18:03 2/24/21 18:03 1 Yes
Daniel Alcayaga 2/24/21 18:03 2/24/21 19:03 60 Yes
Danni H. 2/24/21 18:05 2/24/21 18:05 1 Yes
Danni H. [email protected] 2/24/21 18:05 2/24/21 18:05 1 Yes Enrique Arcilla [email protected] 2/24/21 18:00 2/24/21 18:00 1 Yes Enrique Arcilla [email protected] 2/24/21 18:00 2/24/21 19:03 63 Yes Greg Raven [email protected] 2/24/21 18:57 2/24/21 18:57 1 Yes Greg Raven [email protected] 2/24/21 18:57 2/24/21 19:03 6 Yes iPad greg benson 2/24/21 18:08 2/24/21 18:08 1 Yes
iPad greg benson 2/24/21 18:08 2/24/21 18:39 31 Yes
Joel 2/24/21 18:04 2/24/21 18:04 1 Yes
Joel 2/24/21 18:04 2/24/21 19:03 60 Yes
Joy Silver [email protected] 2/24/21 17:50 2/24/21 17:51 1 Yes Joy Silver (Joy Silver) [email protected] 2/24/21 17:51 2/24/21 19:03 73 Yes Kevin 2/24/21 18:06 2/24/21 18:06 1 Yes
Kevin 2/24/21 18:06 2/24/21 19:03 57 Yes
Lori LAMSON [email protected] 2/24/21 17:51 2/24/21 17:51 1 Yes Lori LAMSON [email protected] 2/24/21 17:51 2/24/21 18:30 40 Yes Lori LAMSON [email protected] 2/24/21 18:50 2/24/21 19:03 13 Yes Lori LAMSON [email protected] 2/24/21 18:30 2/24/21 18:50 20 Yes Oasis House 2/24/21 18:10 2/24/21 18:10 1 Yes
Oasis House 2/24/21 18:10 2/24/21 18:33 23 Yes
Orlando Acevedo [email protected] 2/24/21 17:58 2/24/21 17:59 1 Yes ZOOM PARTICIPANTS 2.24.21

Page 318 of 463 ends

Orlando Acevedo [email protected] 2/24/21 17:59 2/24/21 19:03 65 Yes Silvia Caraballo 2/24/21 17:59 2/24/21 17:59 1 Yes
Silvia Caraballo 2/24/21 17:59 2/24/21 18:10 11 Yes
Silvia Caraballo 2/24/21 18:10 2/24/21 18:17 8 Yes
sophie steeno 2/24/21 18:42 2/24/21 18:42 1 Yes
sophie steeno 2/24/21 18:42 2/24/21 19:05 23 Yes
tom.s 2/24/21 18:15 2/24/21 18:15 1 Yes
tom.s 2/24/21 18:15 2/24/21 19:03 48 Yes
User 2/24/21 17:59 2/24/21 17:59 1 Yes
User 2/24/21 17:59 2/24/21 19:03 64 Yes

Page 319 of 463 ends

Apple Valley News
Apple Valley seeks community input on housing plan
Post Date: 02/17/2021
Apple Valley seeks community input on housing plan
Apple Valley, CA – February 17, 2021: Next week, the Town of Apple Valley will host a virtual workshop to update the Town’s certified Housing Element plan.

Open to both residents and non-residents, the virtual workshop will be held online via Zoom on Wednesday, Feb. 24, at 6 p.m. The Town is seeking input on the ways the Town can meet housing needs in Apple Valley and to incorporate these comments into the Housing Element update. This second workshop will also focus on the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the Town.

As part of the Town’s General Plan, which serves as a local community’s "blueprint" for how it will continue to grow and develop, the Housing Element is a series of goals, policies, and implementation measures for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing in a local community.

Local jurisdictions throughout California, are required to update their local Housing Elements every eight years. During this period, October 2021 to October 2029, the Town must have a State certified Housing Element to be eligible for certain programs and grants. Failure to certify a local Housing Element can result in further loss of local control over housing development decisions by the Town and its residents. The deadline to have a compliant Housing Element Update is October 2021.

To participate in the workshop via Zoom, please RSVP by email to [email protected], by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting (requests received after 10:00 a.m. on meeting day may not be processed).

Apple Valley seeks community input on housing plan | News | Tow... https://www.applevalley.org/Home/Components/News/News/4470... 1 of 2 2/18/21, 3:57 PM

Page 320 of 463 ends

Specific questions regarding the workshop or Housing Element may be directed to Daniel Alcayaga, Planning Manager, at (760) 240-7000 x 7205 or [email protected].

Apple Valley seeks community input on housing plan | News | Tow... https://www.applevalley.org/Home/Components/News/News/4470... 2 of 2 2/18/21, 3:57 PM

Page 321 of 463 ends

Page 322 of 463 ends

Page 323 of 463 ends

Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 08:23:27 Pacific Daylight Time

Page 1 of 2 ends

Page 324 of 463 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

2021.

We invite you to review the Element through this link: www.av.town/housingelement For questions or comments, please contact Daniel Alcayaga, AICP at (760) 240-7000 ext. 7205 or [email protected]

Page 325 of 463 ends

Page 326 of 463 ends

Adopted Housing Element Update
March 8, 2022
Revised August 22, 2022Revised November 21, 2022
90 Appendix B
Fair Housing Assessment

Page 327 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
1 Assessment of Fair Housing:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Town of Apple Valley
AB 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Under state law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The Town has completed the following:

1. Include a Program that Affirmatively Furthers Fair Housing and Promotes Housing Opportunities throughout the Community for Protected Classes (applies to housing elements beginning January 1, 2019).

2. Conduct an Assessment of Fair Housing, which includes summary of fair housing issues, an analysis of available federal, state, and local data and local knowledge to identify, and an assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues.

3. Prepare the Housing Element Land Inventory and Identification of Sites through the Lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

To comply with AB 686, the Town has completed the following outreach and analysis.

A. Outreach
2016 Assessment of Fair Housing
The Town prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) in 2016/2017 as part of its participation in the Apple Valley/Victorville HOME Consortium, a partnership between the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville established for the purpose of obtaining federal HOME fund entitlement status. The AFH analyzed local (Apple Valley, Victorville) and regional (Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario) fair housing trends from 1990 to 2016.

In 2016, the Apple Valley/Victorville Consortium (“the Consortium”) held community meetings in both English and Spanish, and conducted individual consultations with service providers, stakeholders, and other organizations who serve special needs groups. Stakeholders included those involved with transitional housing and rental assistance, and real estate and lending industries. The Consortium utilized their respective websites and social media accounts to

Page 328 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
2 announce and advertise community meetings, surveys, and hearing dates. A thirty-question survey was disseminated through multiple channels to solicit responses from members of the public who may be harder to reach by methods of face-to-face contact at community events or were possibly not interested in attending a community meeting. Stakeholder organizations received a specific survey to further assist in obtaining additional local or regional data, as well as feedback on housing needs, barriers to fair and affordable housing, and opportunities for development from all economic segments of the community.

Two community meetings were held in July 2016. Both were structured in the same format:
participants were introduced to the AFH plan process through a presentation and discussed a series of questions related to housing and community development needs, their presumptions regarding areas considered segregated and/or challenged by poverty, and other fair housing issues and concerns.

Stakeholder meetings were held in August 2016 in a similar format to the community meetings.

Stakeholders expressed concern about a variety of fair housing issues during consultation, including homelessness, affordable housing for special populations, safe neighborhoods and the lack of transportation, employment, and an educated work force. The primary concern stakeholders felt needed to be addressed was the lack of homeless shelters in the High Desert area. The High Desert is subject to extreme temperatures that can result in dangerous conditions for the homeless population and most homeless services are in the City of San Bernardino, or other southern jurisdictions, creating a disparity of services available between the High Desert and the surrounding region. Other concerns voiced by community members during the AFH outreach process included:
• Reliable transportation services and access are limited to some lower income households, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
• Safe, affordable housing for seniors, the disabled, and youth is needed, particularly in proximity to transit, grocery stores, and recreation services. • Lack of maintenance of foreclosed properties.

In response to the issues discussed above, Apple Valley elected to continue contract services (funded through CDBG allocation) with the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) to assist residents, landlords, and other housing professionals with housing discrimination, mediation, and finance issues. The Town expanded outreach and education services to inform the public about fair housing rights and services; it offered written materials and workshops for property managers, housing professionals, and elected officials. It continued efforts to petition for additional Housing Choice Voucher assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB) has closed its ability to provide additional vouchers to new households. To address the lack of accessible housing for people with disabilities, the Town amended its Zoning Code to establish a Reasonable Accommodation procedure. To expand access to lending programs for homeownership amongst minority populations, particularly black households, The Town agreed to work with government agencies and nonprofit groups to provide credit counseling and

Page 329 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
3 foreclosure workshops, published lending data, and coordinated with minority Chambers of Commerce to promote programs and services. The Consortium has made efforts to expand public transportation services to those with limited access by providing transit maps at public locations and expanding programs for seniors and the disabled about navigating the transit system. It has continued to provide proactive code enforcement to address issues associated with lack of maintenance of foreclosed properties.

See Appendix 1 for the full 2016 Apple Valley Assessment of Fair Housing. 2021 Housing Element Update
In addition to the 2016 AFH outreach efforts, the Town conducted public outreach in 2021 as part of the Housing Element update process. As discussed in the public participation section of this Housing Element, outreach efforts focused on community and stakeholder workshops, public hearings, and disseminating information through electronic mail notifications, social media and postings on the Town’s website. Primary concerns raised were the need to expand infrastructure (water and sewer), affordability for limited income seniors, and increased costs of development.

Opportunities to address these challenges include the expansion of available assistance programs and streamlining the affordable housing approval process to reduce time and costs for developers.

A full summary of feedback gathered during these meetings and consultations can be found in Appendix 1.

B. Assessment of Fair Housing
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires the Town of Apple Valley to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. High resource areas are those with high index scores for a variety of educational, environmental, and economic indicators. These indicators include high levels of employment and close proximity to jobs, access to effective educational opportunities for both children and adults, low concentration of poverty, and low levels of environmental pollutants, among others. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as high resource areas but may have longer commutes to places of employment, lower median home values, fewer educational opportunities, or other factors that lower their indices for economic, environmental, and educational indicators. Low resource areas have the most limited access to all resources. Areas of high segregation and poverty are those that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the County, and at least 30 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($26,500 annually for a family of four in 2021).

Page 330 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
4 a. Integration and Segregation Patterns
To assess patterns of segregation and integration, Apple Valley analyzed several characteristics including race and ethnicity, disability, familial status and household income. Analysis of the characteristics above indicate there is no substantial evidence of segregation based on disability, but there is potential for segregation based on income that disproportionally effects minorities and female headed households with children. And while there are no areas of low diversity in the Town, there are opportunities to improve racial segregation. As shown in Figures 4, 5 and 7, the same geographical areas within the Town are subject to lower median income, increased poverty rates, and higher percentages of female headed households with children. In this same area is the Town’s only area of “High Segregation and Poverty” (Figure 8), meaning it has an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county, and at least 30 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($26,200 annually for a family of four in 2020).

According to the Dissimilarity Index, the Town of Apple Valley has low levels of racial and income segregation. However, other indicators such as poverty level, concentrated areas of minorities, and familial status suggest patterns of concentrated areas may be related to access to opportunities or a disproportion of housing needs.

The following section provides detailed analysis of segregation patterns in the Town of Apple Valley.

Race and Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility.

In 2019, the largest racial/ethnic group in San Bernardino County identified as Hispanic (of any race) at 53 percent and the second largest was White, Non-Hispanic persons at 28 percent. Black persons made up 7.8 percent, Asian persons made up 6.9 percent, and persons of more than one race made up 2.5 percent. According to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, the County’s racial and ethnic composition changed from 2010 to 2019 with the Hispanic population increasing by 19 percent and the White, non-Hispanic population decreasing by 12 percent.1 The High Desert subregion of the County, where Apple Valley is located, experienced a minor increase in the percentages of Black and Asian populations between 2010 and 2019 at 6 percent and 3 percent, respectively, as well as a significant increase in the percentage of the Hispanic population at 35 percent (the largest increase of all the subregions). Moderate decreases in the White (13 percent), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18 percent), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (20 percent) populations in this subregion also occurred. 1 Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021.

Page 331 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
5 The Town of Apple Valley experienced similar trends as the High Desert subregion with the Hispanic population increasing by 44 percent and the White, non-Hispanic population decreasing by 10 percent.2 Currently, the largest racial group in Apple Valley identifies as “White, NonHispanic” (48 percent).3 Dominance values are used to measure the degree to which a single race is the predominant race of a particular area or census tract. Values range from 0 to 100 percent, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of racial predominance of a particular racial group among all groups measured. A predominance value of less than 10 percent is considered a “slim gap,” a value of 10-50 percent is considered a “sizable dominance gap,” and a value more than 50 percent is considered a “predominant gap.” Most of the Town has a White population dominance value of 10-50 percent, which is considered a “sizable gap,” but an overall moderate value rating (see Figure 1).
4 There are two census tracts with a “predominant gap” (dominance value greater than 50 percent) located along the Town’s southern boundaries and are partially within the boundaries of Hesperia and unincorporated county lands. Both tracts have a population that is 70 percent White/Non-Hispanic. The City of Hesperia, immediately southwest of the Town, appears to be evenly split between predominantly White/Non-Hispanic and Hispanic populations, with the Hispanic population clustered in the northwest portion of the city that borders Victorville. In Victorville, immediately west of the Town, the predominant racial group is Hispanic with only several tracts on the eastern and southern boundaries considered predominantly White/Non-Hispanic. There is one census track with a “slim gap” of less than 10 percent located in the south-central portion of Town.

Between 1990 and 2010, segregation in Apple Valley increased in all racial/ethnic categories, except for a decrease among Asian or Pacific Islander/White populations in the 2000 Census. The 2016 AFH determined that, compared to Victorville, Apple Valley had accommodated less population growth and smaller shares of minority groups and protected classes, including Black, Hispanic, foreign-born, limited English proficiency (LEP) persons, and households with children.

This was attributed to Apple Valley’s zoning code that historically focused on rural single-family residential and estate sized lots that offered less affordable rents and home ownership opportunities. However, the report determined that the Town’s currently approved Housing Element provides a variety of land uses to accommodate housing units across all levels of density and affordability.

HUD defines Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) as census tracts with a non-White population over 50 percent and with 40 percent or three times the overall poverty rate. In the High Desert region, there is one R/ECAP located on the outskirts of the Cities of Victorville and Adelanto and one in the City of Barstow. There are no R/ECAPs located within Town boundaries. However, there is one area of “High Segregation and Poverty” centrally located 2 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Jurisdiction Demographics Table” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. June 2021 3 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Demographic Profile Table,” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. July 2021. 4 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Predominate Population (2010) Map,” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. July 2021.

Page 332 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
6 in Town bounded by Corwin Road to the north and west, Dale Evans Parkway to the east, and Highway 18 to the south (Figure 8).

The area of “High Segregation and Poverty” is a highly diverse (Figure 2) single-family residential neighborhood, is considered an affordable location (Figure 6), and is in proximity to major commercial corridors (Highway 18 and Dale Evans Parkway) with access to transit (VVTA bus routes). The area is currently served by Liberty Utilities for domestic water and Apple Valley Public Works Department for sanitary sewer. There are two parks located within the Area’s boundaries (Thunderbird Park and Corwin Park), and one located immediately east of its boundaries (Brewster Park). Two schools are located within the area’s boundaries, including Phoenix Academy (elementary) and Apple Valley Christian Academy (preschool through 12th grade). All residential roadways in this area are paved; however, the majority have soft shoulders (compacted dirt) and lack paved sidewalks. This condition is not uncommon, as the Town is predominately rural and most roadways in residential neighborhoods have dirt shoulders.

The area of “High Segregation and Poverty” also has a higher percentage of the non-White population (Figure 10), higher percentage of female headed households with children (Figure 7), lower median incomes (Figure 4), and experiences higher rates of poverty (Figure 5) and overpayment (Figures 13 (Renters) and 14 (Owners)). This suggests that access to jobs may not be the dominant factor behind the concentration of lower income households, but rather the type of jobs and housing available and other socioeconomic factors. To address housing affordability, the Town has located fourteen RHNA sites within and immediately adjacent to the area of “High Segregation and Poverty” which will increase access to lower income housing options and help alleviate various economic hardships. Combined, these fourteen sites encompass 60 acres with the potential to add 955 lower income units, as shown below:
• APN: 044101132, 8.10 acres, 162 potential units;
• APN: 044101130, 8.10 acres, 162 potential units;
• APN: 044101124, 4.76 acres, 82 potential units;
• APN: 044101125, 4.74 acres, 77 potential units;
• APN: 044101141, 0.91 acres, 18 potential units;
• APN: 044101143, 1.14 acres, 22 potential units;
• APN: 044101142, 1.14 acres, 22 potential units;
• APN: 044101139, 1.33 acres, 19 potential units;
• APN: 044101106, 10.12 acres, 67 potential units;
• APN: 044101111, 1.84 acres, 15 potential units;
• APN: 044101107, 4.53 acres, 29 potential units;
• APN: 044114154, 4.46 acres, 110 potential units;
• APN: 044113301, 4.60 acres, 92 potential units.

Overall, the Town’s commitment to provide affordable housing options in the area of “High Segregation and Poverty,” the availability of utility infrastructure, and access to community amenities such as parks and schools are indicative of an inclusive and equitable community.

Page 333 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
7 Figure 1:

Predominance of the White/Non-Hispanic Population

Page 334 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
8 The Dissimilarity Index is used to analyze the relative extent of racial and ethnic segregation within the Town. The Dissimilarity Index is a demographic measure of the evenness with which two groups are distributed across component geographic areas that make up a larger area.

Values range from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the groups measured. Index values of 0 to 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 59 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values above 60 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

Most subregions in San Bernardino County, including the High Desert, have low to moderate levels of segregation between White and Hispanic residents, apart from the Mountain region which has a high level of segregation. The indices for Apple Valley and the High Desert from 2013 to 2019 are shown below. As shown in Table 1, both the High Desert subregion and Town of Apple Valley have an overall low to moderate level of segregation. The High Desert has higher levels of segregation, particularly between the Black/White (50.59) and Asian or Pacific Islander/White (47.91) groups. In Apple Valley, the Non-White/White and Black/White populations experienced an 8 percent to 21 percent increase in segregation, however both indices are under 40.00 and are therefore considered relatively low indicators of segregation in the jurisdiction. The Hispanic/White and Asian or Pacific Islander/White populations experienced a 6 to 15 percent decrease in segregation, however the Asian or Pacific Islander/White population has an index of 43.10, which is considered a moderate indicator of segregation. There are no areas of high segregation in the High Desert subregion or the Town.

