Canyon Lake City Council
November 12, 2025

A-2 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-1 Population Growth
1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent
Change
1990-
2000
Percent
Change
2000-
2010
Percent
Change
2010-
2020
Percent
Change
1990-
2020
Murrieta 1,628 44,282 103,466 110,949 2620.00% 133.70% 7.20% 6715.05% Perris 21,460 36,189 68,386 78,700 68.60% 89.00% 15.10% 266.73% Moreno Valley 118,779 142,381 193,365 208,634 19.90% 38.50% 7.90% 75.65% Temecula 27,099 57,716 100,097 110,003 113.00% 73.40% 9.90% 305.93% Lake Elsinore 18,285 28,928 51,821 70,265 58.20% 79.10% 35.60% 284.28% Canyon Lake 7,938 9,952 10,561 11,082 25.40% 6.10% 4.90% 39.61% Riverside County 1,170,413 1,545,387 2,189,641 2,473,902 32.00% 41.70% 10.40% 111.37% Source: United States Census Bureau.

A.2 Age Characteristics
A community’s current and future housing needs are determined in part by the age characteristics of residents.

Typically, each age group has distinct lifestyles, family types and sizes, incomes, and housing preferences. As people move through each stage of life, housing needs and preferences may change. To create a balanced community that accommodates all age groups, it is important to provide housing options that suit a variety of needs.

While the city’s total population grew by approximately 9.98 percent between 2000 and 2020, the child and youth population (ages 0-4 and 5-19 years), decreased by approximately 9.9 percent and 11.7 percent respectively.

Between 2000 and 2020 the population of ages 20-34 in the city grew by approximately 44.06 percent, which is the largest growth of any age category. The city's elderly population also saw substantial growth with an increase of 29.8 percent. In the same period, the population of adults between the ages of 35 and 64 grew by 7.58 percent. Canyon Lake’s median age has increased steadily from 40.6 in 2000 to 42.6 in 2020. Table A-2 shows population by age group in Canyon Lake.

Table A-2 Age Characteristics
Age Groups
2000
persons
2000
percent
2010
persons
2010
percent
2020
persons
2020
percent
Percent Change
(2000-2020)
Under 5 years 546 5.34% 478 4.50% 492 4.38% -9.89%
5-19 years 2,360 23.10% 2,304 21.70% 2,085 18.55% -11.65% 20-34 years 1,212 11.86% 1,540 14.50% 1,746 15.54% 44.06% 35-64 years 4,510 44.14% 4,661 43.90% 4,852 43.18% 7.58% 65+ years 1,589 15.55% 1,635 15.40% 2,062 18.35% 29.77% Total Population 10,217 100.00% 10,618 100.00% 11,237 100.00% 9.98% Median Age (years) 40.6 42.5 42.6 4.93%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000, 2010, and 2020.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-3
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
A.3 Race and Ethnicity
The race and ethnicity of residents is important to an analysis of housing needs and conditions for several reasons.

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race and ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long-standing federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA. To this end, it is important for a City to understand the interplay of racial and ethnic demographics and housing issues. Further in-depth analysis and discussion of housing segregation and disproportionate burden can be found in Appendix B, Assessment of Fair Housing.

Riverside County has become increasingly diverse in terms of race and ethnicity. As shown in Table A-3, non-Hispanic white residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in Canyon Lake at 75 percent of the city's population, which is higher percentage than Riverside County as a whole where non-Hispanic white residents make up 31 percent of the population. Hispanic/Latino is the second largest racial/ethnic group, comprising 15 percent of the population, followed by Asian at three percent and African American at two percent. The fastest growing ethnicity in the city has been Hispanic/Latino which increased seven percent since 2000, increasing its population share from nine percent to 15 percent. The share of Non-Hispanic White residents decreased from 87 percent to 75 percent in the same timeframe. An additional four percent of Canyon Lake residents identified as being of an "other" or a mixed racial/ethnic background.

Table A-3 Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
2000
Persons
2000
Percent
2010
Persons
2010
Percent
2020
Persons
2020
Percent
Change
since 2000
2020
Riverside
County
Non-Hispanic White 8,679 87.21% 8,630 81.72% 8,279 74.71% -12.50% 31.3% African American 81 0.81% 122 1.16% 199 1.80% +0.99% 7.5% Asian 153 1.54% 184 1.74% 266 2.40% +0.66% 7.8%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
11 0.11% 33 0.31% 15 0.14% +0.03% 0.5%
Hispanic/Latino 848 8.52% 1,303 12.34% 1,668 15.05% +6.98% 52.0% American Indian or
Alaska Native
11 0.11% 40 0.38% 45 0.41% +0.30% 2.0%
Other Race or Two or
More Races
424 4.26% 249 2.36% 610 5.50% +1.24% 3.9%
Total 9,952 100% 10,561 100% 11,082 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000. Bureau of the Census, 2010. ACS, 2019.

A.4 Economic Characteristics
Employment has an important impact on housing needs. Incomes associated with different jobs and the number of workers in a household determines the type and size of housing a household can afford. Higher-paying jobs provide broader housing opportunities for residents, while lower-paying jobs limit housing options. Additionally, employment growth is a major factor affecting the demand for housing in a community. In some cases, the types of jobs themselves can affect housing needs and demand such as in communities with military installations, college campuses, seasonal agriculture.

City Council Agenda,

A-4 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
A.4.1 Employment
As a primarily residential community, 95 percent of Canyon Lake workers commute to other places for work according to a report published by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2019. The top destinations were Lake Elsinore (6.9 percent), Riverside (5.2 percent), Temecula (4.8 percent), Los Angeles (4.6 percent), and Murrieta (4.1 percent).

According to SCAG’s Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast, 1,855 jobs were in Canyon Lake in 2017.

While data about industry types of these jobs are not available, Table A-4 lists the major employers located in the adjacent city of Menifee and provide a picture of typical employment types in the immediate region.

Table A-4 Major Employers in Menifee
Name of Employer Type of Service Number of Jobs
Mt San Jacinto College District Education 1,500
Menifee Union School District Education 1,290
Romoland Elementary School District Education 554
Target Corporation Retail 417
Menifee Global Medical Center Medical 365
Stater Brothers Retail 362
City of Menifee Public 312
United Parcel Service (UPS) Shipping and Logistics 248
Southern California Edison Utility 220
Texas Roadhouse Food 200
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. City of Menifee. https://cityofmenifee.us/DocumentCenter/View/16722/2022-ACFR. Accessed October 5, 2023.

In 2017, the largest occupational categories in Canyon Lake were professional services (18 percent), construction (17 percent), retail (13 percent), and finance (12 percent), which accounted for 60 percent of jobs within the city.

The fastest growing sector were construction, retail, and transportation which respectively increased 4.4, 2.6, and

2.6 percentage points from 2007 to 2017. The fastestshrinking sectors were professional services and finance, which lost 6.2 and 5.5 percentage points, respectively. Table A-5 summarizes the employment characteristics of the City’s civilian population in 2007 and 2017. More up-to-date information is not available.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-5
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-5 Employment Characteristics
Industry
Percent of City
Employment in 2007
Percent of City
Employment in 2017 Change
Professional 24.00% 17.80% -6.20%
Construction 12.10% 16.50% 4.40%
Retail 10.50% 13.10% 2.60%
Finance 17.80% 12.30% -5.50%
Leisure 7.60% 9.30% 1.70%
Other 6.60% 8.40% 1.80%
Education 13.10% 8.20% -4.90%
Transportation 1.90% 4.50% 2.60%
Information 2.30% 4.50% 2.20%
Wholesale 1.50% 2.60% 1.10%
Manufacturing 1.60% 1.80% 0.20%
Public 0.90% 0.90% 0.00%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments Local Profiles Report 2019.

Table A-6 displays mean annual wage data for occupations compiled by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) for Riverside County, providing insight into the typical salaries residents of Canyon Lake make based on the industries they work in. Legal, management, and healthcare occupations generally offered the highest wages while food service, healthcare support, and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations offered the lowest wages.

City Council Agenda,

A-6 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-6 Mean Salary by Occupation – Riverside County
Occupation Average Salary
Legal Occupations $133,699
Management Occupations $123,668
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $113,376 Computer and Mathematical Occupations $101,061
Architecture and Engineering Occupations $98,350
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $87,561
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $80,302 Business and Financial Operations Occupations $79,875
Construction and Extraction Occupations $66,433
Community and Social Service Occupations $66,055
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $64,165 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $62,399 Protective Service Occupations $62,127
All Occupations $60,159
Sales and Related Occupations $49,445
Office and Administrative Support Occupations $49,303
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $46,983
Production Occupations $46,708
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $42,550 Personal Care and Service Occupations $41,401
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $38,352
Healthcare Support Occupations $37,053
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $36,540 Sources: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage data, 2021 A.4.2 Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher income households are more likely to own a home rather than rent housing. Lower income households are more likely to occupy overcrowded or substandard housing and tend to pay a higher percentage of their income for their housing.