Table 1:

Racial Dissimilarity Index, 2013-2019
2013 2019 Change
Town of Apple Valley1
Non-White/White 23.23 25.21 +8.5 percent
Black/White 24.00 28.97 +20.7 percent
Hispanic/White 39.16 33.41 -14.6 percent
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 46.30 43.10 -6.9 percent High Desert Subregion2
Non-White/White 34.32 33.20 -1.12 percent
Black/White 49.03 50.59 -0.84 percent
Hispanic/White 33.24 32.41 +1.56 percent
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 54.58 47.91 -6.67 percent Sources:

1. Dissimilarity Calculations by Race, prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, 2021. Apple Valley Assessment of Fair Housing, 2016.

2. Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021.

Page 335 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
9 In addition to the Dissimilarity Index, the Diversity Index was used to compare the racial and ethnic diversity within the Town and surrounding communities. Diversity values range from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of diversity among racial groups. While there are not any racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Apple Valley, there is a noticeable contrast between the diversity levels in the Town and surrounding communities. Most of Victorville has a diversity value higher than 85, and Hesperia mostly has a diversity value higher than 70. As shown in Figure 2, Diversity Index, most of the Town has a diversity value greater than 55, which is a moderate value consistent with the Town’s moderate racial dominance values, but much lower than surrounding communities. There are several, smaller areas with a diversity value higher than 85, and one area with a value between 40-55. There are no areas with a diversity value lower than 40. The areas of Town with lower diversity values are located along the southwest boundary of the Town and Hesperia. This area has a higher racial (White) dominance value consistent with the lower diversity rating. Overall, Apple Valley is a wellintegrated community, and racial/ethnicity divides are not apparent in any tract. It has relatively low indicators of segregation which, for all race/ethnic groups, are lower than those in the High Desert subregion.

In the combined Apple Valley/Victorville area, compared to other racial/ethnic groups, Hispanics have historically experienced overarching patterns of disparity regarding access to opportunity.5 In 2016, this group was indexed the lowest on average in all seven categories evaluated: lack of poverty, school proficiency, labor market, transit, low transportation cost, jobs proximity, and environmental health. As shown in Figure 10, higher percentages of the non-White population reside in the geographic areas identified as having concentrations of poverty and lower TCAC access opportunity scores. Although there are no racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty as defined by HUD, this geographic trend is consistent with patterns of disparity shared amongst minorities. To better understand the underlying causes of these concentration patterns, the Town evaluated access to opportunities for similar patterns. 5 2016 Apple Valley Assessment of Fair Housing.

Page 336 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
10 Figure 2:

Diversity Index, 2018

Page 337 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
11 Persons with Disability
According to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, the total percentage of persons with disabilities made up nearly 11 percent of the County overall.6 The percentage of the population with a disability generally increased by varying degrees for all subregions and for the County between 2012 and 2019. The greatest increase was experienced in the Morongo Basin and Mountain subregions. In the High Desert subregion, disabilities that experienced the largest increase were relative to the “independent living difficulty,” “self-care difficulty,” and “cognitive disability” categories, at 17 percent, 13 percent, and 10 percent, respectively.

From 2010 to 2019, the percentage of the Town’s population with a disability increased by 8 percent. This increase is most likely due to an aging population because it is consistent with the Town’s overall population increase of 8 percent during the same period. In 2014, the percent of the population with a disability was higher (20-30 percent) in the southern portion of Town than in surrounding areas (10-20 percent); however, according to the 2015–2019 ACS, this concentration shifted to a smaller area in the center of Town north of Highway 18 (see Figure 3, Population with a Disability, 2014 - 2019). Like the previous location, this new central location is in proximity to a variety of services including retail, pharmacies, restaurants, Town facilities, as well as access to transit along Highway 18 and Navajo Road.

The Town complies with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Building Code to provide accessible and “barrier free” units for disabled residents. The Apple Valley Development Code provides for the development of single-room occupancy facilities, group homes, residential care facilities, and supportive and transitional housing that can serve the housing needs of individuals with disabilities. Handicapped residential care facilities are permitted in all residential districts, including M-U. Section 9.29.190 of the Development Code addresses Reasonable Accommodations and the process for disabled individuals to request modifications for adaptive features in housing. Ramps, stairs, and similar structures necessary for accessibility are allowed by right, and the Town does not impose any additional requirements on accessible units and housing for the disabled. In addition, the Victor Valley Community Services Council offers no-cost non-emergency transportation for low-moderate income disabled persons. Therefore, despite an overall increase in the population with a disability, they appear to be well integrated in the community and have equal access to all housing and economic opportunities.
6 Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021.

Page 338 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
12 Household Income
The Town also assessed the concentrations of households below the poverty line to determine if there is a potential for segregation based on income.

The State, County, High Desert subregion, and Town of Apple Valley all experienced an increase in median income over the past 10 years. According to HCD, the state median incomes in 2014 and 2019 were $71,400 and $87,100, respectively, which is a 22 percent increase. During this same period, the County’s median income increased at a lower rate of 13 percent, from $55,845 to $63,362. The High Desert subregion’s median household income increased by 8 percent from $49,188 to $52,881.7
7 Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021.

Figure 3:

Population with a Disability, 2014-2019

Page 339 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
13 The median household income in Apple Valley increased from $50,066 in 2010 to $54,537 in 2019, which is a 9 percent increase overall and is 5.3 percent higher than the subregion’s 2019 median income.8 As shown in Figures 4 and 5, most of the Town appears to have a relatively low percentage of residents (less than 20 percent) who fall below the poverty line ($26,500 for a family of four in 2021). In fact, several census tracts appear to have populations that make at least the county’s medium income or more. Areas with a median income that is higher than the county and state median income appear to be clustered in the central west portion of the Town.

The higher percentages (20 percent-40 percent) of residents below the poverty line are limited to two areas; one centrally located and one along the Town’s southeast boundaries bordering county lands. As to be expected, these locations coincide with the areas of lower income.

To be considered economically disadvantaged, the median income would need to be 80 percent or less than the statewide average, which is equivalent to a median income of $60,188 or below.

Although there are areas within the Town with incomes that are higher than the county and statewide average, the Town, as a whole, is considered economically disadvantaged because the median income is $53,023, which is 70.4 percent of the statewide average.

Concentrations of households with similar incomes may suggest a uniform development pattern and need for more varied housing stock. As shown in Table 19: Vacancy Status, 92.5 percent of all housing units in Apple Valley are occupied and 7.5 percent units are vacant. The largest category of vacant units are those “for rent,” followed by “other vacant” and “for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.” The homeowner vacancy rate is 1.9 percent, and the rental vacancy rate is 5.7 percent. These vacancy rates are both extremely low, suggesting little room for mobility and high demand for what affordable units there are. If availability and distribution of affordable housing are improved, it will encourage a more economically diverse community.

Concentrations of lower income households are not unique to Apple Valley. The City of Victorville to the west has larger concentrated areas with more than 30 percent population living below the poverty line when compared to Apple Valley or the City of Hesperia. West of Victorville in the City of Adelanto, there appears to be a similar pattern of lower income concentrations; however, Adelanto appears to have a relatively higher percentage of residents (greater than 20 percent) who fall below the poverty line overall. County lands east of Apple Valley also appear to have large areas with more than 20 percent of the population living below the poverty level, however the residential patterns in county lands are highly dispersed and it is unclear if there are specific geographic areas with higher concentrations of residents living below the poverty level. 8 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Demographic Profile Table,” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. July 2021.

Page 340 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
14 Figure 4:

Median Income, 2019

Page 341 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
15 Figure 5:

Poverty Status, 2019

Page 342 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
16 The State’s affordable housing guidelines and Location Affordability Index (LAI) were also used to determine if affordability was a contributing factor behind the concentration of lower income households. The LAI provides estimates of household housing and transportation costs at the neighborhood level. As shown in Figure 6, then entire Town has an affordability index value of under $1,500, which is considered very affordable. Furthermore, an affordable monthly housing payment for a low-income family of four ($1,506) exceeds the median gross rent for a 3-bedroom unit in Apple Valley ($1,236). Therefore, rental housing affordability is not considered a major contributing factor behind the concentration of lower income households.

As regards homeownership, an affordable home purchase price for a low-income family of four ($195,600) is less than the median housing value in Apple Valley ($269,928). Low-income households could face challenges achieving homeownership, and affordability of ownership units should be an important consideration in Apple Valley. The Town also participates in regional, state, and federal programs which assist very low-, low- and moderate-income households in buying their own home (Program 1.C.8). The Town refers residents needing housing affordability assistance to the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB), which provides HUD Section 8 rental assistance to lower income renters and operates low-income housing projects in Apple Valley. Homeownership assistance loans are also available at the County and State levels (see section on Existing Affordable Housing Programs for full list). In 2020, the Town operated an Emergency Rental Assistance Program to assist eligible residents whose incomes were adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic by job loss, furlough, or reduction of hours.

There are several housing developments within the Town that provided subsidized housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities. The Park Apple Valley Apartments located on Navajo Road and the Halter Haven Apartments located on Powhatan Road offer affordable units in proximity to the southernmost area identified as having lower income households, and a higher percentage of minority populations. The Town analyzed the sites identified for residential development in this Housing Element through the lens of fair housing to ensure affordable housing opportunities are evenly distributed throughout the community in both low-, moderate- and high resource areas. Several sites located within, and in proximity to, the area of high segregation and poverty, that will increase housing options for those in need and alleviate cost burdens. The Town has included actions in Program 1.A.1 that requires that housing constructed expressly for low- and moderate-income households not be concentrated in any single area to equally provide affordable options throughout the community, especially in high or moderate resource areas.

Page 343 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
17 Figure 6:

Location Affordability

Page 344 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
18 The Dissimilarity Index was used to analyze the relative extent of income segregation within the Town. The Dissimilarity Index is a demographic measure of the evenness with which two groups are distributed across component geographic areas that make up a larger area. Values range from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the groups measured. According to dissimilarity calculations, the Town of Apple Valley has an index value of 30 which is considered a relatively low indicator of income segregation.9 Therefore, although the Town is considered economically disadvantaged as a whole and has several areas with higherthan-average concentrations of low-income households, these households appear to be evenly dispersed throughout the community with no indication of substantial geographic segregation.

Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households.

Single parent households are protected by fair housing law. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage among other biases. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Female-headed households generally have lower incomes, higher rates of poverty, and lower home ownership rates. Primary housing needs for this population is affordability and units of appropriate size for the age and gender mix of children. Other considerations include proximity to schools, childcare facilities, recreation areas, and other family services and amenities.

From 2010 to 2019, the County experienced a 9 percent increase of households with children and a 30 percent decreased in single-parent households. The High Desert subregion saw a decrease in single-parent households at a similar rate of 28 percent, while the percent of households with children experienced no significant change.

In 2018, the majority of households (53.4 percent) within Apple Valley consisted of married couple families, followed by non-family households (24.0 percent), female-headed households with no husband present (16.2 percent), and male-headed households with no wife present (6.4 percent). Female-headed households generally have lower incomes, higher rates of poverty, and lower home ownership rates. Approximately 45 percent of the female-headed households have children under age 18, and 50 percent of all families with incomes below the poverty level are female-headed households. Compared to neighboring jurisdictions, the Town has a higher percentage of children in married-couple households but shares similar patterns of concentrated areas with a higher percentage of female headed households with children. As shown in Figure 7, there are two geographic areas where concentration of female headed households with children is between 20-60 percent. As expected, these concentration patterns appear consistent with areas of lower median income and higher rates of poverty. Primary housing needs for this population is affordability and units of appropriate size for the age and gender mix of children.

Other considerations include proximity to schools, childcare facilities, recreation areas, and other family services and amenities.
9 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Dissimilarity Index, Income Table,” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. July 2021.

Page 345 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
19 Figure 7:

Female Headed Households with Children

Page 346 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
20 b. Access to Opportunity
Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of lowincome communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

Disparities in access to opportunity are generally measured by access to education, employment, transportation, and healthy neighborhoods, though other opportunities may also include low rates of violent crime, safe and decent housing, and recreation.

To assist in the analysis of opportunities, the HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) to create Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains; economic, environmental, and education.

These domains are made up of a set of indicators as follows:
• Economic: Poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. • Environmental: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 pollution indicators and values • Education: Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and study poverty rates.

The more affordable areas of the County are lower in access to opportunity while the more expensive areas of the County have higher access to resources and opportunity. As shown in Figure 8, most of the Town is considered to have low to moderate resources. 10 Low resource areas are concentrated in the central, eastern portion of the Town generally located south of Waalew Road and north of Bear Valley Road. There is one “High Resource” area bounded by Yucca Loma Road to the north, Kiowa Road to the east, Bear Valley Road to the south, and Town limits to the west, with several small pockets of high resource areas located along the Town’s northeastern boundaries. There is one area of “High Segregation and Poverty” centrally located in Town bounded by Corwin Road to the north and west, Dale Evans Road to the east, and Highway 18 to the south. As predicted, the Town’s area of “High Segregation and Poverty” is also located in a low resource area.
10 Affirmatively furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development. Online database accessed 2021.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Page 347 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
21 Figure 8:

Opportunity Areas: Composite Score, 2021

Page 348 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
22 Educational Opportunities
This index combines math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty data to measure outcomes and quality of education systems in an area. The Regional Assessment of Fair Housing used subregional TCAC education map scores to determine the educational quality per County census tract. Scores range from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 being the highest education score. Educational scores in the High Desert subregion have the lowest scores of the County. As shown in Figure 9, the majority of the Town has a low to low-moderate education score (0 – 0.50).

The funding and success of an education system is often linked to the economic health of an area.

For the 2018-2019 school year, 58 percent of Statewide education funding came from the state and 32 percent of funding came from local sources, including property taxes. When compared to Figure 4 Median Household Income, there is a correlation between areas of higher education scores and higher median incomes.

Figure 9:

Opportunity Areas: Education Score, 2021

Page 349 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
23 Employment Opportunities
Employment opportunities are concentrated in the southwest corner of the County, specifically the East and West Valley regions. Employment opportunities decrease the farther away from these Valley subregions, especially for those living in the High Desert, North Desert, and Morongo Basin subregions. According to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, in San Bernardino County, those census tracts with the farthest proximity to jobs are typically the same census tracts with high rates of poverty and are predominantly Hispanic, which is consistent with Town mapping (Figure 5 Poverty Status and Figure 10 Racial Demographics (2018): Percent of Total Non-White Population).

Figure 10:

Racial Demographics (2018): Percent of Total
Non-White Population

Page 350 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
24 The TCAC uses the following to measure economic opportunity in a census tract: poverty rates, population of adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher, employment, proximity to jobs, and median home value. Economic opportunity, as defined by the TCAC, also tend to be higher in the East and West Valley and Mountain subregions, and lower in the Morongo Basin and Desert subregions. This suggests that access to jobs may be a dominant factor behind the concentration of lower income households.

According to local employment trends from 2010 to 2019, all races saw a decrease in unemployment rates except for the White population, which saw a very slight increase (0.4 percent) in unemployment.11 This suggests that in the addition to the access to jobs, the access of higher paying jobs may be a contributing factor behind concentrations of lower income households. The Town has been actively planning for future development and redevelopment to increase local employment opportunities and housing stock. A variety of new jobs will be offered across the Town and the Victor Valley region through the following major projects:
• The Village Specific Plan, which envisions new development and redevelopment in the downtown Village area along the Highway 18 corridor. The Specific Plan encourages development of up to 8 million square feet of commercial, retail, office and industrial development that will create construction, commercial retail, restaurant, and service jobs. The Specific Plan will also facilitate 700 potential new housing units. • The Brightline High Speed Train transit station and maintenance facility at I-15 and Dale Evans Parkway will bring construction, transportation, maintenance, retail, and restaurant jobs to the Town and region. The project is expected to be operational by 2024/2025 and serve as an economic catalyst that positively impacts long-term local and regional economic development, employment, and housing. Current estimates project that it could create more than 23,000 construction jobs (through 2024) and 6,600 operational jobs (through 2029) in the Victor Valley region.

The region’s health care industry can be expected to continue to grow, bringing a variety of new, higher paying health-related professional, technical, and support jobs. These future developments will diversify and increase local job opportunities especially for the central and northern Town areas and improve job proximity for lower income populations. The Town has included actions in Program 1.A.2 that encourages higher density residential development be located in close proximity to public transportation, community services, and recreational resources. To further increase access to job opportunities, the Town collaborates with the Victor Valley Transit Authority to expand services that provide reliable public transportation options to 11 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Employment Trends Table,” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. July 2021.

Page 351 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
25 low-income households and other residents with limited access (Program 1.B.4). Flexible educational programs and job training services can help householders obtain higher paying jobs.

As shown in Figure 11, The Town has a low to low-moderate economic score, consistent with the education score. Also, areas with lower access to jobs and lower economic opportunity have higher poverty rates and tend to mirror those found in the poverty status maps, as shown in Figure 5. However, the same areas with lower economic scores have higher median household incomes, as shown in Figure 4, and the reason is unclear. It is possible that there is a higher concentration of households with more individuals living under one roof, such as a multigenerational living arrangement, that would contribute to a higher total household income.

Figure 11:

Opportunity Areas: Economic Score, 2021

Page 352 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
26 Transportation Opportunities
Each County subregion has its own transit authority and services, some of which connect to population and job centers in the County. The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) provides bus service to Apple Valley and the surrounding region. Bus routes cover Highway 18 and many streets within the downtown area. As previously discussed, the downtown area has high percentages of renters, Hispanic/Latino residents, higher levels of poverty, and households with children. Therefore, there does not appear to be any disparity in bus service that would adversely impact a minority or protected group.

Environmental Opportunities
Another potential indicator of social and economic disparity is exposure to pollution.

CalEnviroScreen 3.0 is a science-based mapping tool prepared by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) that identifies communities most affected by pollution. It assigns numerical scores to census tracts using environmental, health, and socioeconomic information, where 0 percent represents the lowest pollution burden and 100 percent represents the highest.

Factors that measure environmental health impacts and pollution burden include exposure (levels of ozone, particulate matter, diesel, water quality, pesticide use, traffic density, and toxic releases) and environmental (cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste generators and facilities, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites and facilities) effects. Many of these environmental effects are byproducts of population centers, meaning the more heavily populated subregions of the County, the East and West Valley, experience poor environmental quality.

As shown in Figure 12, Apple Valley has a high environmental score of greater than 50 percent (0.50 = 1.0). Although there appears to be no data available for the center of Town, it can be assumed that this area also has a high environmental score consistent with the immediate area.

Therefore, the Town is considered an environmentally favorable area.

Page 353 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
27 c. Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk As discussed earlier under Existing Housing Stock, 2,750 households (11.5 percent of total households) in Apple Valley are considered extremely low-income. Most (67 percent) ELI households are renters. More than 85 percent experience housing problems, including incomplete kitchen and plumbing facilities, overcrowding, and/or cost burden greater than 30 percent of income (overpayment). Nearly 85 percent are in overpayment situations, and 73.6 percent are in severe overpayment situations in which housing costs are greater than 50 percent of household income.

Figure 12:

Opportunity Areas: Environmental Score, 2021

Page 354 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
28 Disproportionate housing need is defined as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area.’ 24 C.F.R. § 5.152” The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, homelessness, and displacement.

Cost Burden
Measuring the portion of a household’s gross income that is spent for housing is an indicator of the dynamics of demand and supply. This measurement is often expressed in terms of “over payers”: households paying an excessive amount of their income for housing, therefore decreasing the amount of disposable income available for other needs. This indicator is an important measurement of local housing market conditions as it reflects the affordability of housing in the community. Overpayment increases the risk of displacement for residents who are no longer able to afford their housing costs. Regional patterns of overpayment among homeowners and renters in the 2015-2019 ACS were similar to those of Apple Valley, with overpayment among homeowners being much lower than renters.

Renters
The cost burden impacts for renter households have steadily increased for all subregions countywide. The number of renter households has also increased countywide, with the greatest increases in the Mountain subregion (68 percent increase), followed by the High Desert subregion (33 percent increase) and the West Valley subregion (26 percent increase.) The number of renter households with a HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) of < 30 percent increased by 24 percent; followed by a 10 percent increase in renter households within the 30 percent to 50 percent HAMFI bracket. County subregions with the largest increase in the <30 percent HAMFI bracket were among rental households in the Mountain subregion at 115 percent and the West Valley subregion at 48 percent. The largest increase of 30 percent to 50 percent HAMFI bracket was among rental households in the Mountain subregion at 3 percent, followed by the High Desert subregion at 1 percent.
12 The High Desert subregion saw a 33 percent increase in the number of renters from 2010 to 2017. The number of renter households Basin-wide with a HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) of < 30 percent increased by 37 percent; followed by an 18 percent increase in renter households within the 30 percent to 50 percent HAMFI bracket.

In Apple Valley, the total number of renter occupied households increased by 52 percent from 6,559 in 2010 to 9,980 in 2017.13 Race/ethnicities with the largest increase in the <30 percent HAMFI bracket among rental households was Other Race/Non-Hispanics (120 percent increase) 12 Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021. 13 Tenure, HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data (2010 and 2017) excel worksheet compiled by Michael Baker International, June 2021.

Page 355 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
29 and Black/Non-Hispanic (106 percent increase). Hispanics saw a 4 percent increase in the <30 percent HAMFI bracket among rental households. All other racial/ethnic groups either experienced a decrease or no change in the <30 percent HAMFI bracket among rental households.

Figure 13 shows the percentage of households in renter occupied housing units by census track that have a cost burden. Of all renter households, 51.5 percent are overpaying, and 27 percent are severely overpaying. Of lower-income renter households, 76.7 percent are overpaying, and 43 percent are severely overpaying. A majority of the census tracts in the Town have 40 percent to 80 percent of the renter households overpaying for their housing unit and only a few census tracts have 20 percent to 40 percent of renter households overpaying for housing. When compared to Figure 5, there is a strong correlation between poverty status and renter household overpayment. The same census tracts are also located in a low resource opportunity area (Figure 8), highlighting the need for more affordable housing and services in this area.

Figure 13:

Overpayment By Renters, 2019

Page 356 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
30 Owners
The median home sales price in San Bernardino County rose from approximately $175,000 in 2012 to $439,000 currently, which is primarily due to the economic recovery that followed the 2008 recession. There was an overall decrease in owner households (2010 to 2017) for all subregions with the exception of the Mountain subregion which saw a 14 percent increase in owner households. The largest decrease in owner households is found in the Morongo Basin subregion (14 percent) followed by the High Desert subregion (6 percent). Overall, the County experienced a 5 percent decrease in owner households during this period.14 In Apple Valley the total number of owner-occupied households increased by 1 percent from 15,157 in 2010 to 15,157 in 2017.15 The only racial/ethnic groups to see a decrease in the <30 percent HAMFI bracket among rental households was White/Non-Hispanics (49 percent increase) and Black/Non-Hispanic (42 percent increase). Hispanics were the only ethnic group to experience an increase (13 percent) in the <30 percent HAMFI bracket among rental households, all other racial/ethnic groups experienced no change.

Figure 14 shows the percent of owner households in Apple Valley that have a mortgage or mortgages with monthly owner costs that are 30 percent or more of household income. The Town appears equally split the 20 percent to 40 percent and the 60 percent to 80 percent brackets of household owner population overpaying. Like the renter group, the census tracts with higher rates or overpayment are located in a low resource opportunity areas (Figure 8), areas with high rates of poverty (Figure 5) and low medium incomes (Figure 4), highlighting the need for more affordable housing and services in this area.
14 Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021. 15 Tenure, HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data (2010 and 2017) excel worksheet compiled by Michael Baker International, June 2021.

Page 357 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
31 Overcrowding
Currently, overcrowding is not a significant issue in the Town of Apple Valley. Apple Valley has 942 overcrowded housing units, which represents 3.9 percent of the total 24,161 occupied units in the Town. Of overcrowded units, 72.1 percent are renter-occupied units and 27.9 percent are owner-occupied units. The median gross rent for a family of four in Apple Valley is $1,026, which exceeds the median gross rent for a 3-bedroom ($1,236), meaning rental housing affordability is not considered a barrier to low-income families. However, as is shown in Table 24 for lower income households, 61 percent of owners and 76.7 percent of renters are still overpaying for housing (at least 30 percent of income).

Figure 14:

Overpayment By Owners, 2019

Page 358 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
32 Substandard Conditions
HUD defines substandard housing as “housing, which was dilapidated, without operable indoor plumbing or a usable flush toilet or bathtub inside the unit for the family’s exclusive use, without electricity or with inadequate or unsafe electrical service, without a safe or adequate source of heat, and should but does not have a kitchen, or has otherwise been declared unfit for habitation by the government.” A household is considered substandard if it has one or more of the following problems:

1. The lack complete kitchen facilities,

2. The lack complete plumbing facilities,

3. If the unit is overcrowded, and

4. Household cost burden.

From 2010 to 2017, the County experienced a 5 percent decrease in the number of substandard households. All subregions within the County saw a minor decrease in housing substandard conditions, including the Morongo Basin which saw a 3 percent decrease overall in substandard housing units. Race and ethnicities that saw the largest decrease in substandard households were Hispanics (13 percent decrease), and White/Non-Hispanics (3 percent decrease). However, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander/Non-Hispanics saw a 10 percent increase in substandard households, followed by Asian/Non-Hispanics (4 percent increase) and Other Races/Non-Hispanics (3 percent decrease). Black and Indian Non-Hispanics experienced no change.16
According to the 2016 AFH, the Town’s Black Non-Hispanic population comprised 6 percent of the total population but experienced 76 percent of housing issues, including incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, overcrowding, or housing cost burdens that exceed 30 percent of the monthly income. This is followed by Hispanics with 50 percent of housing issues. In cases where housing cost burden exceeds 50 percent of the monthly income, the highest rates are also among Black and Hispanic populations, which experience 42 percent and 35 percent of housing problems, respectively. Areas with the greatest housing burdens overlap with low-income areas.

Approximately 63.2 percent of the housing stock in Apple Valley is older than 30 years, with approximately 26.6 percent over 50 years old. The age of housing is often an indicator of the need for some type of repair or rehabilitation. Another measure of potentially substandard housing is the number of housing units lacking adequate kitchen and plumbing facilities. In Apple Valley in 2018, there were 115 units (0.5 percent of all units) lacking complete kitchens and 54 units (0.2 percent of all units) lacking plumbing facilities. All units with deficiencies were renteroccupied. In some cases, the cost of repairs can be prohibitive, resulting in the owner or renter living in unhealthy, substandard housing conditions or being displaced if the house is designated as uninhabitable and the owner does not complete repairs. To prevent these situations, the Town actively markets rehabilitation programs available through CDBG or HOME programs, which 16 Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021.

Page 359 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
33 provide financial and technical assistance to lower income property owners to make housing repairs, by including them in the brochure described in Program I.H.4, to be distributed throughout the community.

The Housing Choice Voucher program, operated by the County Housing Authority, is currently the only available source of publicly supported housing assistance in Apple Valley. The racial/ethnic group receiving the highest percentage (50 percent) of vouchers is Black NonHispanic residents. Seniors receive nearly 20 percent of all vouchers, and residents with a disability receive 22 percent of all vouchers.

Homelessness
Between 2013 and 2019, the County homeless count increased by 286 persons or 12 percent from 2,321 to 2,607. According to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, 67 percent of the County’s homeless population are within the East and West Valley regions. The Town of Apple Valley homeless count increased by 22 persons or 22 percent from 1 to 23 during the same time period.17
To help prevent homelessness, the Town participates in the San Bernardino County Continuum of Care (CoC) System, known as the San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership. The CoC provides emergency shelter, supportive services, transitional housing, permanent housing, and a network of resources and services to assist the homeless. The Apple Valley/Victorville Consortium works closely with the Homeless Provider Network (HPN) to advocate for the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless, and the Homeless Outreach and Proactive Enforcement (H.O.P.E.) program operated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department that connects the homeless population with resources and services to reduce homeless related crimes. Through the CDBG program, the Town contributes funding to local non-profit organizations, including High Desert Homeless Services, Family Assistance Program, Victor Valley Community Services Council, and Cedar House.
(See discussion of Special Populations, Homeless Persons for detailed discussion).

Displacement Risk
HCD defines sensitive communities as “communities [that] currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased development or drastic shifts in housing cost.” The following characteristics define a vulnerable community:
• The share of very low-income residents is above 20 percent; and • The tract meets two of the following criteria:
o Share of renters is above 40 percent,
o Share of people of color is above 50 percent,
17 Homelessness, San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership 2013 and 2019 Point In Time Counts excel worksheet compiled by Michael Baker International, June 2021.

Page 360 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
34 o Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median,
o They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures (percent change in rent above County median for rent increases), or o Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).

According to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, overpayment and median income were the main factors contributing to displacement. In all subregions, rental households experienced little to no decrease in overpayment of rental expenses while homeowner households experienced a moderate decrease in overpayment percentages. Rental and homeowner households that experienced a decrease in median income from 2014 to 2019 also experienced a decrease in overpayment percentage. However, rental households that experienced an increase in median income also experienced an increase in overpayment percentage.

Within the Town, there are several areas or “sensitive communities” that are vulnerable to displacement. As shown in Figure 15, the same communities experience higher rates of poverty, lower medium income, low opportunity scores, higher percentage of female-headed households with children, and higher rates of housing overpayment.

Additional Local Knowledge
The Victor Valley region began to see sustained growth in the post-World War II era turning this sparsely settled stretch of desert land (present Apple Valley) into a western-themed town of 11,000 residents. In 1988, the Town of Apple Valley was incorporated with a population of approximately 41,000 and an area of 78 square miles. The region is not metropolitan, has a relatively short urban development history, and does not have a large African American population (e.g. 8.95% of total Town population in 2018) or cultural presence. Gradual buildout and economic growth were the driving factors for neighborhood development patterns in contrast to metropolitan areas where public policy, such as redlining, may have been a driving factor.

The Town’s current development pattern consists primarily of lower density residential developments and several major corridors of commercial development. There are large areas of vacant land located primarily north Corwin Road and east of the I-15 freeway zoned for a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Although land availability isn’t necessarily a constraint in the Town, availability of necessary infrastructure is, including water and sewer. The Town has managed to locate existing affordable housing sites in areas currently served by water and sewer, and in areas experiencing higher rates of segregation and poverty. The Town will benefit from future development of vacant lands because it will create job opportunities and increase housing options but this type of development and expansion will most likely be market driven and depend heavily on private developers.

Page 361 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
35 Figure 15:

Displacement Risk

Page 362 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
36 d. Sites Inventory
The Town’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment for 2022-2029 estimates that a total of 4,290 housing units will be built in Apple Valley (see Table 35). Of these, 1,686 units are allocated for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. As shown in Tables 43 and 45, the Town has identified enough sites to accommodate 2,748 housing units, which is 1,062 units more than the required RHNA for lower income units.

As seen in Exhibit 1 of the Housing Element Update (Vacant Land Map), the majority of sites identified for the inventory are distributed across the Town in areas zoned for multi-family residential. Vacant sites that are zoned for multi-family residential are found throughout the Town, which combats patterns of segregation and concentrations of poverty by encouraging mixed income neighborhoods and a variety of housing types to meet the needs of residents in these areas. Additionally, most of the sites identified are near transit, commercial centers, and educational services, which make them ideal locations for affordable housing.

As shown in Figure 16, inventory sites that are within 100 feet of sewer and water infrastructure are geographically distributed throughout the central and southeast-central portions of Town.

These areas are identified as having lower income households, higher rates of poverty, and disproportionate housing needs. As shown on Figure 11 Opportunity Index: Economic Score, these sites are generally located in areas of lower job proximity and economic opportunity scores; however, most of the sites are near major roadways such as Highway 18, Navajo Road, Bear Valley Road and Thunderbird Road that provide direct access to transit stops and are in proximity to commercial centers offering employment opportunities and access to personal services. These locations are also in the vicinity to a number of educational services including pre-schools, elementary through high schools, as well as adult schooling. The transit routes in these areas also circulate residents to many other schools, public services, healthcare facilities and commercial areas not in the immediate vicinity. As shown in Figure 16, fourteen low-income inventory sites18 are located within and immediately adjacent to the area of “High Segregation and Poverty” which will increase access to lower income housing options and help alleviate various economic hardships for the lower income population. Combined, these fourteen sites encompass 60 acres with the potential to add 955 lower income units. The remaining 21 sites are located along Bear Valley Road, a four-lane roadway with access to mix of residential and commercial uses.

Combined, these 21 sites have the potential to add 1,794 lower income units.

The Town reviewed the opportunity area map prepared by HCD and TCAC (Figures 8, 9, 11, 12) when selecting sites for affordable housing. The opportunity area map delineates areas across the state where research has shown there is support for positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children. As previously discussed, the Town primarily consists of “Low Resource” or “Moderate Resource” areas, with only one area considered “High Resource.” This made site selection more difficult 18 Inventory sites within 100 feet of water and sewer infrastructure.

Page 363 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
37 when considering vacant land options in proximity to higher resource areas. Nonetheless, the Town was able to identify sufficient sites for the 2022-2029 cycle in areas identified as having a need for affordable housing based on patterns of segregation, poverty, low-income houses, displacement risk, access to opportunity, and local knowledge. Thus, the sites identified in the Land Inventory will not exacerbate any such fair housing related conditions.

The Town assessed environmental constraints, including stormwater management, biological resource protection, and access to the water and sewer services, and confirmed that none of the sites identified are at risk of any environmental hazards. All sites identified are located adjacent to water and sewer services and are located outside of flood channels. All development is required to undergo environmental review to assess potential hazards and mitigate impacts as necessary (Policy 2.B).

Page 364 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
38 Figure 16:

Low Income Inventory Sites
Within 100’ of Sewer and Water

Page 365 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
39 e. Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Assistance in the enforcement of fair housing law is carried out through HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), and other fair housing service organizations working to assist and protect households from discrimination through education and legal assistance. The Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB is the fair housing service provider serving the County of San Bernardino and cities in the region, including the Town of Apple Valley. The FHEO, DFEH, and IFHMB investigate complaints from households claiming discrimination.

At the federal level, the FHEO may issue findings from the investigation of reported complaints and the HUD or the Department of Justice may take legal action to enforce the law in response to violations. Depending on the type of complaint filed, the FHEO may follow a different investigative process, such as referring the matter to a Fair Housing Assistance Program partner.

At the State Level, DFEH enforces state fair housing laws, including but not limited to:
• The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination and harassment in all aspects of housing including sales and rentals, evictions, terms and conditions, mortgage loans and insurance, and land use and zoning. • The Rumford Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination toward all classes protected under Title III and adds marital status as a protected class. • The Unruh Civil Rights Act, which covers and applies to most housing accommodations in California and prohibits discrimination in all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations based on age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. • The Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7), which forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can be verbal or written threats, physical assault or attempted assault, and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage. • The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1), which provides protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the act are not allowed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.

The Town reviews periodically its policies and code for compliance with State law on fair housing and enforces fair housing through investigation of fair housing complaints. In addition to fair housing issues related to development standards, fair housing issues can also include discriminatory behaviors by landlords such as refusal to grant reasonable accommodation

Page 366 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
40 requests, not allowing service animals, discrimination against familial status, sex, religion, or other protected class, and more. During the 2014-2021 planning period, the Town’s Housing Division conducted community surveys about housing discrimination and other fair housing issues. The Town funds the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board through CDBG entitlement dollars to provide landlord/tenant mediation to Town residents In the combined Apple Valley/Victorville area in 2016, data from the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB) showed that fair housing complaints by individuals with a disability seem to be disproportionately higher than other protected groups. The number of complaints in Apple Valley increased from 7 in 2011, to 15 in 2015. As of July 2021, the IFHMB has reported no new complaints.19
Recently, HUD’s Region IX Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) provided case records for Apple Valley from January 2014 to July 2021.20 Nine fair housing cases filed with their office during the previous planning period, six based on disability, one based on familial status, one based on national origin, and one based on a combination of sexual identity and disability.

These complaints are consistent with the previous pattern of disproportionally higher complaints by those with a disability. Seven of these cases were closed due to “no cause determination,” one was closed because “complainant failed to cooperate,” and on was closed after “conciliation/settlement successful. Two cases were handled through HUD directly, and seven cases were handled through the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), in which HUD funds state and local agencies that administer fair housing laws that HUD has determined to be substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is the only certified agency for FHAP in California. Because state law has additional protected classes than federal law, DFEH may have additional case records. A request was made in July to DFEH, but they were not able to provide data as of September 2021.

C. Contributing Factors
Regional
According to the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, contributing factors to fair housing issues specifically within the High Desert subregion include the following:
19 Assessment of Fair Housing Data Packet for the Town of Apple Valley, “Fair Housing Table,” prepared by Michael Baker International for the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. July 2021. 20 Letter Response for Freedom of Information Act Request from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Received July 27, 2021.

Page 367 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
41 Table 2
Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
within the High Desert Subregion, San Bernardino County Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors
Persons with disabilities face discrimination and
opposition to accommodations in the rental
housing market.
• Private discrimination
• Lack of effective accommodations for
unhoused people with disabilities
• Land use and zoning laws
Jurisdictions’ zoning ordinance/development
standards may not comply with state housing law
Land use and zoning laws
Areas of high segregation and concentrations of
poverty have less access to educational
opportunity.