For planning and funding purposes, the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed the following income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) of metropolitan areas such as Riverside County:
 Extremely low-income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI  Very low-income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI  Low-Income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI  Moderate-Income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI  Above Moderate-income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-7
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Combined, the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups are referred to as lower-income.1 Between 2013 and 2017, approximately 79 percent of Canyon Lake households earned moderate or above moderate incomes, while 21 percent of households had lower incomes. Renters typically had lower household incomes than homeowners with 12 percent of renter households having incomes less than 30 percent AMI compared approximately 9.4 percent of owner households. Table A-7 shows renter- and owner-occupied households by income category.

Table A-7 Household Income by Tenure (2013-2017)
Income Category (% of County AMI) Percent of Owners Percent of Renters Total Households Percent of
Total Households
Extremely Low (30% AMI or less) 2.18% 5.85% 120 2.96%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMI) 7.18% 5.85% 280 6.90%
Low (51 to 80% AMI) 8.74% 18.13% 435 10.71%
Moderate or Above (over 80% AMI) 81.90% 70.18% 3225 79.43% Total 100.00% 100.00% 4,060 100.00%
Source: HUD; Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.

Household incomes in Canyon Lake tend to be significantly higher than those in Riverside County as a whole. The median household income in Canyon Lake in 2020 was $120,118, which was 58 percent higher the County's median income of $76,066. Figure A-1 compares household income in Canyon Lake, nearby cities, and Riverside County between 2015 and 2019.

Figure A-1 Comparison of Median Household Income (2015-2019) Household Income Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

Table A-8 also compares median income in Canyon Lake and its neighboring cities to the County’s overall median income. Median income in Canyon Lake is 58 percent higher than Riverside County as a whole, and 16 percent higher than the next highest city, Temecula. Temecula’s median income is 36 percent higher than the County median income.
1 Federal housing and community development programs typically assist households with incomes up to 80 percent of the AMI and use different terminology. For example, the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program refers households with incomes between 51 and 80 percent AMI as moderate income (compared to low-income based on State definition). $46,194
$70,910 $73,635 $76,066 $80,350
$98,466 $103,546
$120,118
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Hemet Perris Moreno
Valley
Riverside
County
Lake Elsinore Murrieta Temecula Canyon Lake
City Council Agenda,

A-8 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-8 Median Household Income (2015-2019)
Jurisdiction Median Household Income Percent above/below Regional Median Canyon Lake $120,118 57.91%
Temecula $103,546 36.13%
Murrieta $98,466 29.45%
Lake Elsinore $80,350 5.63%
Riverside County $76,066 0.00%
Moreno Valley $73,635 -3.20%
Perris $70,910 -6.78%
Hemet $46,194 -39.27%
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

As shown in Figure A-2, 19 percent of Canyon Lake households earned less than $35,000 per year in 2020. By contrast, about 35 percent of Canyon Lake households earned $150,000 or more per year. Canyon Lake has a higher concentration of higher-income households and a lower proportion of lower-income households than Riverside County.

Figure A-2 Household Income Distribution (2015-2012)
Source: Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2020.

Less than
$10,000
$10,000
to $14,999
$15,000
to $24,999
$25,000
to $34,999
$35,000
to $49,999
$50,000
to $74,999
$75,000
to $99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
Canyon Lake 4.90% 0.90% 5.10% 7.60% 5.80% 13.10% 7.80% 19.60% 22.10% 13.10% Riverside County 5.20% 3.60% 7.80% 7.90% 11.10% 17.00% 12.90% 17.60% 8.50% 8.40%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%
Canyon Lake Riverside County
City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-9
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
A.5 Household Characteristics
The Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households.

Household type and size, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents, their preferences, and their ability to obtain housing that meets their needs. For example, single-person households tend to reside in apartment units or smaller single-family homes. Households with multiple people, such as families with children or grandparents in the home, typically require residences with several bedrooms. This section details the various household characteristics represented in Canyon Lake.

A.5.1 Household Type and Size
Canyon Lake had an estimated 4,151 households in 2020 representing an estimated 11 percent increase since 2000.

As shown in Table A-9, 75 percent of the city’s households in 2020 were families. The proportion of single occupant households and other non-family households both increased slightly from 2000 to 2020. In the same period the proportion of households with children was stable with a slight decline from 36 percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2020. In the same period, the average household size has slightly decreased from 2.73 to 2.67.

Table A-9 Household Characteristics
Household Type
2000
Number
2000
Percent
2010
Number
2010
Percent
2019
Number
2019
Percent
Percent
Change
(2000-2019)
Households 3,733 – 3,769 – 4,151 – 11.20%
Family Households 3,029 81.14% 2,978 79.00% 3,122 75.21% 3.07% With Children 1,327 35.55% 2,521 66.90% 1,425 34.33% 7.39% No Children 1,702 45.59% 1,248 33.10% 2,726 65.67% 60.16% Non-Family Households 704 18.86% 791 21.00% 1,029 24.79% 46.16% Householder Living Alone 553 14.81% 607 16.10% 874 21.06% 58.05% Elderly Living Alone 258 6.91% 19 0.50% 44 1.06% -82.95% Other Non-Families 201 5.38% 184 4.90% 111 2.67% -44.78% Average Household Size 2.73 – 2.80 – 2.67 – -2.21%
Sources: American Community Survey 2000-2020.

Household size is a significant factor in housing demand. Often, household size can be used to predict the size of housing unit that a household will require. For example, housing units with up to two bedrooms are suitable for small households (one to three persons per household) while units with three to four bedrooms are more suitable for large households (five or more persons per household). Housing choices are often more of a function of economics than preference, as many households are obligated to rent smaller units or extend beyond their financial means to access larger homes. Canyon Lake had an average of 2.67 persons per household in 2021, representing a slight decrease from an average of 2.73 persons per household in 2000. Table A-10 compares household size in Canyon Lake to household size in surrounding cities and the County as a whole. Canyon Lake has the smallest household size 18 percent below the county average of 3.2. Perris has the highest average household size of 4.3 among surrounding Riverside County jurisdictions.

City Council Agenda,

A-10 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-10 Average Persons per Household by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Average Household Size (2017-2021)
Perris 4.30
Moreno Valley 3.91
Lake Elsinore 3.59
Murrieta 3.29
Riverside County 3.20
Temecula 3.19
Hemet 2.91
Canyon Lake 2.67
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

A.6 Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special needs. Special circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or household characteristics, among other factors. Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires an analysis of the needs of “special needs” groups including persons with disabilities, the elderly, large households, single-parent and particularly female-headed, single-parent households, people experiencing homelessness, and farmworkers. The special needs groups analyzed in this section include those groups required by state law as well as people living in poverty and college students (Table A-11). Many of these groups overlap, for example some farm workers are homeless, and many seniors have a disability of some type. This section contains a discussion of the housing needs facing each of these groups. Most of these special needs groups could be assisted by an increase in affordable housing, especially housing located near public transportation and services.

Table A-11 Special Needs Groups in Canyon Lake (2020)
Special Needs Group
Number of
Persons or Households
Percent of Total
Persons or Households
Households with Seniors 1,442 34.70%
Seniors Living Alone 1,363 12.30%
Persons with Disabilities 1,189 10.73%
Large Households (5+ persons) 357 8.40%
Single-Parent Households N/A N/A
Female Headed Households (no spouse present) 789 18.56% Female Headed Households with children N/A N/A
People Living in Poverty 709 6.40%
Farmworkers 18 0.16%
Homeless 0 0.00%
Students 2,656 23.97%
Sources: American Community Survey (ACS), 2020.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-11
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
A.6.1 Seniors
The limited income of many seniors often makes it difficult to find affordable housing. According to Table A-11, 1,442 households were headed by seniors, which accounts for approximately 35 percent of total households. Table A-12 shows that 1,961 persons aged 65 and over resided in Canyon Lake in 2022. This accounted for approximately 18 percent of residents, which is a larger percentage than the average 15 percent for Riverside County.

Table A-12 Persons Aged 65 and Over
Jurisdiction Total Age 65+ Percent Age 65+
Hemet 90,689 19,135 21.10%
Canyon Lake 11,142 1,961 17.60%
Riverside County 2,473,902 378,507 15.30%
Murrieta 113,783 13,426 11.80%
Temecula 111,752 12,069 10.80%
Moreno Valley 211,924 19,709 9.30%
Lake Elsinore 71,898 6,327 8.80%
Perris 80,263 5,538 6.90%
Source: United States Census Bureau, 2020.

Of households headed by seniors, an estimated 90 percent owned their homes, comprising 46 percent of all the homeowners within the city. As shown in Table A-13, 25 percent of persons 65 years of age or older live alone. 44 percent are part of a married couple, and 31 percent are male householders, female householders, or live with unrelated individuals. Data is unavailable for the elderly householders aged 62-64 years.