Location of proficient schools and school
assignment policies
Areas of high segregation and concentrations of
poverty are farther away from job opportunities
and have lower access to economic
opportunities.

Location of employers.

High proportion of persons with disabilities are
living in areas of high segregation and
concentrated poverty and minimal opportunity.
• Access to publicly supported housing for
persons with disabilities.
• Lack of effective accommodations for
unhoused people with disabilities.

Inadequate supply of housing options for persons
with disabilities
• Access to publicly supported housing for
persons with disabilities
• Lack of affordable, accessible housing in
range of unit sizes
Significant unsheltered homelessness population
in the County.
• Displacement of residents due to economic
pressures.
• Lack of renter protections.
• The availability of affordable units in a range
of sizes.
• Lack of rental relief programs for people at
risk of homelessness.
• Lack of effective accommodations for
unhoused people with disabilities.

Source: Internal Draft Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, prepared by Michael Baker International. September 15, 2021.

Page 368 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
42 Based on the analysis and findings of contributing factors in the Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, the following goals were identified to further housing equity in the County:
• Provide support to public housing agencies in order to produce more housing • Provide marketing plan to improve perception of government-owned and affordable housing
• Aggressively pursue grant funding to build affordable housing • Form countywide Housing Trust Fund to 1) build affordable housing, 2) rehabilitate existing housing, 3) hire staff to pursue grant funding • Form public-private partnerships to develop affordable housing • Amend land use/zoning regulations to Increase housing supply at all income levels. • Adopt rental protections and control:
• Provide programming to Increase homeownership (e.g., first-time homebuyer programs, down-payment assistance)
• Provide programming to convert privately owned mobile home parks to coop ownership, require coop-style ownership of all new mobile home parks. • Sweat equity – people help build their own houses over 2-3 years • Provide opportunities for alternative building practices (e.g., straw housing, mini housing) • Adopt regulations requiring all rental units to have local owners/landlords (within City limits)
• Adopt local taxes on all residential landlords and provide tax relief if units are occupied by low-income tenants.
• Adopt vacancy tax on all unoccupied rental units.
• Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance.
• Restrict large developments
• Expand partnership between IFHMB and County to provide additional support to the community
Town of Apple Valley
Discussions with community organizations, fair housing advocates, and the assessment of fair housing issues identified several factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Apple Valley, including:
• Lack of public and private investments in specific neighborhoods, • Location and type of affordable housing,
• Evidence of illegal discrimination or violations of civil rights laws, regulations, or guidance. • Housing condition and the cost of repairs where needed, • Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement • Quality of affordable housing information programs, and • Low-vacancy rates with limited availability of affordable housing options

Page 369 of 463 ends

Assessment of Fair Housing: AFFH
Town of Apple Valley
43 As identified in this assessment, the greatest barrier to fair housing and equal access to opportunity is the supply of housing at affordable pricesin proximity to higher paying job centers.

The inventory of land suitable and available for future housing development includes parcels that are distributed throughout the community to help foster integrated living patterns. A schedule of policies and programs for continuing these efforts through the 2022-2029 planning period is provided in the Goals, Policies and Programs section. Programs 1.B.1 through 1.B.6 specifically address fair housing issues, while others address housing opportunities for special populations and other actions that are relevant to the issues described above.

Additional analysis of the area of “High Segregation and Poverty” conducted in August 2022 during the HCD Housing Element review process confirmed that the contributing factors and their priority set forth above correctly represent issues facing the community.

Page 370 of 463 ends

APPENDIX 1:
2016 Fair Housing Assessment
Town of Apple Valley

Page 371 of 463 ends

Review the content of your AFH before completing the certification and submission to HUD.

Review Submission
Cover
Program Participants
Participant Id Name Lead? Submission Due Date
330338303 Apple Valley, California Yes 10/04/2016
952235918 Victorville, California No 10/04/2016
Executive Summary
Assessment Id 98
Assessment Title AFFH AV/VV Consortium 6_16_17
Sole or Lead Submitter
Contact Information

Name Christopher Moore
Title HCD Specialist
Department Community Development
Street Address 14955 Dale Evans Pkwy
Street Address 2
City Apple Valley
State California
Zip Code 92307
 Instructions

Page 372 of 463 ends

II.1. Summarize the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and goals. Also include an overview of the process and analysis used to reach the goals.

Revised (Click for previous text)
The Town of Apple Valley was incorporated in 1988 and consists of 78 square miles. The City of Victorville was incorporated in 1962 and encompasses 74 square miles. Since 1997, both cities have received an annual allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

In 2003, the Town of Apple Valley and City formed the HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium (the “HOME Consortium”) in order to meet the threshold of obtaining HOME entitlement status with HUD. Both the City and the Town receive CDBG and HOME funding annually. For the purpose of this Assessment to Fair Housing (AFH) plan, the Town of Apple Valley and the City of Victorville may be collectively referenced as “Communities” and “Jurisdictions”.

As Entitlement Jurisdictions, both the City and Town are required to prepare and adopt a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and an AFH plan. The AFH replaces the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) to assist the Communities in identifying fair housing issues and related contributing factors to achieve comprehensive community development goals and affirmatively further fair housing. The Con Plan and AFH are also required to have a strategy for resident and citizen participation in the planning process. According to 24 CFR § 91.105 and as a condition of federal funding, the Communities must adopt and follow a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) describing how the City will encourage participation from residents and citizens of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities and special needs to provide them with equal access in the development of the Con Plan, Annual Action Plan (AP) and AFH, and to ensure their issues and concerns are adequately addressed. Prior to the development of the AFH, the Consortium is required to amend its Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) to incorporate the legal requirement that federal grantees shall affirmatively further fair housing by “taking meaningful actions” in addition to combating discrimination to overcome patters of segregation and integrating racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into the areas of opportunity, and addressing disparities in housing needs by providing access to opportunities. Both Communities amended their respective CPP’s. Below summarizes fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and goals. Also included is an overview of the process and analysis used to reach the goals.

Fair Housing Issues:

1. Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the jurisdiction and region:

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty, R/ECAP, means a geographic area with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. The rule does not define “significant” or give metrics. However, the proto-type mapping system demonstrated by HUD suggests that R/ECAPs will be outlined on maps and provided in data tables.The R/ECAP only includes Census Tracts 99.05 which is within Victorville’s geographical boundaries.

2. Segregation:

The data show that Victorville has accommodated the majority of the Consortium’s population growth, and Victorville is providing a broader range of housing choices. This appears to be a major factor contributing to the existing pattern of segregation between the two jurisdictions and, given the demographic shifts in the county and region over the past couple decades, it seems likely to become exacerbated if the current situation doesn’t change (Location and type of affordable housing- Contributing Factor).

The AFFH data show that Between 1990 and the present, Victorville has accommodated 73% of the Consortium’s population growth. During that same time, Victorville has accommodated even higher shares of certain protected class groups in the Consortium, including:


Page 373 of 463 ends

77% of black population growth in the Consortium
75% of Hispanic population growth in the Consortium
83% of foreign-born population growth in the Consortium 85% of LEP population growth in the Consortium
86% of Consortium’s growth in the number of households with children RHNA production over the previous Housing Element cycle shows that Victorville did a much better job expanding housing supply.

During the previous cycle, Victorville’s allocation was over half of the Consortium’s, and produced over 80% of the units in its allocation. Apple Valley met 50% of its much smaller target. 85% of the multifamily housing added to the Consortium during that time was built in Victorville as well, which is a significant reason why Victorville is home to over 60% of renters in the Consortium, and over 70% of HCV-assisted households (Location and type of affordable housing- contributing factor).

Zoning has traditionally been focused towards lower density residential uses in Apple Valley. The jurisdiction was founded on the basis of rural single-family residential and estate sized lots. The glorification of ranch-style living has been a recurrent theme in Apple Valley’s history and has carried over to the present day via minimum half acre lot sizes throughout the jurisdiction. However, when compared to the region, affordability for both rents and home ownership is considerably lower in Apple Valley than most all areas in the most southern parts of the two-county region and prices are comparative with our local neighbors, Hesperia and Victorville, who have more desirable access and proximity to Interstate-15.The Town of Apple Valley has an approved Housing Element that provides for enough variety in land uses to accommodate housing units across all levels of density and affordability.

Since we see that population growth in the region overall is increasingly comprised of minority ethnic groups and other protected classes, it is no surprise that accommodating population growth will lead to more diversity. We also expect to see growth in parts of the population that, in the Inland Empire, are more likely to rent and disproportionately earn lower incomes. If these trends in housing supply don’t change, the racial/ethnic divide between the cities seems likely to deepen. The Consortia is committed studying the issue & impact of public policy relating to the barriers to certain households in AV. (Land Use and Zoning Laws- Contributing Factor)

3. Significant disparities in access to opportunities:

Significant disparities in access to opportunities means substantial and measurable differences in access to education, transportation, economic, and other important opportunities in a community, based on protected class related to housing. When compared to other Race/Ethnic groups, Hispanics appear to be experiencing overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors within the Consortia. Of the opportunities measured, Hispanics were indexed the lowest on average of the seven measured categories (Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities- Contributing Factor).

Significant contributing facto rs:

Lack Community Revitalization Strategies
Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities Location and type of affordable housing
Evidence of illegal discrimination or violations of civil rights laws, regulations, or guidance.

Goals and analysis used to reach the goals
Goal #1: Improve the housing condition and access to social services within the Consortia’s R/ECAP (Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty)
Process and Analysis: The Consortia reviewed AFH provided data and maps, as well as reviewed citizen comments and other relevant data and plans , As indicated by the analysis, several housing units and neighborhoods in this area are older construction, and require either rehabilitation or conservation to be maintained as viable dwelling units. Within these neighborhoods, Hispanics experienced highest

Page 374 of 463 ends

rate of housing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing when compared to other groups in the Consortia.

The poverty rate of this area which disproportionately effects Hispanics also necessitates a high priority. The Consortia will use CDBG funding to fund social service agencies and programs to assist in reducing the poverty level of residents within the R/ECAP.

Goal #2: Continue to provide fair housing services within the consortia with an emphasis on reducing the number of fair housing complaints based on disability.

Process and Analysis: Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement as well as private discrimination are a contributing factor of high priority because of its significant effect on fair housing choice for all protected groups. In reviewing fair housing data from the Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board, fair housing complaints by individuals with a disability seem to be disproportionately higher than other protected groups.

Goal #3 :Increase levels of integration by Hispanic residents within higher opportunity neighborhoods.

Process and Analysis: According to AFH maps used in the analysis, from 1990 to 2000, the Consortia’s Racial/ Ethnic demographics were primarily Whites and Hispanics, and integrated. However, from 2000 to 2010, a clear lack of integration by Hispanics in the Consortia’s eastern and higher opportunity neighborhoods existed.

Lack of integration was a pattern that took shape over a decade long period. The Consortia understands that achieving significant results will require prolong efforts (i.e., mobility programs, land use assessments, etc,) beyond the 5-year planning period.

Community Participation Process
III.1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage and broaden meaningful community participation in the AFH process, including the types of outreach activities and dates of public hearings or meetings. Identify media outlets used and include a description of efforts made to reach the public, including those representing populations that are typically underrepresented in the planning process such as persons who reside in areas identified as R/ECAPs, persons who are limited English proficient (LEP), and persons with disabilities. Briefly explain how these communications were designed to reach the broadest audience possible. For PHAs, identify your meetings with the Resident Advisory Board.

Instructions
Consortium. As a part of the CPP, the Consortium encouraged participation to include community-based and regionally-based organizations that represent and assist protected class members and organizations that enforce fair housing laws. The Consortium also consulted with local fair housing enforcement agencies, fair housing organizations and other nonprofit organizations that receive  Instructions


Page 375 of 463 ends

funding under the Fair Housing Initiative Program, and other public and private fair housing service agencies that operate within the City’s jurisdiction.

For the preparation of this AFH, the Apple Valley/Victorville HOME Consortium, utilized their respective websites, social media accounts such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram accounts, to announce and advertise community meetings, surveys and public meetings and hearings. The Town of Apple Valley has been able to secure a strong response rate in the past considering the Town’s Facebook account has a following of over 10,000 strong; approximately 1/7th of Apple Valley’s population 70,000 residents.

The AFH surveys, as well as the invitation to the workshops, were also emailed to approximately 1,200 community and regional contacts in hopes of gleaning their interest in attending one of the meetings and asking them to spread the word within their own organizations and share the survey with those they serve. Stakeholder organizations received a specific survey to further assist the Consortium in obtaining additional local or regional data and knowledge.

The ability to provide ease of access to the survey was important to the Consortium. Both Jurisdictions, in the capacity of the Consortium, made the survey available online via Survey Monkey between June 29, 2016 and August 1, 2016, in both English and Spanish. Hard copy surveys and flyers, also in both languages, advertising both the online survey as well as the community meetings were distributed to the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville office locations, and the San Bernardino County Apple Valley Branch Library. Hard copy surveys were also made available to the public at community events and meetings, a homebuyer’s workshop, and a fair housing disability workshop that staff attended during the time frame that AFH input from the public was sought. Additionally, approximately 200 hard copy surveys were mailed to former loan and grant recipients of Victorville Housing Programs. The surveys were also provided to Victorville residents and business owners who attended an Old Town Revitalization Forum meeting. This combined effort generated a total of 121 community respondents.

Community outreach meetings specific to the AFH were also held. In addition to being translated in both English and Spanish, flyers also acknowledged that if accommodations were needed to attend the meeting to inform staff of either jurisdiction of those needs. The first meeting occurred on July 12, 2016 at 1:00 PM in the Town of Apple Valley Council Chambers located at 14955 Dale Evans Pkwy., Apple Valley, CA 92307. The second was held at the City of Victorville offices at 14343 Civic Dr., Victorville, CA 92392 at 6:00 PM.

These were not especially well attended, but the several community members present at each were very responsive and involved in the questions posed to them about their communities.

Stakeholder meetings were held at City of Victorville offices on August 9, 2016 at 10:00 AM to noon and 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM for those involved with transitional housing and rental assistance, and real estate and lending industries, respectively. With staff present from both Victorville and Apple Valley, a short questionnaire was disseminated to attendees who provided insight from the perspective of their organizations and professions. Another stakeholder meeting was hosted on August 11, 2016 at 10:00 AM by the City of Victorville, to focus topic questions regarding education and youth.

III.2. Provide a list of organizations consulted during the community participation process.

Instructions
The stakeholder meetings were broken up into three meetings, each addressing a different group or service provider type. One meeting was for utility assistance and transitional housing providers, another meeting included realtors, lenders and fair housing providers. Lastly, the third meeting focused on education and youth services. For the stakeholder meetings, invitations were emailed and calls were made to the following organizations:


Page 376 of 463 ends

Court Appointed Special Advocates of San Bernardino County High Desert Transitional Living
No Drugs America Association
Olive Crest Foster Family
Options for Youth
Catholic Charities
High Desert Homeless Services
Knowledge and Education for Your Success
Orenda Foundation
Patient Care Systems
Samaritan's Helping Hand
St. John of God Health Care Services
Victor Valley Community Services Council
Victor Valley Rescue Mission
Katherine Santifer Realty
SPS Realty Group
Berkshire Hathway Home Services
Sunset Breeze Real Estate
HomeStrong USA
Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Inc.

Neighborhood Housing Services of the Inland Empire
High Desert Association of Realtors
Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board
Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino
Moses House Ministries
San Bernardino Sexual Assault Services
Victor Valley Domestic Violence
San Bernardino County, Economic Development and Housing Volsch Enterprises, Real Estate Broker
City of Hesperia
Housing Authority, San Bernardino County
St. Joseph Health, St. Mary’s Hospital
Oak Hills Realty
Hamilton Landon, Realtor
High Desert Association of Realtors
Rock Springs Residential Care
Apple Valley Senior Center
III.3. How successful were the efforts at eliciting meaningful community participation? If there was low participation, provide the reasons.  Instructions

Page 377 of 463 ends

Consortium. Low participation was problematic at AFH community meetings. A lack of involvement from the community to attend meetings, outside of regular council meetings, has always been an issue for the Jurisdictions. To accommodate the needs for attendees, meetings were held at various locations and times of day, including the evening hours. This did not prove to be any more successful than the daytime meeting. Some of the reasons for not being able to attend any of the meetings by agencies/nonprofits included having limited staff, conflicting meetings and commencement of new fiscal year or program year.

Although attendance was low, key community stakeholders were in attendance and gave vast input in the community needs and discrimination faced by protected classes. Between circulating AFH surveys at other community events and online, utilizing social media, sending email blasts to community members and organizations, direct mailings, and phone interviews, a wide-breadth of information and input deemed our multi-channel efforts a great success overall.

III.4. Summarize all comments obtained in the community participation process. Include a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why.

Instructions
In reviewing the comments received at these meetings, the following key issues were identified:

Community Wo rkshops Summary. Two community meetings were held in July 2016 – Apple Valley (July 12th early afternoon) and Victorville (July 13th evening). The community meetings were held to glean local input and knowledge from residents of the respective Jurisdictions, including fair housing issues and concerns. Each community meeting was structured in the same format: participants were introduced to the Con Plan and AFH (AFH) plan process through a presentation and then asked to discuss a series of questions related to housing and community development needs, their presumptions regarding areas considered segregated and/or challenged by poverty, including fair housing issues and concerns.

Community Su rvey Summaries. In addition to the meetings, a Fair Housing Survey was also created. A thirty question survey was disseminated through multi-channel methods to seek responses from members of the public who may be harder to reach by methods of face-to-face contact at events in the community or were possibly not interested in attending a community meeting. The Fair Housing Survey sought to gain knowledge about the nature and extent of fair housing issues experienced by Apple Valley and Victorville residents as well as their opinions concerning the existence, or lack of, racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, or areas deemed as disadvantaged within the Jurisdictions. The survey questions were also designed to gather information on a person’s experience with fair housing issues and perception of fair housing issues in his/her neighborhood. The survey and flyers were available in English and Spanish, and distributed via the following methods:

Survey made available in online format via survey monkey.

Online survey link posted to Apple Valley Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Hard copy information flyers and surveys placed at various community locations and public counters.

Posted on the municipal websites of both Apple Valley and Victorville.

Solicited the participation of service providers and stakeholders via mass emails to also make the survey flyer, with survey web address and information on the community meetings, available in their offices and to distribute the information to their clients and other members of the community they felt would be receptive and responsive. 

Page 378 of 463 ends

Surveys were solicited at a Homebuyers Resource Fair that was held on Saturday, June 4, 2016 at the San Bernardino County Fairgrounds. This event was in partnership between the High Desert Association of REALTORS® and First District Supervisor, Robert A Lovingood, County of San Bernardino.

Stakeholder Meetings Summary. Three stakeholder meetings were held in August 2016 – all in Victorville, with staff from both Jurisdictions present. The stakeholder meetings were also held to discuss priority housing and community development needs in the respective Jurisdictions, including fair housing issues and concerns. Each stakeholder workshop was structured in the same format:
participants were introduced to the AFH plan process by staff and then asked to discuss a series of questions related to housing and community development needs, including fair housing issues and concerns.

A comprehensive summary of housing-related issues identified by submitted surveys, community meetings, and workshops held, is found below.

Homelessness. Homelessness was one of the primary issues discussed by participants at the Victorville meeting. Participants noted the lack of Homeless Shelters in the High Desert. There is just one in Victorville that serves a sphere of influence of approximately 500,000 residents. The High Desert is subject to extreme temperatures that can result in dangerous conditions for homeless persons.

Most homeless services are located “down the hill” in the City of San Bernardino, or other southern jurisdictions, creating a disparity in services available between the High Desert and the surrounding region.

Affo rdable Housing, Senio r Housing, Reasonable Accommodation fo r Disabled Persons and Youth. Though segregation was not identified as an issue through various means of community contact, housing in general was still identified as a major need discussed by participants at the meetings. Community members were primarily concerned about housing affordability and availability for seniors, the disabled and youth. Participants discussed the housing needs of seniors with limited income, and the condition of existing housing; in particular about existing unmaintained rental apartments. A stakeholder noted that location of the most affordable housing has that to offer, but very little, in terms of amenities, are available within walking distance to some of the poorest neighborhoods in the High Desert. Access to transit, grocery stores, recreation services and safety were expressed as some of the services or opportunities that people must give up in order to live in an area that is affordable enough for their household.

Neighbo rhoods. Participants stated the importance of crime-free, safe neighborhoods. The importance of maintaining a safe, wellmaintained community was emphasized at the meetings. If a community is safe and there are places for people to go (commercial and community-based), then residents will tend to remain in the community instead of seeking a way out. Non-reporting of crime was noted on several occasions as a barrier to an undesirable neighborhood being able to rebound. Whether actual or perceived fear of retaliation prevents crime reporting, the effects can be detrimental to a neighborhood if it becomes known for unresolved crime activity.

Transpo rtation. Many participants expressed their concerns as to the lack of transportation available throughout the High Desert.

Participants communicated how many low-income families and people in the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville areas struggle to find reliable transportation. The result is missed appointments and poor illness management, even when care is readily available.

Some households don’t have a vehicle, or share one among multiple family members, and for those who are disabled, obese, or chronically ill, riding the bus can be a difficult undertaking. As a result, some people may find themselves without a way home after an emergency trip to the hospital; miss opportunities to schools, family or community events or simply miss a doctor’s appointment because they don’t have a way to get there.

During the community participation process all comments and views were considered and have been incorporated into this AFH. No comments were considered as immaterial or insignificant.

Economic Development - Lack of sufficient local employment in career level employment sectors continues to be an impediment to the local community and economy.

Page 379 of 463 ends

Education - Lack of an educated work force continues to be an impediment to business attraction and employment opportunities.

Assessment of Past Goals, Actions and Strategies
IV.1. Indicate what fair housing goals were selected by program participant(s) in recent Analyses of Impediments, Assessments of Fair Housing, or other relevant planning documents:

IV.1.a. Discuss what progress has been made toward their achievement.

Instructions
During the last Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), both Communities experienced similar impediments that continued to impact the Apple Valley/Victorville Consortium areas. The impediments and strategies on how to reduce their impacts, and accomplishments are listed below:

Housing discrimination towards disability, race, and familial status has been a reoccurring issue for both communities. As a continued service, both communities elected to continue contract services with Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB).

IFHMB assist both Jurisdictions in providing fair housing services to residents, landlords, and other housing professionals. Available services, newsletters, and special event flyers are routinely posted on each respective Jurisdiction’s website. In addition, both the Town and the City assisted in promoting special events by distributing informational pamphlets and flyers throughout public-owned buildings.

Recently, July 2016, the City of Victorville hosted and participated in a special workshop held by IFHMB to educate and assist tenants, property owners and other housing professionals on fair housing issues specifically for persons with disabilities. Discussion involved fair housing laws, introduction to the affirmatively furthering fair housing final ruling and requirements, reasonable accommodations or modification request allowable fees associated with reasonable accommodation or modification request. The Consortium anticipates it will continue its participation in supporting special events held by IFHMB on a continual basis. This event was highly successful, many interested persons, property owners and tenants attended. Persons who attended expressed their gratitude to the City for hosting the event. Their questions and concerns were addressed and real estate professionals felt they were more educated on how to assist persons with disabilities, particularly in providing reasonable accommodations.

Accordingly, both communities provide CDBG funding to IFHMB to provide its residents with fair housing and landlord tenant mediation service and assistance. Along with these services, IFHMB assist City of Victorville with its first-time homebuyer program, Mortgage Assistance Program (MA) by providing homebuyer education and certification. Persons who receive their homebuyer education course by IFHMB receive information and training in the complete process of purchasing a home, budgeting, credit, mortgage loans, and how to keep your home. On behalf of the communities, IFHMB distributes fair housing materials, holds workshops on fair housing throughout the High Desert and San Bernardino County. IFHMB’s services have assisted an array of residents within the Communities. 

Page 380 of 463 ends

Many of which have received ‘one-on-one’ assistance in assisting homeowners who are at risk of losing their home by exploring many available options including loan modification, special forbearance, partial claims, loan repayment plans, loan reinstate plans, short sale options including the Homeowner Assistance Foreclosure Alternative (HAFA), and the Homeowner Assistance Refinance Program.

In addition to the above accomplishments, the communities supported and actively promoted the National Fair Housing Month held in April of each year. The City of Victorville posted HUD created posters and flyers throughout city hall, city website and social media outlets celebrating the National Fair Housing month.

Public Outreach is a concern that needs to be address by both communities. Many residents, landlords and tenants are not aware of fair housing rights and services available. When encountered with fair housing issues, many do not believe reporting the incidents would help the situation. Some are also afraid of retaliation by the landlord. With this in mind, some of the strategies both Communities adopted is to (1) provide fair housing outreach and education services that will include, but not be limited to at least one of the following components: press releases, public service announcements, cable TV, radio, and newspaper outreach, updates in newsletters and/or other publications, events at the annual fair housing celebration, organized meetings or events relating to fair housing, and participation in community events such as fairs and trade shows; (2) initiate half-day fair housing workshops at Town Hall and City Hall annually, targeting residents, landlords, disadvantaged groups, and housing professionals; (3) outreach and education specifically for housing providers (i.e., landlords, property managers, realtors, lending institutions, and managers of public housing); (4) workshops to assist elected and appointed officials of each jurisdiction; and the general public. In addition, publicizing outcomes of fair housing lawsuits to encourage reporting of fair housing issues by residents and coordinate with minority Chambers of Commerce to promote Town programs and services are also objectives both communities anticipate launching. The City of Victorville also utilizes its Cityowned electronic message board located on the east-side of Interstate-15 to make public service announcements (PSA). The City recently approved a message for the High Desert Crime Prevention & Neighborhood Watch Program event that will held at City Hall on August 24th. The City routinely promotes PSA for non-profits, such as the High Desert Association of Realtors® and special County of San Bernardino events, etc.

Housing Choice Vouchers and Affo rdable Housing Units are limited resources to Hispanic households. Because many residents have been on the Housing Authority of County of San Bernardino’s (HACSB) waiting lists for choice vouchers for several years in hopes of qualifying for the Housing Choice Voucher program, HACSB has closed its ability to provide additional vouchers to new households who may reflect the current demographic profile of the County and communities within the Consortium.

Although these choice voucher resources are limited, HACSB provides other affordable housing opportunities through other affordable housing developments it maintains. Currently, HACSB has an open waiting list. Additionally, the City of Victorville also provides financial assistance to facilitate the construction of affordable housing. These affordable housing complexes are privately owned, but contain affordable housing covenants to secure housing for very-low and low income households for several years. In support of HACSB’s efforts, both communities will continue efforts in petitioning for additional voucher assistance from HUD. As the Consortium, the Town and City promote any and all available resources to households in need. When opportunities arise, both Jurisdictions attempt to require rental property owners receiving financial assistance from the City or Town to affirm their commitment to comply with fair housing laws, and attend fair housing training.

Housing fo r Persons with Disabilities. Accessible housing units and other housing options (such as transitional and supportive housing) for persons with disabilities are limited in supply. In a recent study carried out by IFHMB, the majority of discrimination indicated this issue increase. In past AI’s, both communities have amended their respective Zoning Code’s to establish either a (1) Reasonable Accommodation procedure, or (2) address the transitional housing and supportive housing provision according to State Housing Element Law. Both Communities anticipate it will increase its efforts in awareness and training to further assist persons with disabilities with fair housing rights. Additionally, IFHMB has assisted residents living within the Consortium with fair housing mediation services concerning reasonable accommodations.

Page 381 of 463 ends

Lending Practices. Overall, minority households in Apple Valley and Victorville rely more heavily on smaller, lesser known lenders for mortgage financing, which tend to have more liberal underwriting criteria. While this may promote homeownership to minority households, it may also encourage certain households to overextend financially. Furthermore, most of these lenders do not have local offices, making it hard to mortgage applicants to have in-person meetings with the lenders.

Black households in general, seem to have more difficulty accessing financing. They experienced lower approval rates than other households in the same income group. Since 2007, the rate spreads for all race/ethnic groups have decreased significantly except for Black households. The rate spread for Black households remained the highest among all groups and actually has increased since 2007.

Among the top lenders, minority households also have high fallout rates (not completing or withdrawing an application). Some actions adopted by the Communities since the last AI are; (1) work with government agencies and nonprofit groups that provide credit counseling and foreclosure workshops to conduct workshops in the High Desert area; (2) conduct lender workshops to provide outreach, education and encourage increasing pool of lenders participating in the down payment assistance programs; (3) continue contract services with IFHMB to monitor lending activities and contact lenders to address potential issues; (4) publicize results of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data review to bring attention to the lending community, housing advocates, and the general public; (5) continue coordinating efforts with minority Chambers of Commerce to promote Town, City and County programs and services, including home buying down payment assistance, credit counseling, foreclosure counseling, etc. The City of Victorville has recently met with real estate professionals in strategizing its marketing efforts to promote its Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), Senior Home Repair (SHRP) and Owner-occupied Rehabilitation (OOR) Programs. Additionally, the City of Victorville has met with Lenders to conduct “one-on-one” training to ensure their knowledge of the City’s MAP is accurate and lending opportunities are given to all persons equally and fairly. The City anticipates it will launch a large Lender-Real estate professional training workshop in November 2016 to promote equal opportunity to home ownership among the very-low, low and moderate income households. The City anticipates in concentrating its efforts to the Old Town Area where home ownership is low among minorities.

Public Transpo rtation System throughout the High Desert Area, including areas of the Consortium, is limited. Many lower income households, seniors and persons with disabilities have many opportunities to housing resources offered and funded by the County of San Bernardino however, access difficulties arise as they are dependent on the public transportation system. Many of these residents find that the public transportation system in the High Desert is difficult to navigate through and use. Therefore, the Consortium has made many efforts to expand public transportation by (1) petitioning to the County of San Bernardino to expand housing programs and services to the High Desert area vs. “down the hill”; (2) provide public transportation maps at public locations (currently, maps of transportation routes are available at City Hall); and (3) include navigating the public transportation system in programs and activities designed for seniors and disabled.

Fo reclosu res. Both Apple Valley and Victorville are impacted by the large number of foreclosures. Abandoned and foreclosed homes are often vandalized and trespassed, negatively impacting neighborhood safety and conditions. The lack of maintenance of foreclosed properties is a serious issue expressed by many participants of public meetings conducted as part of this AI. Goals and actions proposed and carried out by both communities includes: (1) continue proactive code enforcement activities to address issues associated with abandoned and foreclosed homes; and (2) work with lenders holding the homes to ensure a reasonable level of safety and condition is maintained.

Real Estate Advertising. Previous AI indicated that advertising of for-sale homes and particularly rental listings contained potentially discriminatory language. Often such language encourages or discourages a particular group to inquire about the housing available.

Given the market condition, many homes are being used as rentals. Owners of these units may not be professional landlords and therefore are not familiar with fair housing rights and responsibilities. Some actions taken by the Consortium includes: (1) continued contract services with IFHMB to monitor the advertising of for-sale and for-rent units; and (2) publicize fair housing rights and

Page 382 of 463 ends

responsibilities on Town and City websites, newsletters, or other publications as a way of outreaching to landlords new to the rental business.

Accessibility of Public Facilities. Not all public buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Accessible sidewalks with ramps and curb cuts are also needed to allow circulation from one location to another. The Consortium is working on improving accessibility in and to public buildings to facilitate participation in civic decisions by persons with disabilities. Annual evaluations of accessibility improvement needs of public facilities through the Capital Improvement Plan process to identify priority projects for funding have been started.

In October 2015, the City of Victorville City Council approved a Voluntary Compliance Agreement with HUD requiring a Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan that will identify ADA compliance barriers in City programs, activities and facilities. In addition, the Plan would provide with a timeline for completion of modifications to provide equal access. The deadline for the completion of the review and update is 240 days upon execution of the Voluntary Compliance Agreement. The May 2016 deadline has been extended to January 30, 2017. The City has acquired the assistance of a firm, Disability Access Consultants (DAC) to assist with the Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. Additionally, the City is working with Caltrans in developing an ADA Transition plan for facilities in the public right of way to be eligible to receive federal transportation funds. This plan is currently underway.

IV.1.b. Discuss how you have been successful in achieving past goals, and/or how you have fallen short of achieving those goals (including potentially harmful unintended consequences); and The Town of Apple Valley, City of Victorville and fair housing service providers have successfully implemented ongoing consultation, education and workshops for the community. Affirmatively furthering fair housing continues to be a priority though recent community surveys have reflected less concern in relation to other priorities than in years past. Past goals and issues are starting points for current and future goals and strategies and included in surveys, questionnaires and community meetings to develop dialogue identify current concerns and plan strategies to be implemented in consolidated plan and annual action plans. The Housing Authority, County of San Bernardino administers affordable housing units in the Victor Valley which includes Apple Valley and Victorville. Affordable units are limited to funding, yet the area is generally more affordable at market rates than the regional area. Accessibility to public facilities remains a high priority and improvements continue as funding becomes available.

The City of Victorville has achieved many successes in assisting and maintaining affordable housing to its senior and permanently disabled population. Programs offered by the City, such as the Senior Home Repair (SHRP) and Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation (OOR) Programs, and the Town of Apple Valley’s OOR Program has provided residents with opportunities to make eligible repairs to their homes. Many repairs include ADA, health and safety improvements. These residents normally do not have the financial means to make these repairs on their own; therefore, these programs remain in high demand. Both Communities anticipate continuing to fund these programs in future years. Additionally, the City is in the process of expanding its programs that will help unrepresented protected classes, such as disabled persons, that are low and very-low income, make necessary repairs and improvements.

IV.1.c. Discuss any additional policies, actions, or steps that you could take to achieve past goals, or mitigate the problems you have experienced.
 Instructions

Page 383 of 463 ends

In future AFH processes, efforts will be made to collaborate with public agencies and housing authorities that share the regional area of influence, to include the County of San Bernardino, Housing Authority of San Bernardino County and the City of Hesperia. As first submitters, the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville were the only local agencies required to submit at this time. Once these agencies initiate their AFH process, the City will collaborate with them to consider future policies, actions or measures they will be proposing to supplement the Consortiums efforts.

IV.1.d. Discuss how the experience of program participant(s) with past goals has influenced the selection of current goals.

Instructions
Community input is sought every five years for the AFH plan (formerly Analysis of Impediments) and the Consolidated Plan as well as annually for the Action Plan. As the Consortium moves forward, this input shapes the strategies and sets priorities each year for the 5 year and annual plans. Each year activities are reviewed and assessed as to success and impact which is shared with the community through the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).

Fair Housing Analysis
Fair Housing Analysis > Demographic Summary
V.A.1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time (since 1990).

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Race/Ethnicity
Table 2 (Demographic Trends) for the Consortia shows the ethnic distribution for Consortia and Riverside County from 1990 through 2010.

From 1990 to 2000, White (non-Hispanic) remained the majority Ethic/ Racial groups in both the Region and Consortia. However, in 2010 Hispanics eclipsed Whites as the majority population in both the Region and Consortia. This pattern remains the same today with the Hispanic population representing 41 percent versus 39 percent for Whites for the Consortia. For the Region, Hispanics represent 47 percent versus 37 percent for Whites. It’s important to note that Whites (non-Hispanic) was the only racial /ethnic group to lose population in both geographic areas. Starting in 2010, Whites (non-Hispanic) became the minority population in both geographic areas. 




Page 384 of 463 ends

The metro region, Consortium, and Victorville have all become majority-minority areas since 1990. Counter to these trends, Apple Valley remains a majority non-Hispanic white population center, and its white population has actually increased in absolute terms. In 1990, both jurisdictions were very similar in size and demographic profile. Today, Victorville is much larger than AV and its demographics mirror trends in the region as a whole, unlike Apple Valley.

National Origin
Currently, the foreign-born population in the Consortia is 14 percent versus only 8 percent in 1990. For the Region, the current foreign born population is 22 percent versus only 14% in 1990.

Limited English Proficiency
Similar to the foreign-born population in both areas, there was a steady rise in Limited English Proficiency (LEP) from 1990-2010. After the 2010 Census, there was slight decrease in LEP by .5 percent for the Region and .2 percent for the Consortia. Currently, 9 percent of the Consortia’s population and 15 percent of the Region’s population are LEP.

While the Hispanic population increased by 31 percent from 2000 to 2010, the foreign-born population increased by less than 5 percent, which indicates that the Consortia s increased population over the Census periods is largely a result of people moving within the U.S. or new births.

Sex, Age and Family Type
Both the Consortia and Region’s male and female population remained relatively even (50/50%) from 1990 to present. In terms of age, individuals 18-64 have represented more than 54 percent of the population since 1990 for both the Consortia and Region. Seniors (65+) remained the smallest population for both areas since 1990. Today, the percentage of seniors for both areas are relatively the same (11% Consortia/ 10% Region).

Like the 18-64 population, households with children have been the majority family type since 1990 for both the Consortia and Region.

Today, the percentage for this family type are relatively the same for both areas ( 52% Consortia/ 51 % Region).