Table A-13 City of Canyon Lake Elderly Households 65 Years+ by Tenure and Household Type: 2015-2019
Household Type Owner Renter Total Percent
Living Alone 368 58 426 25.4%
Married Couples 708 27 735 43.8%
Male Householder 11 0 11 0.7%
Female Householder 80 0 80 4.8%
Not Living Alone 61 0 61 25.4%
Total 1,228 85 1,313 100.0%
Percent 91.5% 8.5% 100.0%
Sources: 2015-2019 American Community Survey, Table B25011, Tenure by Household Type (including living alone) and Age of Householder Of the 1,228 people ages 65 years or older:
 34 percent have lived in the city 10 to 20 years
 24 percent have lived in the city 20 to 30 years
 21 percent have lived in the city 30 or more years
The special needs of seniors can be met through a range of services, including congregate care, rent subsides, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. For seniors with physical limitations or disabilities, housing can be modified with features that help ensure continued independent living arrangement. Two residential care facilities City Council Agenda,

A-12 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
for the elderly are located in Canyon Lake. They have a combined capacity of 12 beds. There also is one residential care facility for the elderly with a license pending that will have a capacity of six beds.

A.6.2 Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may provide challenges to gaining employment, mobility, or independent living. Persons with disabilities may experience housing burdens and other challenges due to restricted income and/or accessibility needs. The living arrangement of disabled persons depends on the severity of the disability. Many persons with disabilities live at home independently or with family members. Independent living can be supported through special housing features for people with disabilities, income support, and in-home supportive services. Some persons with disabilities may require housing in a supportive or institutional setting.

Housing for persons with disabilities must be adapted according to individual needs. Various types of housing may be inaccessible to persons with mobility and sensory limitations. Housing may need to be adapted to accommodate widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, and other features necessary for accessibility, and many housing types may not have suitable space for such adaptations. The location of housing is also an important factor for persons with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel.

Some residents suffer from disabilities that require living in a supportive or institutional setting. According to 2015- 2019 ACS data, approximately 12 percent of Canyon Lake residents had a disability. Table A-14 shows the total number of disabled persons per age group in the City.

Table A-14 Disabilities Tallied in Canyon Lake (2019)
Disability Type Under 18 Age 18 to 64 Age 65+ Total
Total Disabled Persons 95 546 647 1,288
Note: A person can have multiple disabilities.

Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B18101, Sex by Age by Disability Status.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities
State law requires the Housing Element to discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by Federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
 Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;  Is manifested before the individual attains age 18;
 Is likely to continue indefinitely;
 Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) selfcare; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and
 Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

Many persons with developmental disabilities can live and work independently in a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment with supervision. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment with medical services and physical therapy.

Many persons with developmental disabilities require supportive services during the transition from childhood to a more independent living situation as an adult.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-13
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) estimates that, in 2022, 1,768 individuals with developmental disabilities were living in Canyon Lake. Of individuals with developmental disabilities, 43 percent were children under 18 and 57 percent were adults.

There are a number of housing resources that improve access to housing for people living with a development disability. These resources include rent-subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed group homes in single-family neighborhoods, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and residential care facilities. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group.

Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing, as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws, is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. The Fair Housing Act requires builders of multi-family housing projects to be accessible to people with disabilities through considerations in seven key areas2
:
 Accessible building entrance on an accessible route
 Accessible and usable public and common use areas
 Usable doors
 Accessible route into and through the covered unit
 Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations  Reinforced walls for grab bars
 Usable kitchens and bathrooms
While the Fair Housing Act creates a national baseline for multifamily housing accessibility, a citywide Universal Design Ordinance can go further to increase the usability of homes and apartments by people of all ages, sizes, and abilities. The Center for Universal Design3 defines the seven principles of Universal Design as:
 Equitable use
 Flexibility in use
 Simple and intuitive use
 Perceptible information
 Tolerance for error
 Low physical effort
 Size and space approach and use
A home that complies with a Universal Design Ordinance that aligns with these principles enhances the ability of all residents to live independently in their own homes as long as possible by allowing the house to adapt to a lifetime of changing needs.

A.6.3 Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because of the frequently limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units in a community. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lowerincome large households to reside in smaller units. This frequently results in overcrowding and could accelerate unit deterioration. Table A-15 compares the number of large households in Canyon Lake to that of Riverside County.

Approximately 8 percent of households in Canyon Lake consisted of five or more persons, which is a significantly lower rate than Riverside County as a whole (19 percent). 2 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Act Design Manual (1998) 3 North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design, The Principles of Universal Design (1997) City Council Agenda,

A-14 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-15 Large Households in Canyon Lake Compared to Riverside County Jurisdiction
# of Large
Households
% of Total
Households
# of Large
Owner
Households
% of Total
Households
# of Large
Renter
Households
% of Total
Households
Canyon Lake 357 8.40% 263 6.19% 67 1.58%
Riverside County 479,937 19.40% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2020. Census Reporter, 2022.

Lower and moderate-income large households can benefit from various affordable housing programs. These include the Homeownership Education classes, Mortgage Credit Certificate program, affordable housing development assisted with City, State, and fFderal funds, and Housing Choice Vouchers, among others.

A.6.4 Single-Parent Households
Single-parent families, particularly female-headed, single-parent families with children often experience a higher housing cost burden relative to the general population and may require assistance to access affordable day care, health care, and other supportive services to ensure fair access to housing and other resources. As a result, State housing element law requires that jurisdictions analyze the particular needs of single-parent households especially female-headed single-parent households. As shown on Table A-16, an estimated 5 percent of Canyon Lake households were headed by single parents in 2021, the majority of which (89 percent) were headed by females. This is compared to an estimated 6 percent of single parent households across Riverside County, 78 percent of which were headed by females.

Table A-16 Single-Parent Households (2021)
Total
Households
Single-Parent
Households
Percent Total
Households
Female-Headed
Households with
Children
Percent of
Single-Parent
Households
Canyon Lake 4,151 200 4.82% 177 88.50%
Riverside County 765,673 48,988 6.40% 38,313 78.21%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

Lower-income single-parent households can benefit from County programs that provide direct rental assistance or that will facilitate the development of deed restricted affordable housing. Affordable housing opportunities can also be expanded for low- and moderate- income single-parent households through the Housing Choice Vouchers, Homeownership Education classes, and the Mortgage Credit Certificate program.

A.6.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households are defined by HCD as households with income less than 30 percent of AMI. The 2023 AMI in Riverside County for a family of four is $94,500. For extremely low-income households, this translates to an annual income of $31,500 or less. Households with extremely low-income have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance or disability insurance are considered extremely low-income households.

Approximately 120 extremely low-income households reside in the city, representing three percent of the total households. This proportion is lower than in Riverside County, where four percent of households are extremely lowincome. Some extremely low-income households could have physical or mental disabilities and/or other special needs. There is overlap between extremely low-income households and particular housing needs. Extremely lowincome households are likely to be cost burdened for both renters and homeowners.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-15
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Canyon Lake currently has no subsidized or income-restricted affordable housing units. To address the range of needs, the City will employ programs to support affordable housing development, remove constraints, and support development of housing types that may fit the needs of extremely low-income residents, such as supportive housing.

A.6.6 Farmworkers
Due to Canyon Lake's location which is somewhat removed from Riverside County's agricultural areas, the need for farmworker housing in the city is minimal. Of the community’s residents, approximately 18 persons are employed in the farming, fishing and forestry occupations, according to SCAG’s pre-certified housing data, comprising just 0.16 percent of the city’s population. There is no farmland designated in Canyon Lake.

Given the low number of persons employed in agricultural-related industries, the City can address the needs of the farmworker population through its overall affordable housing programs. Those persons identified as having agricultural jobs are most likely employed at plant nurseries and other small-scale jobs and thus are not anticipated to have the seasonal housing needs associated with crop-related farmworker jobs. Therefore, there is no need for land use regulations to address the State Employee Housing Act (Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code).

A.6.7 Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
Throughout California, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue. A 2023 study conducted by the University of California, San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative found that an estimated 47 percent of respondents became homeless due to economic reasons, 32 percent cited health reasons, and 63 percent cited conflict with roommates, overcrowding, or not wanting to impose on others.

California housing element law (California Government Code Section 65583(1)(6)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of individuals experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. Individuals experiencing “homelessness” as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Title 42 U.S. Code Section 11302, describes an individual (not imprisoned or otherwise detained) who:
 Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and  Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
 A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);  An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or  A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

This definition does not include persons living in substandard housing, unless it has been officially condemned; persons living in overcrowded housing, persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends).