Racial/Ethnic Population. (Individual Ju risdictions)
In Apple Valley, in 2010, the largest racial/ethnic demographic is White, Non-Hispanic, with nearly 38,671 persons or 55.58 percent of the population. Since 1990, that demographic has decreased from 80.91%. Hispanics make up the second largest demographic with more than 20,279 persons, or 29.14%, and has increased from 12.02% in 1990. Black, Non-Hispanic rounds out the top three with 5,974 persons at 8.59%, which also increased from 3.72 in 1990. By comparison, in 2010 the region’s largest demographic is Hispanic with 1.55 million or 47.25%, up from 26.48% in 1990, followed by White, Non-Hispanic at 36.61%, down from 62.41% in 1990, and rounding out the top three, Black, Non-Hispanic at 7.1%, up slightly from 6.52% in 1990. Apple Valley has become more diverse over the span of 1990- 2010. Though population has increased significantly across all races and ethnic backgrounds over this time period, the population of white residents has trended down while black and Hispanic residents have trended upward. This is also true of the Riverside- San BernardinoOntario, CBSA on the whole.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported Victorville’s population at 122,225 as of July 1, 2015. Victorville experienced a tremendous growth between 2000 and 2010. The table below illustrates Victorville’s population growth.

Victo rville’s Population Growth
1990 2000 2010 2015
Highest percent
change

Page 385 of 463 ends

40,674 64,029 115,903 122,225 81% (2000-2010)
The City of Victorville has increased in population and in diversity over the last 25 years. These trends are similar of other communities throughout California. Table 1 and 2 illustrate Victorville’s demographics and demographic trends. In 1990, White made up 65.94% of the population. The percentage dropped to 48.38% in 2000 with another significant drop in 2010 to only 28.88% of the population. The largest increase in population was among the Hispanic population. In 1990, Hispanic only made up 22.41% of the population. The Hispanic population increased to 33.75% on 2000 and significantly increased to 47.42% of the population in 2010. 2010 was an increase about

13.6% alone. The lowest population growth was among Native Americans, with an actual decrease in population of .15% from 1990 to 2010.

Race and Ethnicity 1990 2000 2010 2015
White 25,827 30,382 56,258 35,299
Black 3,750 7,431 19,483 19,312
Native American 323 380 1,665 794
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,352 2,202 5,130 4,950
Other 69 143 33,367 293
Hispanic 9,353 21,426 55,359 61,577
National Origin Population. In Apple Valley, in 2010, Mexico is the #1 Country of Origin with 2,400 persons, 3.5 percent, followed by Philippines at .4%, and rounding out the top three Canada with .39%. Overall, Apple Valley’s Foreign Born persons increased from 5.55% in 1990 to 7.64 in 2010. By comparison, the region’s top three Countries of Origin in 2010 are: Mexico with 553,493 persons or 13.1%,; Philippines, 1.8%, and El Salvador, .72%. Overall, the region’s Foreign Born resident population nearly tripled from 360,666 (13.93%) in 1990 to 920,860 (21.80%) in 2010.

AFH Table 1 (Demographics) indicates similar results for Victorville as to Apple Valley. Mexico is the #1 Country of Origin comprising 12,423 people of Victorville’s overall population. Table 1 also indicates that the next highest Country of Origin is El Salvador at 1.24%, followed by Philippines at 0.94%. In total, Mexico, El Salvador, Cuba (.30%), Colombia (.22%), Nicaragua (.22%) and Guatemala (.17%) encompass the majority National Origins explaining why Victorville’s Hispanic population has been the most prominent throughout the years. All these Countries make up 12.75% of Victorville Latin/Hispanic Origin. Other Countries of Origin are below 0.50%, Korea (.34), Cambodia (.28%), and Vietnam at 0.23%.

Limited English Proficiency. In Apple Valley, in 2010, Spanish is the #1 LEP language with 2,400 persons,3.7 percent, followed by Korean at .19% and Chinese at .11%. Overall, Apple Valley’s LEP population increased from 2.69% in 1990 to 4.15% in 2010. By comparison, the region’s top three are Spanish at 533,544 or 12.63%, Chinese at .49%, and Tagalog at .4%. Overall, the region’s LEP population increased from 9.73% in 1990 to 15.17% in 2010.

With the growth in the Hispanic population residing in Victorville, the limited LEP population has grown as well. In 1990 the LEP population made up 7.15% of the population. By 2010 the percentage of LEP population increased to 12.15%. The majority of the LEP population primarily speaks Spanish. Foreign born residents make up 17.36% of the population in 2010, an increase of 6.96% from 2010, most being from Mexico.

Page 386 of 463 ends

Disability Type. In Apple Valley, in 2010, Ambulatory Difficulty is the highest Disability Type with 5,751 or 8.98%, followed by Hearing Difficulty with 3,771 residents or 5.89%, followed by Vision rounding out the top three at 3.69%. By comparison, the region’s top three Disability Types are Ambulatory at 241,262 residents or 6.18%, Independent Living Difficulty at 4.37%, and Cognitive Difficulty at 4.36%.

Victorville has a small disabled population. Current demographics indicate the largest populations of disabled individuals have ambulatory difficulty at 5.98%. This poses a need for ADA modifications of government buildings and the addition of sidewalks. Vision and Hearing disabled persons make up about 6.21% of Victorville’s demographic. It’s because this population, the City continues to fund its Senior Home Repair Program. Through the SHRP, many residents have been able to qualify for ADA improvements in their homes.

Families with Child ren. Families with children make up a substantial percentage of the population in Apple Valley and Victorville. In Apple Valley alone, in 2010, there were 7,872 families with children at 44.17 percent of the population, down from 50.11% in 1990. In the region, in 2010, 500,062 families with children at 50.99 percent, up slightly from 50.68 in 1990. Victorville’s Family Type encompassed 51.38% of the population in 1990. This percentage has gradually increased throughout the years. In 2000, there was an increase of almost 4.7% and a small 1.16% increase in 2010 totaling 57.20% of Victorville entire population.

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

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
AFH map 16 (Housing Tenure) below shows the primary location of owners within the Consortia by Census tracts. The darkest gray census tracts indicate more than 79 percent of the Consortia’s households as owners. As illustrated by the map below, the location of these owners is primarily outside the core of the Consortia. The R/ECAP area has the lowest percentage of owners at less than 29 percent. The map below shows the primary location of renters within the Consortia by Census tracts. The darkest gray census tracts indicate more than 70 percent of the Consortia’s households as renters. Unlike the previous map, the location of these renters is primarily northwest and near the core of the Consortia. The highest percentage of renters (>70) is located within the R/ECAP area Home Value
According to the most recent ACS data available for both jurisdictions, Victorville’s home value increase by 92%, more than 17% higher than the County between 2000 and 2013. Precipitous rise in housing costs could lead to many residents, particularly households with incomes below the moderate income level and first –time home buyers, unable to afford housing within the jurisdiction.

Conversely, Apple Valley’s home values remain some of the lowest in the Region. Although Apple Valleys home value increased by 51% over the 13 year period, it was still lower than the County’s (-24%) and much lower than Victorville’s (-41%).

Rents
Medium contract rents in the Consortia remained relatively low (Victorville 31% and Apple Valley 22%) compared to the 69% increase for the County between 2000 and 2013. Similar to home values, Apple Valley’s rents increase was 46% less than the County’s and 9% less than Victorville over the 13-year period.



Page 387 of 463 ends

Victo rville Base Year:  2000 Most Recent Year:  2013 % Change San Bernardino
County % Increase
(2000-2013)
% Difference between
changes in county v.
ju risdiction, co rrect?
Median Home Value $95,600 $183,800 92% 75% +17%
Median Contract Rent $896 $1,178 31% 69% - 38%
Apple Valley Base Year:  2000 Most Recent Year:  2013 % Change Median Home Value $109,500 $165,300 51% 75% -24%
Median Contract Rent $818 $1,000 22% 69% -46%
Source 2000 Census and 2013 ACS Data
Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley.     Renters are most prominently found in two census tracts of Apple Valley where Residential Multi-Family (R-MF) zoning is the most dominant developed land use. These areas include Census Tracts 97.10 and 97.16. Housing Choice Vouchers are also in greatest supply in these areas due to the higher density of rental units found in these tracts.  The combined effect has produced a strong trend of rental units in those areas since Apple Valley incorporated in 1988. Local knowledge of the area supports that homeowner and renter households are otherwise spread throughout Apple Valley without clear dominance in any other areas.

Victorville. Race and ethnicity can have implications for housing choice, as certain demographic and economic variables correlate with race. Old Town Victorville has always been viewed as a predominately Hispanic neighborhood. Currently, there are only a limited number of housing options available for these residents: rental or owner housing in Old Town planning area, or mobile home parks. Because of low income earnings and high housing costs in the community, many households are unable to buy or rent housing that provides sufficient living space for their needs, and therefore are faced with overcrowding. Although, this may be the case for the residents living in Old Town, the cultural amenities, such as specialty markets and local small businesses catering to the Hispanic community, provide the conveniences these families seek. Special bakeries known as “panaderias” and stores selling piñatas are commonly found in Old Town. The oldest Catholic Church in Victorville is at the center of Old Town Victorville, offering several Spanish masses.

Brentwood was a development community that was built in the late 1990’s. The new development included an elementary school and a spacious park. During the housing crisis, Brentwood was one of the hardest hit communities with foreclosures. Investors purchased a great amount of these foreclosures and turned them into rentals. With affordable rents for larger homes were available, Victorville experienced a large Black population growth in this area. This once sought after community began to experience high crime rates and code enforcement issues, such as lack on landscape maintenance and disabled vehicles. Local pizza restaurants implemented a no delivery after 5:00 p.m. for this area because of the multiple muggings of their drivers. Since the housing market has seen an increase in sales prices, many of the rental homes in Brentwood have sold to homeowners. Currently, 71% of the homes in this area are owner occupied.

Page 388 of 463 ends

A continued depressed area in Victorville is in the east side of Victorville, cross streets of Rodeo Drive and Seneca. This area contains multiple, older apartment complexes. It also contains smaller, older single family residences. The demographic makeup of the area is predominately very low and low income Black and Hispanic population.

Region. According to Census QuickFacts, the owner occupied housing rate for 2010-2014 was 67.1% for Apple Valley and only 60.1% for San Bernardino County. Though the jurisdiction retains a higher owner- occupied rate than the region, homeownership is on the decline as increasing home values have also priced out lower-income persons from being able to enter the housing market.

Fair Housing Analysis > General Issues
V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Segregation/Integration V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Segregation/Integration > Analysis V.B.i.1. Analysis
V.B.i.1.a. Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region. Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
The index of dissimilarity is a demographic measure of the evenness with which two groups are distributed across component geographic areas that make up a larger area. Values range from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the groups measured. Dissimilarity index values of 0 to 39 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.  Instructions




Page 389 of 463 ends

Apple Valley. Historically, Table 3 shows that the Dissimilarity Index has been trending upward in almost all of the racial/ethnic categories from 1990 through 2010 for Apple Valley. Black/White populations experience the highest rates of segregation in the jurisdiction with an Index of 24.46. This and the other categories are under 40.0 and are therefore considered relatively low indicators of segregation in the jurisdiction. However, segregation at the Consortium level is 10+ points higher for each group than in either Jurisdiction alone. Segregation in Apple Valley has increased significantly, even as segregation in neighboring Victorville has decreased.

Victorville. Table three (3) illustrates the racial and ethnic dissimilarity trends in Victorville and the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Region. Trends indicate that the Victorville area has a very low degree of segregation, with the lowest percentage of segregation among the non-white and white population at 14.50%. The highest segregation index was among the black and white population with an index percent of 18.46, still within a low segregation range.

Region. On a regional basis, the Dissimilarity Index indicates moderate segregation across all populations with the highest being Black/White populations at 47.66 in 2010.

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

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
According to the Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends table below, both Consortia and the Region segregation index rose for all racial/ethnic groups from 1990-2010. The exception was Asian or Pacific Islander within the Consortia which had a slight decrease in level of segregation in 2000. Currently, all racial/ ethnic groups in the Consortia segregation index dropped for their 2010 levels, except for Asian or Pacific Islanders which rose by approximately 2 percent.

When comparing the average level of segregation over the three Census periods, no group in Consortia experienced higher than “low segregation”. However, for the Region, Blacks and Hispanics experienced “moderate” levels of segregation. It is important to note, that Blacks were the only group within the Region that experienced higher than “low” segregation in all three Census periods (1990,2000, 2010). Currently, all groups are experiencing moderate segregation within the Region. Blacks had the highest moderate segregation index of 47.66.

As pointed out in the Demographic Summary, the metro region, Consortium, and Victorville have all become majority-minority areas since 1990. Counter to these trends, Apple Valley remains a majority non-Hispanic white population center, and its white population has increased in absolute terms. In 1990, both jurisdictions were very similar in size and demographic profile. Today, Victorville is much larger than Apple Valley and its demographics mirror trends in the region as a whole, unlike Apple Valley. 



Page 390 of 463 ends

Table 3 - Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
(Cnsrt-Apple Valley, CA CONSORTIA)
Ju risdiction (Riverside-San Bernardino -Ontario, CA) Region Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity
Index 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Cu rrent 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Cu rrent Non-White/White 20.82 24.27 30.52 29.14 32.92 38.90 38.95 41.29 Black/White 32.44 25.74 36.38 34.02 43.74 45.48 43.96 47.66 Hispanic/White 20.43 26.70 30.35 28.59 35.57 42.40 42.36 43.96 Asian or Pacific Islander/White 23.08 17.89 23.76 25.88 33.17 37.31 38.31 43.07 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census
Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. Since 1990, all population categories, except the 2000 census for the category of Asian Pacific Islander/White, have trended upward with each census year in the Apple Valley jurisdiction.

Victorville. Table 3 provides Racial/Ethnic Trends for the Jurisdiction. Among the non-White and White population there was a fluctuation on dissimilarity trends since 1990 to 2010. In 1990 the dissimilarity index was 14.22%; in 2000 there was an increase to 18.80, indicating a larger degree in segregation between these categories. The gap decreased in 2010 when the index dropped to 14.50%.

The Black and White population experienced a higher degree of segregation with an index of 26.40%. Integration began to happen in 2000 when the index dropped to 22.24% and even more so in 2010 when the index dropped to 18.46%. This was the largest change in the dissimilarity index showing a greater increase in integration among these populations.

Victorville numbers for residents of Hispanic and White race/ethnic backgrounds grew and dropped. In 1990 the dissimilarity index was at

17.63% and increased to 19.97% in 2000. The index decreased significantly in 2010 to 14.53%. Among the Asian or Pacific Islander and White population experienced a fluctuation in index numbers as well. In 1990 the dissimilarity index was 22.54% with a significant decrease in 2000 to 13.44%.

This number increased in 2010 to 17.48%. Although Victorville’s Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends have fluctuated throughout the years of 1990, 2000 and 2010, its Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index remained significantly lower than that of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Regions. On average, the Regions dissimilarity index’s averaged over 40.0 for 2010 for all Races/Ethnicities.

Region. All population categories (Non-White/White, Black/White, Hispanic/White, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White) have also continued an upward trend over the same time period in the region. As a result, all categories indicate moderate segregation in the region as whole. If that trend continues to the next census, some populations could be on the cusp of high segregation (55.0+).

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

Page 391 of 463 ends

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

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
The presence of residential segregation may appear as clusters of a single color of dots representing one protected class, or as clusters of more than one color of dots representing a number of protected classes but still excluding one or more protected classes. According to Map 2 below, Census year 2010 illustrated a higher segregation of Hispanics (blue dots) within the western region of the Consortia. In the southeastern area of the Consortia, the map illustrates a higher cluster of Whites (orange dots). This lack of integration of protected classes in this area could be an issue if it is a “higher opportunity area” compared to the Consortia as a whole. Further analysis regarding this issue will take place later in this AFH.

Individual Ju risdictions
Race/Ethnicity. Apple Valley shows all the signs of being a well-integrated jurisdiction. Divides of Race/Ethnicity are not apparent in any tract. Areas of greatest population density do have economic challenges that will be addressed elsewhere, though they remain just as integrated as the surrounding areas of Apple Valley. In 1990, it is apparent that there was a far higher predominance of Whites in the population, but integration was still achieved then, as well as in 2000.

In 1990, Victorville was a predominantly White community, making up 65.94% of the population. In 2000, Whites made up 48.38% of the population. In 2010, there was a large race growth in the Hispanic community making up 47.42% of the population while the white population dropped to 28.88%. This is evident in Map 2, which shows a large White population during 1990.

Victorville’s Map 1 depicts a more integrated jurisdiction as of 2010. The increase in the Hispanic population is evident in this map. The largest Hispanic population has increased in the south-west area of Victorville, which includes the development known as Liberty Village and Brentwood.

Country of Origin. When examining Apple Valley, Map 3 (National Origin) shows that the most populous country of origin in the jurisdiction is Mexico. Though this population is wholly represented throughout the Town, the areas displayed with boundaries of Waalew Road to the north, Highway 18 to the south, Joshua Road to the east and Corwin Road to the west in the jurisdiction, are almost exclusively represented by Mexican origin. Mexico is followed by the Philippines, Canada, China, and Germany. However, very few representatives of these populations reside in the boundary predominantly represented by those with national origin of Mexico.

Map 3, National Origin, depicts that the most populous country of origin for Victorville is Mexico, with El Salvador and Philippines second and third, respectively. All three national origin countries tend to be located in the southeast area of Victorville, mostly in Liberty Village, a development that was built in the mid 1980’s and in the Old Town area.

Limited English Proficiency. The population of those who are of LEP, Map 4, is becoming a greater concern for Apple Valley. There is evidence that the Spanish speaking population continues to grow. The 2010 Census shows 3.69% of Apple Valley as Spanish speakers with LEP.




Page 392 of 463 ends

The largest population of LEP is the Spanish speaking population at 13.06% of Victorville’s populations. Tagalog is second but only represents 0.38% of the population. Public notices and workshop flyers are available to the Spanish speaking population including City notices, such as water rate changes.

Region. The Region has significant areas of segregation in pockets of both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties compared to the communities within the Consortium.

V.B.i.1.d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
As described in Section V1.2 above, the location of owner occupied housing is primarily outside the core of the Consortia. When examining the location of protected classes, there doesn’t seem to be an issue of segregation or integration as it relates to owner-occupied housing.

The Consortia’s owner occupied housing is also well represented in higher clustered Hispanic areas.

However, the identified R/ECAP area had the highest percentage of renters with more than 70 percent. Based on the analysis completed in the previous section, this R/ECAP area also has a high cluster of Hispanics compared to the Consortia as a whole. The presence of residential segregation may appear as clusters of a single color of dots representing one protected class. Therefore, renter housing is located primarily in a segregated area of the Consortia.

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. Though the jurisdiction does not have areas of racial/ethnic segregation, there are multi- family residential zoned areas in low-income census tracts, where there is also a predominance of rental apartment units. These areas, Census Tracts 97.16 and

97.10,.consist of many two (2) to four (4) unit complexes as well as eight (8) unit and larger complexes, depending on the parcel size.

Though the multi- family units co-exist among many single-family residential homes on R-MF parcels, these also have a greater tendency to be rental units. Ownership is otherwise spread through all areas of Town and does not seem more prevalent in any areas, aside from where the presence of multi-family units is greater due to the land- use designation.

Victorville. As previously mentioned Brentwood rental housing rate is at 29% of the areas housing units. Brentwood continues to be predominately Black neighborhoods. In addition the majority of the residents living in Victorville’s Old Town area are predominantly Hispanic.

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

Instructions




Page 393 of 463 ends

Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Since 1990, the Consortia has had Whites and Hispanics as its principal populations. Based on the Race/Ethnicity trends maps presented below, Whites and Hispanic households were fairly evenly distributed throughout the Consortia. However, in 2000 a pattern of Hispanics clustering near the western region of the Consortia begins to take shape. In 2010, a clear segregation of Hispanics in the western region is represented by a cluster of blue dots.

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. Maps 1, and 2, depict a landscape of population growth across all tracts between 1990 and present day. The recurring theme is that the White population did not grow in Apple Valley at a rate near, or close to that, of the Hispanic population. Table 1 reiterates this showing White population rose only 14% in population over that period of time, while Black residents rose 282% and Hispanics an even higher gain of 301%.

Map 3 shows that the tracts in the central and east parts of Town north of Highway 18, have the greatest representation of residents whose national origin is Mexico. When reviewing Map 4, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) among Spanish speakers is the most prevalent in these same areas. Though also represented elsewhere, there is a lack of other languages being represented in those areas as well.

V.B.i.1.f. Discuss whether there are any demographic trends, policies, or practices that could lead to higher segregation in the jurisdiction in the future.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
As pointed out in the Demographic Summary, the metro region, Consortium, and Victorville have all become majority-minority areas since 1990. Counter to these trends, Apple Valley remains a majority non-Hispanic white population center, and its white population has increased in absolute terms. In 1990, both Jurisdictions were very similar in size and demographic profile. Today, Victorville is much larger than AV and its demographics mirror trends in the region as a whole, unlike Apple Valley.

Land-Use.

Apple Valley’s zoning has traditionally been focused towards lower density residential uses in Apple Valley. The jurisdiction was founded on the basis of rural single-family residential and estate sized lots. The glorification of ranch-style living has been a recurrent theme in Apple Valley’s history and has carried over to the present day via minimum half acre lot sizes throughout the jurisdiction. However, when compared to the region, affordability for both rents and home ownership is considerably lower in Apple Valley than most all areas in the 




Page 394 of 463 ends

most southern parts of the two-county region and prices are comparative with our local neighbors, Hesperia and Victorville, who have more desirable access and proximity to Interstate-15.The Town of Apple Valley has an approved Housing Element that provides for enough variety in land uses to accommodate housing units across all levels of density and affordability.

Victorville. The Victorville General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide for a range of housing types and densities with adequate amounts of available land for development. The City offers varying zoning standards to encourage lower cost housing.

In August 2006, the City of Victorville adopted a Reasonable Accommodation in Housing to Disabled or Handicapped Individuals Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance was to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make request for and be provided, reasonable accommodation in the application of zoning regulations to housing. This ordinance with Fair Housing Laws is administered by the City’s Development Department.

The City of Victorville is currently working towards the Revitalization of Old Town/Midtown Area. The City invested financial resources to develop and update the previous Old Town Specific Plan dated April 1995. Revitalization efforts are being considered to address old and unsafe housing stock, crime and blight, outdated and poorly functioning infrastructure, and declining of property values. City staff is currently researching and developing a comprehensive and strategic plan that involves the review of land use to make the Old Town area a way that pedestrian traffic will support retail businesses, increase residential development to support retail business and encourage business development. This will promote integration of compatible land uses; encourage greater recreational use of the existing open space; establish a location for cottage industry, live/work providing more opportunities for people of lower income and disabilities; and to address the adjacent transit station as a focal point in the Downtown area. Revitalization of Old Town will consider existing Downtown Development Codes, Capital Improvement, encourage a sales tax sharing program and promote infill housing development. The goal to revitalize Old Town is to improve safety and provide more opportunities to minorities, such as the Hispanic population that currently resides in Old Town.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Segregation/Integration > Additional Information V.B.i.2. Additional Information
V.B.i.2.a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about segregation in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)



Page 395 of 463 ends

Apple Valley. Community input gathered via meetings and surveys did not reveal an indication of segregation among protected classes. However, there were strong feelings over the treatment of some protected classes when seeking housing throughout the jurisdiction. Denials based upon race and source of income were the most common reported instances of discrimination. Though not apparent in survey results, Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board also reported the following concerns:

Based on fair housing data, disparities may exist in the jurisdiction and region for groups of the disability protected characteristic. Apple Valley saw an increase in the numbers of reported disability discrimination cases from IFHMB over this four-year period. For instance, in Apple Valley in 2011 there were seven (7) disability related cases that were opened and in 2015 there were fifteen (15) cases that were opened for the year, an increase of 114%.

Victorville. One of the questions asked in the Survey was if residents thought the neighborhood they lived in was segregated. Close to 83% of the respondents stated that their neighborhoods are integrated and people of all backgrounds are welcome. With less than 7% respondents that thought their neighborhood was segregated stated that it was a result to high housing sales or rental pricing.

Input from the stakeholder meetings, specifically with real estate professionals, indicates there is no evidence of segregation. The community has a good balance of integration between race and ethnic groups. A common comment received by real estate professionals and community members is that people tend to gravitate and want to live near people that are like them, such as people with similar interest or occupations. This is evident in the surrounding community of Spring Valley Lake. This community is in the San Bernardino County pocket in Victorville. The community consists of a man-made lake and other resort like amenities. People that are interested in boating, water sports and fishing seek homes in this area.

In addition, research indicates that families do better when they live in a strong and supportive community. Many people relocate from other surrounding areas in the County of San Bernardino to Victorville because of the proximity to Interstate-15, health care facilities, large shopping centers and restaurants, entertainment options, and location to the Victor Valley Community College. Local knowledge has indicated that other surrounding communities do not offer the amenities that Victorville has. It’s apparent that these are just a few reasons why Victorville has become diverse over the years. Past local knowledge has indicated that surrounding communities have been more segregated due to the cost of housing, professional backgrounds and language spoken. The Revitalization of Old Town Victorville will also encourage place-based investments and increase mobility options for minority and other protected class groups.

V.B.i.2.b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of segregation, including activities such as place-based investments and mobility options for protected class groups.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
Apple Valley. Despite the dissolution of Redevelopment in California in 2012, the Town of Apple Valley was able to set-aside various properties to hold for future affordable housing development. Enlisting the expertise of experienced affordable housing developers, staff is confident that the first of several projects will be to develop a 10 (ten) acre site near Navajo and Sioux Roads as a two phased senior and family complex. With great proximity to a grocery store, transit, schools, a medical clinic and a park, the project will serve as an attractive neighborhood investment for many years to come and a key to revitalizing the area. 


Page 396 of 463 ends

Victorville. Place-based investments often referred to as “community-change initiatives” and are led by nonprofits or governments seeking to improve conditions in targeted low income communities. By supplying tailored social services, technical assistance, grants and capacity building resources in a specific geographic area, place-based initiatives intend to benefit residents directly through improved services and indirectly through strengthened social networks. Currently, the City’s Economic Development Department is developing a plan to assist the Old Town Area of Victorville with an overall revitalization of the area. The area includes older housing stock and abandoned commercial buildings. Neighborhood Stabilization Program income funds are being earmarked for a possible mixed use project. The objective to revitalize Old Town Victorville is to create opportunities for residents of all protected class levels, develop beautiful and safe neighborhoods, and create positive economic and social outcomes through federal, state and private investments, particularly for those experiencing decline or disadvantages.

The City has launched two city-wide loan programs to assist property owners, both owner occupied and rental property, with assistance to correct code violations and improve curb appeal to their property.

Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) offers a Sunday delivery program for the handicapped for direct routes around the High Desert. It can sometimes take a half to full day to navigate the bus lines to get somewhere and VVTA has identified that that is an impediment to the disabled.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Segregation/Integration > Contributing Factors of Segregation V.B.i.3. Contributing Factors of Segregation
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of segregation.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous responses)
Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities Land use and zoning laws
Location and type of affordable housing
V.B.i.3. Contributing Factors of Segregation - Other
Revised (Click for previous text)




Page 397 of 463 ends

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > R/ECAPs
V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > R/ECAPs > Analysis V.B.ii.1.a. Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of R/ECAP tracts within the jurisdiction.

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Currently, the Consortia has a small R/ECAP area, which is included in a much larger R/ECAP containing unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. The R/ECAP only includes Census Tracts 99.05 which is within Victorville’s geographical boundaries. Census Tract

99.05 encompasses 3.89 square miles. The current population is 7,575 and includes 2,417 housing units. The geographical area that falls within this R/ECAP starts on the north side of Mojave Drive ending at Air Expressway, boundaries are west side of Interstate 15 and east side of Llana Avenue. This area is commonly referred to as the Village Drive Area.

In 2000 the City of Victorville had a small R/ECAP area. This area was located in what is commonly known as Old Town Victorville. The area is in Census Tract 98 and encompasses 1.29 miles. The current population in the Census Tract is 5,017. It contains 1,648 housing units. As of the 2010 Census this specific area is no longer an R/ECAP area.

V.B.ii.1. Analysis




Page 398 of 463 ends

V.B.ii.1.b. Which protected classes disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs compared to the jurisdiction and region? Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Table 4 R/ECAP Demographics states that the population comprising a portion of Census Tract 99.05 is 7,575. The race/ethnic make-up population located within the R/ECAP area is Hispanic 53.61%, White – 23.50%, Black – 15.50%, and Asian or Pacific Islander, NonHispanic – 3.80%. Compared to the Region’s R/ECAP Demographics, these percentages drop with the exception of Hispanics exceeding and making-up 70% of the entire 216,883 population. Comparing Table 1 Demographics for the entire City of Victorville, the Hispanic community almost encompasses half of the entire population, at 47.42%. Regionally, the Hispanic community percentage is similar to Victorville’s, 47.25%. Similarly, the White community is the second highest race.

Region. The region does have R/ECAPs outside of the one shared by Victorville and Adelanto area. The next closest R/ECAP in San Bernardino County is located to the North in Barstow. The rest are located to the south in San Bernardino City, Ontario, Fontana and Colton. Several others are located in the south and central areas of Riverside County (City of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet, Indio, and Coachella Valley/Thermal).

The largest race/ethnicity categories, that make-up the two-county regional population of over 4.13 million people, consists of 47.25% Hispanic, and 36.61% White, Non-Hispanic. The total population of all the R/ECAPs in the region is 216,883 persons. Compared to the region-wide demographics, the White, Non- Hispanic population is significantly underrepresented in R/ECAPs consisting of only 14.65% of the population while Hispanics are considerably overrepresented (69.33%). Black, Non Hispanic populations are also slightly overrepresented in the R/ECAP areas; 7.14% is the regional population and 9.53% is the R/ECAP population.

Families with children represent approximately 50.99% of the families in the region. However, in the R/ECAPs, they disproportionately represent 63.04% of all families.The most dominant country of national origin is Mexico with a regional population of over 550,000 persons (or 13.10%). Unfortunately, R/ECAPs also carry a significantly larger proportion of this population with 23.29% of the 216,883 persons.

In R/ECAP Census Tract 99.05 total population is 7,575., The race/ethic make-up of the area are: White – 49%, Black – 16%, Native American – 0.01%, Hispanic – 22% and Other – 7c.

V.B.ii.1.c. Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time (since 1990).

Instructions





Page 399 of 463 ends

Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Map 2 depicts that in 1990 there were no R/ECAPS. However, in 2000, Map 2 shows that a small R/ECAP formed encompassing Census Tract 98, more commonly known as Old Town. This R/ECAP no longer exists. On the other hand, Map 1, illustrates how in 2010 another small area of the City of Victorville fell within a larger San Bernardino County Area R/ECAP. The majority of this R/ECAP is unincorporated San Bernardino County pockets. The R/ECAP includes Victorville Census Tract 99.05, which is commonly known as West City Planning Area and partially Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA) Planning Area. In addition, two small areas of Census Tract 91.17 and

91.16 include industrial and commercial areas of SCLA; however residential properties are not located within these Census Tracts. It would be safe to say that the R/ECAP areas predominantly found in Census Tracts 91.17 and 91.16 are probably County areas.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > R/ECAPs > Additional Information V.B.ii.2.a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Census Tract 99.05 village area is within the City of Victorville’s West City Planning Area and is an older established community, which has a predominately White population. In addition, this Census Tract also includes a Mojave Vistas Planning area which is north of I-15, south of Rancho Road and west of National Trails Highway. The 2006 Mojave Vistas Planning Area Specific Plan allows for the opportunity of a wide variety of housing unit types varying from cluster units to R-1. The Mojave Vista Plan proposes over 53 acres of cluster housing, and almost 60 acres of R-1 residential, and 47.6 acres of R-1. Based on these housing development types, the Mojave Vista Plan allows for a wide range of housing price, type of product and lot size for an array of residents.

Region. The R/ECAP’s throughout the region of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have been adequately addressed through other sections of this document. There is no additional relevant information that has been identified. 

V.B.ii.2. Additional Information



Page 400 of 463 ends

V.B.ii.2.b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of R/ECAPs, including activities such as place-based investments and mobility options for protected class groups.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
In an attempt to remove the R/ECAP that incorporates Census Tract 99.05, the Consortia will utilize HOME funding and other housing programs to remove barriers that prevent people from accessing affordable housing. For instance, the City of Victorville’s Residential Code Correction loan program is meant to assist property owners, owner occupied and rental property, to correct code violations. A significant number of low income residents have expressed financial hardship that prevents them from correcting code violations, specifically connecting their failing septic system to the City’s sewer system. The newly developed program will assist property owners with these delayed repairs.

With the implementation of the Mojave Vistas Specific Plan, public and private neighborhoods will include recreation centers and facilities including, but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, clubhouse and trails. The Plan provides for religious group development, public facilities (fire/police stations) and development of new schools. Neighborhood retail and commercial and administrative professional offices will be in close proximity.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > R/ECAPs > Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs V.B.ii.3. Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of R/ECAPs.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous responses)
Lack of community revitalization strategies
Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities V.B.ii.3. Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs - Other





Page 401 of 463 ends

Lack of Community Revitalization Strategies
The Consortia has a small R/ECAP area, which is included in a much larger R/ECAP containing unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. The R/ECAP only includes Census Tracts 99.05 which is within Victorville’s geographical boundaries. The Consortia’s knowledge of the R/ECAP as it relates to the housing and social service needs of the area is limited. In fiscal year 2017- 18, The Consortia will perform a community assessment to better understand the needs of the area which will lead to strategic investments using CDBG and HOME funding.

Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities Revised (Click for previous text)
A significant number of low income residents have expressed financial hardship that prevents them from correcting code violations, specifically connecting their failing septic system to the City’s sewer system. In an attempt to remove the R/ECAP that incorporates Census Tract

99.05, the Consortia will utilize HOME funding and other housing programs to remove barriers that prevent people from accessing affordable housing. For instance, the City of Victorville’s Residential Code Correction loan program is meant to assist property owners, owner occupied and rental property, to correct code violations.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Disparities in Access to Opportunity V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Disparities in Access to Opportunity > Analysis V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Disparities in Access to Opportunity > Analysis > Educational Opportunities V.B.iii.1.a.i. Describe any disparities in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status.

Instructions
Relevant Data

V.B.iii.1. Analysis
V.B.iii.1.a. Educational Opportunities



Page 402 of 463 ends

Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Table 12 index scores shows that Blacks/ Non-Hispanics had the lowest access to opportunity to proficient schools compared to other groups. When poverty level is factored in, Blacks/ Non-Hispanics continued to have the lowest access to opportunity in the Consortia, followed by Hispanics. In the Region, the index score for Hispanic’s access to proficient schools is lower when compared to other race/ethnic groups. This continues to be the case in the Region when examining Hispanics below the poverty line.

Individual Ju risdictions
The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The school proficiency index is a function of the percent of 4th grade students proficient in reading and math on state test scores for up to three schools within 1.5 miles of the block-group. The higher the index score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. Values are percentile ranked and rage from 0 to 99 max; average is 49.

Apple Valley. Table 12 (attached) shows that Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanics, have the best access to proficient schools (54.03) while Hispanics have the lowest access (44.49). Regardless of what race/ethnicities have better access, overall the proficiency index is low across all races/ethnicities. Therefore access to proficient schools is poor across all races and ethnicities. National origin and family status appear to be equally underserved.

Victorville. HUD provided Table 12 and Map 9 depicts a below average school proficiency index throughout the City. School Proficiency Index among all races/ethnicity are close in range, with the lowest being Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic at 32.52. Native American, Non-Hispanic are the highest at 37.54.

In Census Tract 98 (Old Town Area), Schools Proficiency Indexes is within the 20. 1-30. Although the School Proficiency Index appears to be much lower than the overall jurisdiction, this Census Tract has a predominately Hispanic population. Overall, Victorville has a low School Proficiency Index in all race/ethnic categories. Therefore, access to proficient school is poor across all races and ethnicities.

Table 12 - Oppo rtunity Indicato rs, by
Race/Ethnicity
(Cnsrt-Apple Valley, CA CONSORTIA)
Ju risdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labo r
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low Transpo rtation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 33.43 43.86 18.18 29.14 17.15 53.79 83.01 Black, Non-Hispanic 24.77 36.74 15.17 29.58 18.83 54.56 80.43 Hispanic 25.43 36.92 15.37 29.16 17.76 52.37 79.45
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 31.24 39.36 18.85 28.23 16.07 51.84 82.56 Native American, Non-Hispanic 28.19 41.43 13.18 29.78 18.59 59.89 80.40 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 25.44 37.44 12.97 31.85 19.80 50.18 82.57 

Page 403 of 463 ends

Black, Non-Hispanic 20.41 35.59 13.43 30.48 20.36 53.50 80.18 Hispanic 20.67 36.63 11.22 31.09 22.08 53.44 78.40
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 18.45 37.24 12.54 31.62 21.28 53.24 82.48 Native American, Non-Hispanic 39.64 44.86 19.74 24.09 12.45 46.98 83.50 (Riverside-San Bernardino -Ontario,
CA) Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 52.61 53.16 34.50 37.96 25.75 49.50 61.98 Black, Non-Hispanic 42.80 43.79 27.18 42.55 31.82 49.72 52.97 Hispanic 37.51 41.01 24.20 43.12 32.68 47.81 52.59
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.42 59.23 43.02 41.92 29.18 48.25 52.51 Native American, Non-Hispanic 41.19 45.54 25.06 36.84 26.34 50.16 61.60 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 38.39 44.64 25.55 38.74 29.20 49.95 62.31 Black, Non-Hispanic 27.15 35.04 17.39 43.48 34.78 48.95 51.90 Hispanic 23.78 34.76 16.42 44.76 36.54 49.34 52.37
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 42.30 44.82 30.51 45.00 37.05 51.32 49.15 Native American, Non-Hispanic 30.24 39.41 20.61 39.17 32.05 52.23 58.72 Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA Note 2: Refer to the Data Documentation for details (www.hudexchange.info).