Homelessness continues to be a regional and national issue. Canyon Lake relies on Riverside County's Continuum of Care (CoC), which oversees the county's plan to organize and deliver supportive social services, including housing options, which meet the specific needs of homeless individuals and families. The goal of the CoC is to move homeless people toward stable housing and maximum self-sufficiency.

HUD requires regional continuums of care conduct an annual point in time (PIT) count of all sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January. Because Canyon Lake is a gated community and has limited places where homeless people are likely to gather, homeless people are unlikely to be present in the city. The January 2023 Riverside County PIT Count identified zero unsheltered homeless adults and children living in Canyon Lake. The previous PIT count also found zero homeless persons in Canyon Lake. The PIT count for Canyon Lake is compared to the PIT county for Riverside County as a whole in Table A-17.

City Council Agenda,

A-16 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
However, while people experiencing homelessness may not have an obvious presence in Canyon Lake, the City can still take steps to prevent contributing to factor that lead to homelessness by providing resources for people at risk of becoming homeless and by developing a housing affordability plan.

Table A-17 Homelessness in Canyon Lake and Surrounding Cities (2023) Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total % Sheltered
% of Total Homeless
Population in Riverside County
Canyon Lake 0 0 0 N/A N/A
Riverside County 1,284 2,441 3,725 34.47%
Source: Riverside County homeless population increased by 12 percent while growth rate decreased by 3 percent, RivCoNOW, 202x. https://rivco.org/news/riverside-county-homeless-point-time-count-reveals-decrease-8-percent-unsheltered-homelessness There are no emergency shelters located in Canyon Lake and 14 emergency shelters with a total of 879 beds located in Riverside County. Of the 879 beds available:
 305 beds are for families with children
 380 beds are for households without children
 37 beds are only for children
 120 beds in two shelters are for domestic violence victims  37 beds are in shelters for youth
Homeless service providers continually work toward linking homeless individuals and families to existing mainstream benefits such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), MediCal, and Food Stamps (CalFRESH). The City intends to reduce regulatory and zoning barriers to shelter and affordable housing development.

A.6.8 College Students
The college student population (those enrolled or identified in a program above grade 12) is another significant factor that affects housing demand. Although students represent a temporary housing need, the impact upon housing demand is critical in areas immediately adjacent to trade schools, colleges, and universities. Given student income limitations, the same market forces that impact the lower income housing market also influences student housing.

There are currently no colleges or universities located within Canyon Lake. The nearest college is Mt. San Jacinto College in Menifee, which is located approximately 10 miles from Canyon Lake, and is part of the California Community College system. In 2021, 493 Canyon Lake residents were enrolled in college, and an additional 77 were enrolled in a graduate or professional school. Because there are no colleges located in Canyon Lake, students likely live in the homes of their parents, and there is not a need for student housing in the city.

A.7 Housing Stock Characteristics
The characteristics of the housing stock, including housing production, type, age, condition, tenure, vacancy rates, housing costs, and affordability are important in determining Canyon Lake’s housing needs. This section details the characteristics of the housing supply to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents of the city.

The housing stock in most comparable cities grew faster from 2000 to 2010 than the following 10-year period. The number of housing units in Canyon Lake grew approximately 12 percent from 2000 to 2010 but grew 1.2 percent from 2010 to 2019. The number of housing units in Canyon Lake grew significantly slower than Riverside County which grew by approximately 45 percent between 2000 and 2020. Table A-18 shows a comparison of growth in the number of housing units since 2000 across Riverside County cities.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-17
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-18 Housing Unit Growth (2000 to 2020)
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2020
Percent Change
2000 - 2020
Murrieta 14,921 35,294 37,363 136.54% 5.86% 150.41%
Lake Elsinore 9,506 16,253 18,946 70.98% 16.57% 99.31%
Temecula 19,099 34,004 36,550 78.04% 7.49% 91.37%
Perris 10,563 17,906 19,476 69.52% 8.77% 84.38%
Riverside County 584,674 801,324 848,549 37.05% 5.89% 45.13% Moreno Valley 41,127 55,559 57,523 35.09% 3.53% 39.87%
Hemet 29,401 35,305 36,067 20.08% 2.16% 22.67%
Canyon Lake 4,047 4,532 4,584 11.98% 1.15% 13.27%
Source: Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, 2000-2010. Southern California Association of Governments, April 2021. ACS, 2000-2020.

A.7.1 Housing Type
Table A-19 shows how the housing makeup of Canyon Lake has changed since 2000. The most prevalent housing type in Canyon Lake is single-family detached with 4,234 units. The share of all single-family units in Canyon Lake is 95 percent, which is higher than the 62 percent share in the SCAG region, which includes encompasses six counties in Southern California. Single-family attached homes make up another 2.9 percent of the housing stock. Multi-family housing of any size makes up 3.3 percent of the housing stock, and mobile homes account for 1.5 percent.

Development of multi-family housing and mobile homes has been insignificant since 2010. Multi-family housing share increased slightly by 2.2 percent of the City's housing stock in 2000 to 3.3 percent in 2020. However, development of multi-family housing has stalled since 2010. The share of mobile homes decreased from 3.5 percent of the City's housing stock to 1.5 percent in 2020.

Table A-19 Housing Unit Type
Housing Unit Type
2000
Units
2000
Percent
of Total
2010
Units
2010
Percent
of Total
2019
Units
2019
Percent
of Total
Percent
Change
2000-2010
Percent
Change
2010-2019
Single-Family Homes 3,816 94.29% 4,317 95.26% 4,368 95.29% 13.13% 1.18% Multi-Family Homes 90 2.22% 149 3.29% 149 3.25% 65.56% 0.00% Mobile Homes/Other 141 3.48% 66 1.46% 67 1.46% -53.19% 1.52% Total Housing Units 4,047 100% 4,532 100% 4,584 100% 6.50% 2.30% Source: Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, 2000-2010. Southern California Association of Governments, April 2021.

A.7.2 Tenure
Housing tenure refers to whether a unit is owned or rented. The owner versus renter distribution of a City’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential stability is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing being associated with a lower turnover rate than rental housing. Housing cost burden (sometimes referred to as overpayment), while faced by many households regardless of tenure, is generally far more prevalent among renters. Tenure is primarily related to household income, housing type, and age of the householder.

Owner and renter households occupy 79 percent and 22 percent respectively of all housing units. More than 94 percent of all owners occupy single family detached homes. 82 homeowners live in mobile homes. Renters predominantly occupy single-family detached homes. Almost 19 percent of all single-family detached homes are renter-occupied. Table A-20 displays a detailed breakdown of the tenure data.

City Council Agenda,

A-18 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-20 City of Canyon Lake Tenure by Units in Structure: 2015-2019 Units in Structure
Owner
Occupied Percent
Renter
Occupied Percent Total Percent
1, detached 3,132 94.4% 725 79.6% 3,857 91.2%
1, attached 17 0.5% 45 4.9% 62 1.5%
2 apartments 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
3 or 4 apartments 64 1.9% 80 8.8% 144 3.4%
5 to 9 apartments 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
10 or more apartments 24 0.7% 31 3.4% 55 1.3%
Mobile home or other type of housing 82 2.5% 30 3.3% 112 2.6% Total 3,319 78.5% 911 21.5% 4,230 100.0%
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2504, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units In 2019, among the City’s occupied housing units, an estimated 79 percent were owner-occupied, while 22 percent were renter occupied. As shown in Table A-20, renter-occupied households had a slightly smaller average household size than owner-occupied households in 2019. The average renter-household size in 2019 was 3.22 persons compared to 3.32 persons for the average owner-household. Though the average homeowner household size and renter household size is similar, the City's rental housing stock offers a smaller percentage of larger units (three and four bedrooms). Larger sized units constituted 79 percent of owner-occupied housing and only 20 percent of renteroccupied units. This disparity in the availability of larger sized rental housing may make accessing adequate housing difficult for larger households unable to afford home ownership. Due to country-wide historical patterns of segregation, discriminatory lending, and urban renewal, non-white households are less likely to own their home and access the wealth building opportunity that ownership offers. In Canyon Lake, Black and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander households have a 100 percent home ownership rate, followed by Asian with 85.1 percent and non-Hispanic or Latino White with 76.9 percent. The average homeownership rate for the City was 76.9 percent. Figure A-3 shows that rates of home ownership among different racial groups in Canyon Lake. 4 Figure A-3 Tenure by Race of Householder (2020)
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019
4 Urban Institute, 2021. Available: https://apps.urban.org/features/tracking-housing-wealth-equity/ 100.00%
100.00%

85.11%

78.17%

76.87%

72.19%

66.58%

45.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.89%

21.83%

23.13%

27.81%

33.42%

54.80%
100.00%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Asian
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
All
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino origin
Some other race
American Indian and Alaska Native
Owner Renter
City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-19
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
A.7.3 Vacancy
Vacancy rates indicate the degree of housing choice available in the City. Too high a vacancy rate can make it difficult for owners trying to sell or rent. Low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. A vacancy rate that is too low can force prices up, making it more difficult for lower and moderateincome households to find housing.