V.B.iii.1.a.ii. Describe the relationship between the residency patterns of racial/ethnic, national origin, and family status groups and their proximity to proficient schools.

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia




Page 404 of 463 ends

The below map illustrate school proficiency for the Consortia with race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status. The darker the shaded area, the higher the school’s proficiency. Based on the maps, the area with the lowest school proficiency was located primarily in the western region of the Consortia (Victorville). The highest school proficiency was located in the eastern region of the Consortia (Apple Valley). Based on map 7, there seem to be a relationship between the residency patterns of racial/ethnic and national origin (Mexico) and proximity to proficient schools. Hispanics and individuals with Mexico as their national origin are clustered primarily west of the Consortia, which demonstrates their proximately to lower performing schools. However, there does not seem to be a relationship between family status and proximity to proficient schools.

Many pundits believe that areas segregated by lower-income ethnic groups often have underperforming schools due to inadequate attention to negative factors facing students in their community. According to a 2015 article, Race and Schools: The Need for Action, by Gary Orefield, Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, University of California–Los Angeles, schools are expected to create equal outcomes for students who leave their homes severely disadvantaged by family and community poverty, and arrive at their schools to find sometimes unqualified or inexperienced teachers, and leave those schools as soon as they can. Moreover, in many schools with Black and Latino students who are almost entirely poor and teachers who have little or no help in addressing the consequences of deep tensions that often exist in neighborhoods heavily affected by immigration, gangs, and other issues.

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. The jurisdiction is well integrated. The southeast portion of Apple Valley has lower population density than other areas and lower school proficiency. When reviewing National Origin information on Map 9, there is a greater likeliness that those areas are populated with residents who are originally from Mexico.

Victorville is a fairly racially integrated jurisdiction. Access to proficient schools is available to all residents. The school districts visionary mission statement is the following: “Victor Elementary School District is committed to inspiring purposeful learners who create their futures with confidence, curiosity, innovation, and integrity through engaging learning experiences in safe environments within a supportive culture.”
V.B.iii.1.a.iii. Describe how school-related policies, such as school enrollment policies, affect a student's ability to attend a proficient school Which protected class groups are least successful in accessing proficient schools? Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
Apple Valley. School enrollment policies in the Apple Valley Unified School District are not discriminatory or exclusionary. A report conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union that mentioned the Academy of Academic Excellence (AAE) as an independent charter that discriminated against undocumented students, was highly refuted by Principal of AAE, Lisa Lamb, in an article by The Daily Press, Staff Writer Charity Lindsey: “[AAE is the…] only independent charter mentioned in our area.” Lindsey clarified that the school operates as its own district where the others are dependent charters, but are using the same enrollment practices that every school within that district are using, which the report doesn’t 


Page 405 of 463 ends

disclose. Lindsey further notes that Lamb further reiterated that AAE “does not deny enrollment to any student for the reasons listed in the report.” Therefore, the reason that AAE was singled-out is unfounded.

As previously indicated, Map 9, School Proficiency and National Origin, shows that residents accessing lower proficiency schools in the southeast region of Town, have an almost exclusive representation of originating from Mexico. Otherwise, access to schools appears to be evenly balanced between all protected classes.

Victorville. State average for English proficiency is 44%. This is based on test scores of low income students. Victorville elementary schools score between 15% - 26%. State average for math proficiency is 33%. Victorville elementary schools score between 7% - 11%.

The higher scoring schools are charter schools specializing in science, sports, art and music. The Victor Elementary School District has made a policy that makes school an option to all residents. All the school sites are “Schools of Choice”. The District’s policy breaks schools up into four (4) areas called quadrants. Students have the opportunity to choose any school within the quadrant in which they live based on their interest. The policy’s flexibility even provides transportation to any school within the quadrants by the District.

Another policy that may affect a student’s ability to attend a proficient school is the school’s approach to homework. Some schools may provide links between home and school. Some specialty schools may believe that completing assignments independently at home using today’s technology educates and prepares students as adults, connects education with the home environment. Assignments therefore, can be integrated in the home learning experience. The disadvantage to this is that not all households have accessibility to computers or internet, which is a minimum requirement in taking advantage of such a policy.

Grading policies have positive and negative effects on students that can also impact their ability to attend a proficient or better performing school. For instance, an approach where grades have no meaning to a harsh grading policy affects the student’s future, critics the school and educators. Policies like this may impact a student’s ability to be accepted into another district, particularly those that have above average school proficiency indices.

Based on the HUD provided Map 9, it appears Hispanic families (Mexican and El Salvador Origin) would have the least successful rates in accessing proficient schools for the Victorville population.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Disparities in Access to Opportunity > Analysis > Employment Opportunities V.B.iii.1.b. Employment Opportunities
V.B.iii.1.b.i. Describe any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups.

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)




Page 406 of 463 ends

The Labor Market Engagement Index provides a measure of unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. Values are percentile ranked with values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the index value, the better the employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.

The Jobs Proximity Index measures the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by race\ethnicity. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Human capital means the skills, knowledge and experience possessed by an individual or population.

Conso rtia
According to Table 12 (consortia) above, all groups had relatively low opportunity to the labor market, averaging an index score of only

15.64. In addition, the disparity gap in access to the labor market by protected class is relatively small. Native Americans had the lowest access to the labor market at 13.18, while Asians had the highest at 18.85.

Protected class in the Region also had relatively lower opportunity to the labor market, averaging an index score of 30. However, it was more than 10 points higher that the protated classes within the Consortia disparity gap in access for the highest and lowest group is more pronounced. Asians had the highest access index in the Region (43.02), which was more than twice that of Asians located in the Consortia (18.85).

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. Table 12, Opportunity Indicators for Labor Market Index, shows that Hispanics have the lowest opportunity with 16.44.

Of those below the Federal poverty line, Hispanics remain the lowest at 10.12. Overall, the highest categories consist of Asian or Pacific Islander, Non- Hispanic populations at 22.18 and White, Non-Hispanics with 20.42.

Map 10, Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity, indicates that the northern and southwestern parts of the Town have the highest job proximity index scores. These areas have closer proximity to retail and commercial centers. The central parts of Town indicate the least access to job opportunities. This location is not nearly as walkable to the major commercial hubs within the Town boundaries.

Victorville. Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity, Labor Market Index column, shows that Native American, Non-Hispanic population has the lowest opportunity at 10.81. The highest opportunity is available to Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic with an indicator of 17.49 followed by White, non- Hispanic at 16.12. Based on Map 10, there is generally a greater labor market in the south part of the City. This area consists of the Mall of Victor Valley and Restaurant Row. The White population in this area has the closest proximity to employment from their homes. Map 10 also depicts that the Mexican National Origin community may be the highest labor-force within this area of Victorville.

Map 10, Job Proximity Index, for the R/ECAP Area within the City of Victorville’s jurisdiction depicts that Mexican and El Salvador National Origins; White, Non-Hispanic, Black, Non-Hispanic, and Hispanic appear have high index values to better access of employment opportunities. Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity states Job Proximity Index for Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic have the lowest job proximity index at 49.57.

Unincorporated areas of the City near City area appear have a Job Proximity Index between 20. 1-30 and 30. 1-40, significantly lower than other City areas. Although an integrated City, these areas appear to impact the White, Non-Hispanic, Hispanic and Black races/ethnicities.

V.B.iii.1.b.ii. How does a person's place of residence affect their ability to obtain a job?

Page 407 of 463 ends

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Proximity to jobs can affect the employment outcomes of residents. People who live closer to jobs are more likely to work. They also face shorter job searches and spells of joblessness. Proximity to employment proves particularly important to certain kinds of workers and residents. For instance, the duration of joblessness among black, female, and older workers tends to be more sensitive to job accessibility than it is for other kinds of workers. For poor residents, living closer to jobs increases the likelihood of working and leaving welfare.

Proximity matters for lower-income, lower-skill workers in particular because they tend to be more constrained by the cost of housing and commuting. They are more likely to face spatial barriers to employment; thus their job search areas tend to be smaller and commute distances shorter. In contrast, higher-income, higher-skill workers, who can afford to commute by car and exercise more choice in where they work and live, have more prospects than just the jobs near their neighborhoods and commute longer distances on average (The growing distance between people and jobs in metropolitan America- Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes Brookings Institute 2015).

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. White, Hispanic, and Black populations seem to reside equally in areas of low job proximity according to Map 10.

National Origin does not seem to have any higher weight in low proximity areas than higher proximity areas either. However, families do appear to have greater concentration in low job proximity areas where housing is denser in availability. These areas are also less expensive, so it appears that families, in the pursuit of rental housing, are unfortunately gravitating towards areas that happen to have less proximity to jobs.

Victorville. Map 10 depicts that the Hispanic and Black population are farther in proximity to better jobs. These races tend to live in lower proximity index areas. The concentration of these race/ethnic groups tend to live in older housing stock that is more affordable for them but job opportunities are very meager.

A person’s place of residence may be directly correlated to the opportunities they have in obtaining employment. In Victorville, for instance, many residents commute to other cities within the San Bernardino County and other surrounding counties. Because the Victor Valley is considered as one of the most affordable housing areas in Southern California people, may choose to commute in order to have lower mortgage or rent payments.

V.B.iii.1.b.iii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin, or family status groups are least successful in accessing employment? Instructions
Relevant Data






Page 408 of 463 ends

Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
Maps below illustrates job proximity index by racial/ethnic groups. The darker the shaded Census Tract, the more likely the opportunity to access job opportunities. According to the map, the Consortia’s northern and central areas have the highest opportunity to access job opportunities. Based on a relatively even distribution of racial/ethnic dots, there doesn’t seem to be one group least successful in accessing employment within the Consortia. This also the case when assessing national origin and family status.

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. Though Table 12 shows that Hispanic persons have the lowest proximity to job opportunities, it is not as apparent when examining Map 10. Overall, families appear in the greatest concentration in areas where access to employment is the lowest in the community.

Victorville. According to Map 10 Percentage of Households that are Families with Children live in areas where job proximity is high. This could be attributed to affordable housing for their family size; however some residents may have a longer commute to better jobs. Families within the 40.1 – 60.1% percentile appear to be unsuccessful in accessing employment. These families are not within the top five (5) National Origins for the City of Victorville. The Native American, non-Hispanic population seems to have the lowest labor market index at

10.81 percent. This population seems to be least successful in obtaining employment.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Disparities in Access to Opportunity > Analysis > Transportation Opportunities V.B.iii.1.c. Transportation Opportunities
V.B.iii.1.c.i. Describe any disparities in access to transportation based on place of residence, cost, or other transportation related factors.

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) is the local public transit agency providing fixed route bus service to the cities of Adelanto, Apple Valley, Hesperia, Victorville and portions of San Bernardino County, including Lucerne Valley, Phelan, Wrightwood, Pinon Hills Oro Grand, and Helendale. Weekday bus service also extends from Barstow to Victorville and down into the San Bernardino Valley at Fontana and City of San Bernardino. VVTA provides bus route service, commuter bus, paratransit to eligible persons, and vanpool services to High Desert commuters who commute throughout Southern California. The Transit Authority’s service area spans over 950 square miles. 




Page 409 of 463 ends

Apple Valley. Transit trips tend to be more frequent in the most densely populated areas of the Town according to Map 12. The area with the second highest number of transit trips correlates as part of an area where residents also experience lower access to job opportunities and lower incomes. According to Map 13, transit trips are also most frequent in areas with a greater influx of families.

Victorville.

Low Transportation Cost index measures the cost of transport and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. The Transit Trips Index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. Based on the HUD provided Table 12, Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity –, the Transit Index for Victorville’s federal low income population compared to the Region (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) is significantly less. The Native American, Non-Hispanic race in this same category in Victorville has a Transit Index of 21.0 compared to the Region’s 39.17. This could be a result of the Victor Valley’s limited access to transportation and routes within each community. Similar to other jurisdictions in the Victor Valley, many City of Victorville low-income residents struggle to find reliable transportation regardless of place of residence or cost. The need for more local and functional transit service to travel throughout the City for personal, work and recreational activities is very limited. Currently it may take several hours to make short trips due to route structures and low frequency of service. In addition, transportation service hours are short and only certain routes operate on Sunday.

Additionally, the Low Transportation Cost Index is also very low in Victorville compared to the Region meaning that the cost of transportation in Victorville is relatively higher. This may be a result to Victorville’s high commuter population. A recent study reviewing the High Desert’s Workforce briefly mentioned that residents living in Victorville who commute make up about 70% of its work-force population.

Of the active workers, totaling almost 38,000 people, over 11,000 are employed within the High Desert communities, but over 26,000 Victorville residents commute. The majority of commuters drive to the San Bernardino County areas, but some as far as Los Angeles and San Diego.. Therefore, cost of transportation in Victorville is relatively higher.

V.B.iii.1.c.ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most affected by the lack of a reliable, affordable transportation connection between their place of residence and opportunities? Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
Conso rtia
According to Table 12 (Consortia) above, Asians (16.07) are most affected by the lack of a reliable, affordable transportation connection between their place of residence and opportunities in the Consortia. However, Native Americans below the federal poverty line were affected the most with an index of 12.5.

Regionally, all protected groups are less affected by the lack of a reliable, affordable transportation connection between their place of residence and opportunities (index 30) when compared to the Consortia (index19). Within the Region, Native Americans were most affected with an index of 26.34. Similar to the Consortia, Native Americans below the federal poverty line were also affected the most with an index of 32.5.




Page 410 of 463 ends

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. Table 12 shows that the transit trips index is relatively equal across all Race/Ethnicity categories. Those with National Origin of Mexico appear to have a slightly skewed representation in areas where transit trips are more frequent. However, families appear to have the most significant representation in areas where transit trips are highest. In pursuit of less expensive housing costs, families are locating to areas further from walkable resources and jobs that require them to rely more heavily on transit services if they don’t have other means of transportation.

Victorville. As mentioned above the public transit system is limited in the City of Victorville causing all racial and ethnic households to be negatively impacted. Transportation accessibility based on Map 12, Demographics and Transit Trips, among households with children between the 40.01 – 80% percentiles located within the eastside of Victorville have the highest Transit Trips Index (30.1 – 40) indicating these households use public transportation more often than other categories. Additionally, the Mexican National Origin Transit Trips Index is highest ranging between 30.01 – 40. Transportation within the R/ECAP area located within the City of Victorville appears to have a low index, 20.1 – 30, mainly Mexican Origin. Based on the data provided, both indexes are still relatively low.

Because both Transit and Low Transportation Cost Indexes are low throughout all races and other protected categories, such as disabled persons, causing residents of the City of Victorville and surrounding jurisdictions to be limited in opportunities. The High Desert’s Workforce study recently reported that Victorville workers median age for males is 37.6 and females 38.4.

V.B.iii.1.c.iii. Describe how the jurisdiction's and region's policies, such as public transportation routes or transportation systems designed for use personal vehicles, affect the ability of protected class groups to access transportation.

Instructions
Revised (Click for previous text)
VVTA provides both fixed routes and ADA paratransit service within the Victor Valley area. Their services include: 10 local routes within the Victorville/Apple Valley area; 3 county routes including services to neighboring communities; and direct access ADA paratransit service.

Because public transportation is a key component for ensuring that disabled persons have an equal opportunity in the employment industry, education, and access to facilities, the lack thereof leaves many adults with disabilities to fully participate in society. The passage of the 1990 ADA Act requires that all new public transit vehicles and facilities be accessible, disparities remain. Transportation buses have low-floor, ramps, grab bars and large signage; some transit agencies fail to comply with the requirement to announce bus stops making it difficult for visually and cognitive impaired persons. Paratransit eligibility criteria’s may be too restrictive, trip denials, and late or no show buses are additional barriers for disabled individuals.

Typically, people living in small urban and rural areas have fewer public transportation options than those in larger urban areas. Based on the US Census Bureau, research indicates that as communities grow in population, public transit service significantly declines. Regionally, public transit services and access may be limited due to challenges in transportation spending patterns. As transportation cost increase, low-income households have less to spend on housing, education and other needs. Transportation costs are particularly burdensome for low-income households because they use a larger amount of their income to transportation expenses than higher-income households. In addition, rail transportation service, which typically serves higher-income riders, compared to bus service, may be funded and supported 


Page 411 of 463 ends

more so by metropolitan areas and states than in non-metropolitan areas. This creates inequities between bus service that serves more low- income riders regionally and locally. In addition, expanding highways or rail service lines may also increase property values, making difficult for minorities and low-income households to afford housing in those areas.

Regionally and locally, minority and low-income individuals are also faced with language and information barriers. Some minorities and lowincome individuals are unable to learn about transit options or have little voice in transportation planning because of language barriers or lack of information. Transportation policy makers make efforts to seek out and consider the needs of low-income and minority households, but effective mechanisms are not placed.

Other issues that create poor access and ability to use public transportation among the protected class groups are “green” gas emissions, transportation management, public safety and education to the benefits of using public transportation.

V. Fair Housing Analysis > B. General Issues > Disparities in Access to Opportunity > Analysis > Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities V.B.iii.1.d. Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities
V.B.iii.1.d.i. Describe any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.

Instructions
Relevant Data
Revised (Click for previous text)
The Low Poverty Index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt. The resulting values range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.

Conso rtia
Based on Table 12 (Consortia), Blacks had the highest exposure to poverty based on protected class within the Consortia. However, for residents below the federal poverty line, Asians/Pacific Islanders had the highest exposure to poverty. For the Region, Hispanics had the highest exposure to poverty amongst protected class, including groups below the federal poverty level.

Individual Ju risdictions
Apple Valley. As shown by Table 12, groups with the highest exposure to poverty are Black, Non- Hispanic (33.53) and Hispanic (33.91) populations. Of those below the federal poverty line, the same two groups both have an index right around 22.0, further indicating that these groups are the most exposed to poverty in their respective neighborhoods of Apple Valley. Map 14, Poverty and Family Status, reinforces that areas containing a propensity for multi-family residential properties have some of the highest rates of poverty, combined with the highest rates of families with children, ranging from 60.1%-80.0%. 



Page 412 of 463 ends

Apple Valley City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Apple Valley City Council
February 14, 2023