Vacancy rates between two and three percent for single-family housing and between five and six percent for multifamily housing are usually considered optimal for a healthy housing market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of market conditions. They must be viewed in the context of all the characteristics of the local and regional market. Low rental-housing vacancy rates in a community, common especially in high demand regions like Southern California, also contribute to increased rents, increased housing costs, increased homelessness, and difficulties exiting homelessness.

Table A-21 shows a comparison of vacancy rates of cities comparable to Canyon Lake. In 2020, the vacancy rate in Canyon Lake was 13 percent, which is much higher than most regional cities. Canyon Lake's high vacancy rate is mostly due to the prevalence of homes for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. Of the 606 vacant units in Canyon Lake:
 100 are rental units;
 57 are for sale/sold units;
 416 are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use; and,  33 are “other vacant”.

While a high prevalence of homes for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use are indicators of community wealth, an underutilized housing stock constrains the community's housing supply and contributes to housing shortages and high housing costs while occupying land that could be used for permanent housing.

Table A-21 Vacancy Rates by Community (2020)
Jurisdiction % Vacant Total Units # Vacant
Canyon Lake 13.20% 4,584 606
Hemet 12.30% 36,067 31,645
Lake Elsinore 7.10% 18,946 14,585
Moreno Valley 6.00% 57,523 54,094
Temecula 5.60% 36,550 34,511
Murrieta 4.90% 37,363 35,518
Perris 4.30% 19,476 16,839
Source: Pre-certified Local Housing Data. SCAG. August 2020.

Housing Age and Condition
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing conditions in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and threaten the health and safety of residents, depress neighboring property values, and discourage reinvestment. Many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as a factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs. Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.

Housing that is not maintained can discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and can negatively impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Common housing code violations and substandard conditions City Council Agenda,

A-20 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
in the City include unpermitted construction, moisture damage, faulty electrical wiring, plumbing, windows, and roof systems, deteriorated exterior siding, and faulty heating and mechanical systems.

Figure A-4 shows the age of housing stock in Canyon Lake compared to the rest of the SCAG region. 72 percent of Canyon Lake's housing stock was built before 1990. Despite the age of its housing stock, conditions of housing are good, with just one home identified by the City as needing rehabilitation in 2022 due to illegal construction. No homes are so deteriorated that they require replacement.

Figure A-4 Housing Stock Age (2020)
A.7.4 Overcrowding
The combination of low-incomes and high housing costs has forced many households to live in overcrowded housing conditions. “Overcrowding” is generally defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room.

Rooms can include living rooms and dining rooms but excludes hallways, kitchens, and bathrooms. Significant overcrowding indicates that a city does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing, especially housing that could accommodate large families.

Overcrowding typically occurs when there are not enough adequately sized units in a community, when high housing costs relative to income force more individuals to share a housing unit than it can adequately accommodate, or when families reside in smaller units than they need to devote income to other necessities, such as food and health care. Overcrowding tends to accelerate the physical deterioration of housing and disproportionately affects renterhouseholds.

California Government Code Section 65584.01(b)(1) defines overcrowding as more than one person per room in a dwelling. Table A-22 summarizes overcrowding in Canyon Lake. As of 2019, less than one percent of households in Canyon Lake had more than one resident per room.
0% 0% 1.20% 1.70%

25.40%

43.40%

15.80%

10.90%

0.10% 1.50%

9.30% 6.90%

15.90% 14.50% 16.30% 15%

9.50% 10.10%

1.50% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1939 and
earlier
1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2013 2014 and later
Canyon Lake SCAG
City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-21
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table A-22 City of Canyon Lake Persons per Room by Tenure – 2015-2019 Persons per Room
Owner
Occupied Percent
Renter
Occupied Percent
Total
Households Percent
Less than 1.00 3,293 99.2% 911 100.0% 4,204 99.4%

1.01 to 1.50 26 0.8% 0 0.0% 26 0.6%

1.51 to 2.00 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

2.01 or more 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 3,319 100.0% 911 100.0% 4,230 100.0%
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25014 Tenure by Occupants per Room A.8 Housing Costs and Affordability
Housing costs are indicative of housing accessibility to all economic segments of the city. The cost of housing is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price lowincome families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions.

A.8.1 Home Values
The real estate listing services company Zillow estimates that Canyon Lake’s typical home value in August 2023 was approximately $677,488. This value is 17 percent higher than the countywide typical value of $580,475. Figure A-5 shows 2023 median home values in the city and county as a whole.

Figure A-5 Median Home Values (2023)
Source: Home Value Index, Zillow, 2023.
$381,238 $390,853 $413,290
$453,378 $460,725 $476,835
$617,095
$694,789 $677,488
$309,765 $326,935 $348,685
$378,745 $387,579 $411,374
$508,601
$599,674 $580,475
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
August
2015
August
2016
August
2017
August
2018
August
2019
August
2020
August
2021
August
2022
August
2023
Canyon Lake Riverside County
City Council Agenda,

A-22 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
As shown in Figure A-6, home values in Canyon Lake increased by about 78 percent between 2015 and 2023. This is less than Riverside County as a whole (87 percent). Home values have increased much faster than median income, which increased 50 percent in the county over the same time period.

Figure A-6 Median Home Values (2023)
Source: Home Value Index, Zillow, 2023. U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2023.

A.8.2 Rental Costs
Less than one-fifth of Canyon Lake households (18 percent) live in rental housing. Rents are high in Canyon Lake.

According to the 2020 SCAG Pre-Certified Housing Data, most residents pay rental rates of greater than $2,000 per month. Figure A-7 shows the distribution of monthly rental rates in the city by income category.

Figure A-7 Estimate of Household Income by Rent in Canyon Lake (2014-2018) Source: Pre-certified local housing data. SCAG. 2020.

Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from the American Community Survey (ACS) data. Due to the small sample size, the margins of errors can be significant. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.
78%
87%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Canyon Lake Median Home Price
Increase (2015-2023)
Riverside County Meidan Home Price
Increase (2015-2023)
Riverside County Median Income
Increase (2015-2023)
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
33%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 68%
11% 19%
0%
3%
67%
15%
21%
41%
50% 40%
0% 17%
68%
40% 50% 57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Less than $20,000 $20,000-$34,999 $35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 or more
<$500/mo $500-1000/mo $1000-1500/mo $1500-2000/mo >$2000/mo City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-23
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
As shown on Table A-23, average monthly rents in Canyon Lake ranged from $2,100 for a one-bedroom apartment to $3,600 for a three-bedroom apartment in 2023. Rent for efficiency units (studios) in Canyon Lake was not available. Of the analyzed cities, Canyon Lake had the highest rental costs 17 percent higher than the regional average of $3,081 and 15 percent higher than Temecula, the next most expensive market. Nationally, median rent prices have increased four times faster than median income from 1985 to 2020.

Table A-23 Comparison of Median Monthly Rent (2023)
Unit Size Studio 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed
Canyon Lake None $2,100 $2,200 $3,600
Temecula $2,400 $2,100 $2,617 $3,124
Murrieta $1,650 $1,900 $2,350 $2,900
Perris $1,500 $1,740 $2,000 $2,700
Regional Average $1,850 $1,960 $2,292 $3,081
Moreno Valley $1,495 $1,795 $2,189 $2,750
Lake Elsinore $1,095 $1,525 $1,995 $2,700
Hemet $1,500 $1,450 $1,695 $2,495
Source: Median rent search conducted on October 10, 2021, on Apartments.com.

A.8.3 Housing Affordability
The cost of housing compared to the income of local households is used to determine the affordability of an area. If costs are high relative to income, housing problems such as overcrowding, and cost burden are more likely to occur.

The lack of affordable housing contributes to cost burden, overcrowding, and even homelessness. “Affordable housing cost” for lower-income households is defined in California law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with variations (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5). The comparable federal limit, most widely used, is 30 percent of gross income, with variations. “Housing cost” commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling), and property taxes and insurance on owneroccupied housing.

The median household income in Canyon Lake in 2020 was $120,118 which equates to a median affordable monthly housing cost of $3,337 per household. Current data to analyze how many households are paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs is not available. However, median rents in Canyon Lake are $3,600 per month, which is seven percent higher than the median affordable housing payment of $3,007, without factoring in utilities and fees. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that even households with above-moderate income levels are rent stressed as defined by HCD. Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the city with the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing and indicate the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment.

HUD conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, HCD developed income limits that can be used to determine the maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category. Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end.

A.8.4 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, thereby decreasing the amount of disposable income available for other needs.

This indicator is an important measurement of local housing market conditions because it reflects the affordability City Council Agenda,

A-24 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
of housing in the community. Federal and state agencies use overpayment indicators to determine the extent and level of funding and support that should be allocated to a community. State and federal programs typically define over-payers as lower-income households paying over 30 percent of household income for housing costs. A household is considered severely cost burdened if it spends more than 50 percent of its gross income on housing.

Table A-24 provides overpayment detail by income group and household type in Canyon Lake between 2014 and 2018 as well as the housing assistance needs for lower-income households that rent or own in Canyon Lake. The types of problems vary according to household income, type, and tenure.

Table A-24 Housing Cost Burden by Tenure (2016-2020)
Household by Tenure, Income, and Cost Burden Renters Owners Total Households Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) 145 160 305
With cost burden >30% 62.07% 100.00%
With cost burden > 50% 62.07% 78.13%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 130 275 405
With cost burden >30% 100.00% 58.18%
With cost burden > 50% 100.00% 45.45%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 55 430 485
With cost burden >30% 100.00% 54.65%
With cost burden > 50% 41.18% 22.09%
Moderate & Above Income (>80% AMI) 630 2,325 2,955
With cost burden >30% 18.25% 18.06%
With cost burden > 50% 1.59% 3.01%
Total Households 960 3,190 4,150
With cost burden >30% 17.55% 13.02%
With cost burden > 50% 0.13% 27.60%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2014-2018.

A.9 Eviction
While eviction data was not available for Canyon Lake, data is available for immediately adjacent City of Menifee.

From 2013 to 2018, the total number of unlawful detainer filings in Menifee was 189, an average of 38 per year.

A.9.1 Tenant-Based Rental Housing Assistance
The Housing Authority of Riverside County serves Canyon Lake and provides housing choice vouchers for lowerincome households. The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental subsidies to low-income families that spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs. Section 8 data is not available for Canyon Lake, but 2,370 households in Riverside County were receiving Section 8 assistance in 2019.5 Additionally, Section 202 program funds development of affordable housing for senior households and Section 811 program provides non-profits with funding to provide supportive housing for disabled, very- and extremely lowincome persons. 5 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019-2024. Riverside County. June, 2019 (Accessed October, 2023). https://www.rivcoeda.org/Portals/0/CDBG/PlansAndReports/AI_2019-2024_County%20of%20Riverside.pdf City Council Agenda,

Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs A-25
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
A.9.2 Publicly Assisted Rental Housing and Preservation of At-Risk Housing State law requires that the city identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing income restricted multifamily rental units that are eligible to convert to non- low-income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions during the next 10 years. However, the City does not currently have publicly assisted rental housing. Additionally, new deed-restricted affordable housing developments built during the planning period would typically have a longer term than the ten-year planning period and would not be at risk.

Preservation Options
Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation options typically include: 1) transfer of units to non-profit ownership; and 2) purchase of affordability covenants. In terms of replacement, the most direct option is the development of new assisted multifamily housing units. The following discussion highlights ways that the City’s at-risk projects could be preserved as affordable housing. All the presented alternatives are costly and beyond the ability of the City to manage without large subsidies from Federal and/or State resources. These options are described below.

Transfer of Ownership
Typically, transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a nonprofit organization, low-income restrictions can be secured, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance.

If the current nonprofit organizations managing the units at risk are no longer able to maintain the project, transferring ownership of the affordable units to another nonprofit housing organization is a viable way to preserve affordable housing for the long term. The feasibility of this option depends on the willingness of the owner to sell, funding sources to buy the property, and the existence of a nonprofit organization with sufficient administrative capacity to manage the property. Additionally, projects in which all units are affordable can participate in ownership transfers more easily and are therefore more likely to be feasible.

Rental Assistance
Similar to Housing Choice Vouchers, the City could provide rent subsidies to tenants of at-risk units through a variety of potential funding sources. The level of the subsidy required to preserve the at-risk units is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable to a lower income household.

State, local, or other funding sources can also be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the affordability of atrisk projects. These subsidies can be structured to mirror the voucher program, whereby the subsidy covers the cost of the unit above what is determined to be affordable for the tenants’ household income (including a utility allowance) up to the fair market value of the apartment. The per-unit subsidy is based on the difference between fair market rents and the annual amount affordable to a low-income household.

Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of the at-risk project is to provide a financial assistance package to the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing. Assistance could include bonds, writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, providing a lump-sum payment, and/or supplementing the rents to market levels.

The feasibility and cost of this option depends on whether the complex is too highly leveraged. By providing lump sum financial incentives or ongoing subsidies in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates to the owner, the City can ensure that units remain affordable.

City Council Agenda,

A-26 Appendix A – Assessment of Housing Needs
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low-income housing units is a means of replacing the at-risk units if they are converted to market-rate units. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction.

A.9.3 Resources for Preservation
Preservation of at-risk housing requires not only financial resources but also administrative capacity of nonprofit organizations. These resources are discussed in detail later in this Housing Element in Appendix F - Housing Resources.

City Council Agenda,

Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-i
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table of Contents
B Assessment of Fair Housing ............................................................................................................................. B-1 B.1 Government Code Requirements ........................................................................................................ B-1 B.2 Assessment of Fair Housing Requirements.......................................................................................... B-1 B.3 Fair Housing Protected Characteristics And Protected Classes............................................................ B-3 B.4 City Context.......................................................................................................................................... B-4 B.5 Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach and Resources Analysis............................................................. B-7 B.6 Segregation/Integration Analysis......................................................................................................... B-9 B.7 Disparities in Access to Opportunity .................................................................................................. B-35 B.8 Disproportionate Housing Needs....................................................................................................... B-56 B.9 Housing Sites Inventory Analysis........................................................................................................ B-68 B.10 Local Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... B-80 B.11 Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors................................................................................... B-81 B.12 Fair Housing Priorities, Goals And Strategies.................................................................................... B-83 Tables
Table B-1 Levels of Segregation ........................................................................................................................... B-9 Table B-2 Dissimilarity Index: 2010 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Division) ....................................................................................................................... B-10 Table B-3 Population by Race and Ethnicity: 2010 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside-County)....... B-11 Table B-4 Median Household Income (in 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Householders' Race/Ethnicity (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside County)....................................................................................... B-15 Table B-5 Percent with a Disability by Race/Ethnicity (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside County).................. B-18 Table B-6 Population by Age with a Disability 2015 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake)........................................ B-20 Table B-7 Households with Children 2010 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake) ...................................................... B-24 Table B-8 Percent Below the Poverty Level and Percent with a Bachelor’s Degree (City of Canyon Lake and County of Riverside)........................................................................................................................... B-38 Table B-9 Employment Status by Disability Status............................................................................................. B-43 Table B-10 Housing Problems by Income Level, 2016-2020 (City of Canyon Lake) ............................................. B-57 Table B-11 Extremely Low-Income Households by Race/Ethnicity: 2012-2016 (City of Canyon Lake)................ B-58 Table B-12 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure: 2012-2016 (City of Canyon Lake)............................ B-58 Table B-13 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity (City of Canyon Lake)............................................................... B-63 Table B-14 Proposed Housing Units by Resource Area (Housing Opportunity Sties) .......................................... B-69 Table B-15 Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics................................................................................. B-79 Table B-16 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues........................................................................... B-85 Figures
Figure B-1 Canyon Lake Census Tracts.................................................................................................................. B-6 Figure B-2 Percent Total Non-White Population (Riverside County) .................................................................. B-13 Figure B-3 Percent Total Non-White Population (Canyon Lake) ......................................................................... B-14 Figure B-4 Median Household Income (Riverside County).................................................................................. B-16 City Council Agenda,

B-ii Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-5 Median Household Income (Canyon Lake) ........................................................................................ B-17 Figure B-6 Disability by Type ............................................................................................................................... B-19 Figure B-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (Riverside County) ............................................................... B-21 Figure B-8 Percent of Population with a Disability (Canyon Lake) ...................................................................... B-22 Figure B-9 Percent of Children in Female Household (Riverside County) ........................................................... B-25 Figure B-10 Percent of Children in Female Household (Canyon Lake).................................................................. B-26 Figure B-11 Poverty Status (Riverside County)...................................................................................................... B-29 Figure B-12 Poverty Status (Canyon Lake)............................................................................................................. B-30 Figure B-13 Low to Moderate Income Population (Riverside County).................................................................. B-31 Figure B-14 Low to Moderate Income Population (Canyon Lake)......................................................................... B-32 Figure B-15 TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Riverside County)...................................................... B-33 Figure B-16 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Riverside County) ........................................................... B-34 Figure B-17 TCAC/HUD Mapping Resources Categories by Census Tract (Riverside County)............................... B-36 Figure B-18 TCAC/HUD Mapping Resources Categories by Census Tract (City of Canyon Lake) .......................... B-37 Figure B-19 TCAC Education Opportunity Scores (Riverside County) ................................................................... B-40 Figure B-20 TCAC Education Opportunity Scores (City of Canyon Lake)............................................................... B-41 Figure B-21 TCAC Economic Opportunity Scores (Riverside County).................................................................... B-45 Figure B-22 TCAC Economic Opportunity Scores (City of Canyon Lake)................................................................ B-46 Figure B-23 Jobs within a 45-minute Drive (Riverside County)............................................................................. B-47 Figure B-24 Jobs within a 45-minute Drive (City of Canyon Lake)......................................................................... B-48 Figure B-25 TCAC Environmental Opportunity Scores (Riverside County)............................................................ B-49 Figure B-26 TCAC Environmental Opportunity Scores (City of Canyon Lake)........................................................ B-50 Figure B-27 CalEnviroScreen Percentile Scores (City of Canyon Lake).................................................................. B-51 Figure B-28 Transit Stop Areas (Riverside County)................................................................................................ B-54 Figure B-29 Transit Stop Areas (City of Canyon Lake) ........................................................................................... B-55 Figure B-30 Cost Burden by Homeowners (Riverside County).............................................................................. B-59 Figure B-31 Cost Burden by Renters (Riverside County) ....................................................................................... B-60 Figure B-32 Cost Burden by Homeowners (Canyon Lake)..................................................................................... B-61 Figure B-33 Cost Burden by Renters (City of Canyon Lake)................................................................................... B-62 Figure B-34 Displacement Risk (Riverside County)................................................................................................ B-66 Figure B-35 Displacement Risk (City of Canyon Lake) ........................................................................................... B-67 Figure B-36 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area (City of Canyon Lake)........................................ B-70 Figure B-37 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population (City of Canyon Lake) .......................................... B-72 Figure B-38 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding (City of Canyon Lake).................................................. B-73 Figure B-39 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (City of Canyon Lake) ................................ B-74 Figure B-40 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (City of Canyon Lake) ........................... B-76 Figure B-41 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (City of Canyon Lake) ........................................... B-77 Figure B-42 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score (City of Canyon Lake).................... B-78 City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-1
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B Assessment of Fair Housing
Appendix B presents an Assessment of Fair Housing for purposes of providing direction to the City on the goals, priorities and strategies it can adopt to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

B.1 Government Code Requirements
B.1.1 Background
AB 686 (Santiago)
AB 686 was introduced on April 3, 2017. The June 4, 2018 version added the Assessment of Fair Housing to the program requirements of a local housing element, beginning on January 1, 2021. Government Code Section 65583(c)(5) states the housing program shall -
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities 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 (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.

AB 686 does not ascribe a quantified meaning to the phrase “throughout” a community.

B.2 Assessment of Fair Housing Requirements
Appendix B presents an Assessment of Fair Housing for purposes of providing direction to the City on the goals, priorities and strategies it can adopt to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

The Government Code requirements relating to affirmatively furthering fair housing and the assessment of fair housing are described on the next page.

City Council Agenda,

B-2 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
The Assessment of Fair Housing presents an analysis of five potential issues:
 Integration and segregation patterns and trends
 Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
 Disparities in access to opportunity
 Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction  Displacement risk
Government Code Section (c)((9)(A) requires the analysis of fair housing issues within a jurisdiction. This focus is appropriate because it is the City’s goals, priorities and strategies that will guide the actions to be taken to AFFH.

The obstacles of comparing the city to a “region” are explained later in this Assessment of Fair Housing.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing/Assessment of Fair Housing Government Code Section 8899.50
(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development.

Government Code Section 65583(c)
(9) (A) Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following components:
(i) A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity. (ii) An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.
(iii) An assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues identified under clause (ii). (iv) An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved. (v) Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-3
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
The fair housing analysis is hindered because the American Community Survey (ACS) does not produce data for each of the protected classes. For example, data are unavailable from the ACS regarding religious affiliation and the cost burdens experienced by sex of householder or by familial status.

The purpose of the analysis is to provide a basis to identify any “fair housing issues.” For example, does segregation exist in the jurisdiction? Are there racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in the jurisdiction? If there are fair housing issues in the jurisdiction, then the assessment must identify and describe the factors that contribute to: 1) limiting or denying fair housing choice or access to opportunity and 2) negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance.

The jurisdiction then must identify for each contributing factor, the fair housing priorities and goals and the strategies to implement those priorities and goals. Government Code Section 65583(c)(9)(A)(v) provides examples of possible strategies and actions:
 Enhancing mobility strategies
 Encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity  Place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization  Preservation of existing affordable housing
 Protecting existing residents from displacement
The strategies and actions become necessary when a fair housing issue is identified and the factors that contribute to that issue are known to some degree of certainty.

Government Code Section 8899.50(b) states:

In selecting meaningful actions to fulfill the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, this section does not require a public agency to take, or prohibit a public agency from taking, any one particular action.

According to Government Code Section 8899.50(c):

This section shall be interpreted consistent with the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule and accompanying commentary published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development contained in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, pages 42272 to 42371, inclusive, dated July 16, 2015. Subsequent amendment, suspension, or revocation of this Final Rule or its accompanying commentary by the federal government shall not impact the interpretation of this section.

In preparing the AFH, the program participants – primarily Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement communities – were advised by HUD to use several available resources, including the AFFH Rule Guidebook, which was made available to grantees on December 15, 2015.

B.3 Fair Housing Protected Characteristics And Protected Classes A “protected class” is a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from housing discrimination.

According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
 Protected Characteristics are race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, having a disability, and having a type of disability. (24 C.F.R. § 5.152)
 Protected Class means a group of persons who have the same protected characteristic; e.g., a group of persons who are of the same race are a protected class. Similarly, a person who has a mobility disability is a member of the protected class of persons with disabilities and a member of the protected class of persons with mobility disabilities. (24 C.F.R. § 5.152)
City Council Agenda,

B-4 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Federal Protected Classes
 Race
 Color
 National Origin
 Disability: Mental and Physical
 Religion
 Sex
 Familial Status
California Protected Classes
 Marital Status
 Ancestry
 Source of Income
 Sexual Orientation
 Age*
 Gender Identity, Gender Expression
 Genetic Information
 Military or Veterans Status
 Primary Language*
 Citizenship/Immigration Status*
* Covered under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which applies to most housing accommodations in California.

B.4 City Context
The City of Canyon Lake primarily consists of a private, gated community managed by the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association (POA). A large area in the northern part of the city and a smaller area in the western part of the city consist of undeveloped land zoned Natural Recreation Area. Most of the housing in the City consists of singlefamily residences surrounding the Lake. There are several condominium complexes throughout the gated community, containing units ranging from one- to four-bedrooms. One condominium complex is outside the gated area in the Towne Center, but this complex is still part of the City of Canyon Lake and the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association. Fairway Estates is a gated mobile home community located in the southern part of the city, outside of the main gated area, and is also part of the City of Canyon Lake.

Most residential development within the City is located within the gated community, with the exception of 25 singlefamily residential lots in the southeastern corner of the city. These 25 residential lots are located on a steep hillside and are mostly vacant.

The City of Canyon Lake overlaps with six census tracts, most of which contain large areas of land outside the city.

Figure B-1 shows census tracts in Canyon Lake. Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17 overlap the northern part of the City. Both census tracts contain a large area of undeveloped land, as well as a small number of single-family housing units in northern Canyon Lake and a greater number of housing units in the communities of Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. While census data for Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17 may indicate that housing and population characteristics in the northern part of Canyon Lake differs from the rest of the City, this is likely inaccurate as the data is skewed by the housing and population in Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. Housing in the northern part of the City (in Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17) is part of the same gated community as the rest of the City and therefore, likely shares similar housing and population characteristics as the rest of the city. The City has observed that sociodemographic characteristics within those areas of Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17 located outside of Canyon Lake differ greatly from characteristics within the gated community of Canyon Lake. Because the population within City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-5
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17 located within the city of Canyon Lake are members of the Canyon Lake POA, housing costs are significantly more expensive than housing costs in Meadowbrook and Quail Valley within these same census tracts. The skewed census data for Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17 has been considered throughout this AFFH analysis.

City Council Agenda,

B-6 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-1 Canyon Lake Census Tracts
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-7
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.5 Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach and Resources Analysis B.5.1 Fair Housing Enforcement
Fair Housing Resources
The enforcement of fair housing laws is administered by HUD, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. (FHCRC).

The DFEH is responsible for enforcing state fair housing laws that make it illegal to discriminate. The DFEH may file signed complaints with HUD if the matter falls within the jurisdiction of that agency. As a substantially equivalent agency, DFEH’s findings are usually accepted by HUD.

Locally, the FHCRC takes part in a variety of activities to fight housing discrimination, such as free educational workshops, outreach to the community, and the investigation of housing discrimination complaints. The capacity of the FHCRC enables it to provide fair housing information, outreach, and enforcement to 24 cities and communities located in Riverside County plus the unincorporated area of the County. The funding that supports the efforts of the FHCRC includes CDBG funds received from participating jurisdictions within its service area and grant funds such as HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP).

FHCRC’s proposed activities include conducting fair housing tests on rentals, sales and design and construction; hosting the Annual Housing Conference during National Fair Housing Month; creating partnerships with local agencies and three partnerships with universities and colleges, conducting town hall meetings to connect the public with housing professionals and industry leaders, conduct trainings, create new educational materials in various languages and systematic investigations which will help remove barriers to fair housing.

The FHCRC provides a full range of services including:
 Anti-discrimination
 Landlord/tenant counseling
 First time homebuyer seminars
 Foreclosure prevention
 Loan modification
 Back-to-Work FHA
 Training
Additionally, the FHCRC completed a Cultural Diversity Grant through the National Association of REALTORs (NAR) for the Inland Valleys Association of REALTORs (IVAR) members to attend the 2020 and 2021 Housing Conferences.

FHCRC is also a certified continuing education credit training organization through the California Department of Real Estate.

The City does not participate in fair housing testing.

B.5.2 Housing Discrimination Complaints
The City refers fair housing complaints to the FHCRC and the HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). HUD’s San Francisco Regional Office reported four housing cases in Canyon Lake were filed by with the FHEO between January 2013 and November 2022. Two of these cases were based on familial status-based discrimination, two on sex-based discrimination, and one based on race-based discrimination (individual cases may have multiple basis of discrimination).

The FHEO does not consider fair housing inquiries as official cases as residents did not pursue further action, however inquiries can reveal information on fair housing concerns and possible housing discrimination. There were three fair City Council Agenda,

B-8 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
housing inquiries in Canyon Lake between January 2013 and November 2022. One inquiry was based on familial status and the remaining two inquiries did not report on the basis of discrimination.

There were no fair housing inquiries submitted by City residents to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. during the period from June 2015 through July 2020.

B.5.3 Compliance with Existing Fair Housing Laws
The City does not have any pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgements, settlements, or findings related to fair housing and civil rights. The City does not currently have any local fair housing laws or programs to specifically address fair housing issues.

The City of Canyon Lake complies with existing fair housing laws and regulations by ensuring all residents have equal access to housing programs, services, and resources and supporting any resident in filing complaints on housing discrimination. The City also ensures that the City’s zoning regulations do not result in segregation or discriminatory practices. In addition, the City does not place more scrutiny or deny projects or individuals of their right to tenancy, residence, or entitlement based on memberships of protected classes, in compliance with Government Code section 65008. The City complies with the following fair housing laws:
 Fair Housing Act of 1968 – The City upholds policies that prohibit housing discrimination based on protected characteristics and ensure equal access to housing programs and services through City protocols, decisionmaking procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs. The City ensures compliance through programs like Program 20, 21, and 22.  American Disabilities Act – The City upholds policies prohibiting discrimination based on disability status through building permit review and issuance and as described in Appendix D Governmental Constraints, under the heading Housing for Special Needs Populations.
 Fair Housing & Employment Act – The City upholds policies that prohibit housing discrimination based on protected characteristics and enforces these policies by supporting residents seeking to file a complaint to the DFEH or who wish to pursue legal action. The City also complies through established City protocols for hiring and decision making, mandatory trainings for City staff, and legal counsel and advisement.  AB 686 – The City has included this assessment of fair housing and identifies strategies to increase housing opportunities for all residents, with specific actions to reduce housing disparities for disadvantaged communities.
 Density Bonus Law –The City is currently in the process of drafting a density bonus ordinance to allow density bonuses and other development incentives to housing developers proposing projects with a minimum amount of affordable housing units, in compliance with State law through Program 2.8 which directs the City to research best practices for Density Bonus Ordinances and adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance by the end of 2025.  Housing Accountability Act –The City complies with the Housing Accountability Act by approving eligible housing development projects that comply with the City’s adopted objective development standards unless the City makes a written finding that the project will have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid that impact. Compliance with the Housing Accountability Act is documented in Appendix D Governmental Constraints
 No-Net-Loss – The City complies with the No Net Loss Law by identifying sites that can accommodate the City’s RHNA and will ensure compliance with no net loss by implementing Program 1.3, which directs the City to establish an evaluation procedure to track the number of extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units constructed in the city.

B.5.4 Conclusion
No fair housing issue exists because of the lack of an organization to enforce fair housing laws. The FHCRC provides a full range of fair housing services throughout Riverside County.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-9
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.6 Segregation/Integration Analysis
For the purposes of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, “segregation” “means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area. 24 C.F.R. § 5.152.

For the purposes of the AFFH rule, “integration” “means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area. 24 C.F.R. § 5.1521 The AFFH rule does not define the meaning of “High.”
B.6.1 Dissimilarity Index Measures Segregation/Integration HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across a defined geographic boundary. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between racial groups and 100 representing perfect segregation.2 A dissimilarity index score of 0 to less than 40 indicates low segregation, 40 to 54 indicates moderate segregation, and greater than 55 indicates high segregation as shown in Table B-1.

Table B-1 Levels of Segregation
Dissimilarity Index Value Level of Segregation
< 40 Low Segregation
40 -– 54 Moderate Segregation
> 54 High Segregation
Brown University publishes values of the Dissimilarity Index for metropolitan areas and cities. The metropolitan area in which the City of Canyon Lake is located is the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Division, a vast geographic area of some 27,408 square miles, consisting of the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino. This is an area that is larger than the state of West Virginia. The distance from the city halls of Blythe (Riverside County) and Ontario (San Bernardino County) is 188 miles, a 3 hour drive. The distance from the city halls of Needles (San Bernardino County) and Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County) is 215 miles, a 3 and ½ hour drive.

For the purpose of comparison, values of the index are available for the City of Canyon Lake only for 2010 and 2020, although values are available for more points in time for the metropolitan area. Region-wide, the most noticeable trend is the increase of the White-Black index from 43.8 to 52.7 during a ten-year span, as shown in Table B-2. Even though both values are still in the Moderate Segregation level, the 2020 value is moving closer to the High Segregation level. Values for the other racial and ethnic groups are all in the Moderate Segregation level and have been stable between 2010 and 2020. In fact, all have declined slightly with the exception of the Hispanic-Asian index which has not changed.

All City of Canyon Lake values of the index for both 2010 and 2020 and for each of the six racial and ethnic group comparisons are at the Low Segregation level. The values of the Dissimilarity Index for White-Black, White-Asian, and black-Asian have all increased, but they are still at the very low end of the scale. Although some racial and ethnic groups have increased in the city when compared to the county, overall, Canyon Lake has a lower dissimilarity index.

It is safe to conclude that segregation by race is low throughout Canyon Lake. 2 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf City Council Agenda,

B-10 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-2 Dissimilarity Index: 2010 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Division)
City of Canyon Lake
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Metropolitan Division
Racial and Ethnic Group 2010 2020 2010 2020
White-Black/Black-White 8.7 13.7 43.8 52.7
White-Hispanic/Hispanic-White 5.8 4.2 42.4 42.2
White-Asian/Asian-White 2.1 5.6 38.2 38
Black-Hispanic/Hispanic-Black 7.4 11 32.5 30.8
Black-Asian/Asian-Black 9.7 13.2 38.6 38.4
Hispanic-Asian/Asian-Hispanic 7.4 2.8 44.8 44.8
Source: Brown University Diversity and Disparity Project 2021.

B.6.2 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region relates to fair housing concerns such as household size, locational preferences, and economic opportunity. Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities.

Regional Trends
Riverside County is fairly diverse, with a large non-White population. Approximately 49 percent of residents in Riverside County identify as Hispanic/Latino, 34 percent as non-Hispanic/Latino White, 7 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander, and 6 percent as Black/African American (Table B-3). Racial/ethnic makeup has not changed significantly between 2010 and 2020 in Riverside County. The percent of Hispanic/Latino residents decreased by five percent, non-Hispanic/Latino White residents decreased by seven percent, and Asian/Pacific Islander residents increased by one percent.

In Riverside County, the percentage of non-White residents is highest in the northwest and central parts of the county (Figure B-2). In parts of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, and areas west and south of the Salton Sea more than 81 percent of residents identify as non-White.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-11
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-3 Population by Race and Ethnicity: 2010 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside-County)
Riverside County
2010 2020
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent
Hispanic or Latino 933,529 44.3% 1,204,521 49.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino
White Alone 863,965 41.0% 837,847 34.4%
Black/African American 124,715 5.9% 148,003 6.1%
American Indian/Alaska Native 9,870 0.5% 9,079 0.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander 123,808 5.9% 165,691 6.8%
Other/Multiple Races 53,577 2.5% 72,723 3.0%
Total 2,109,464 2,437,864
City of Canyon Lake
2010 2020
Race/Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent
Hispanic or Latino 967 9.1% 1,377 12.3%
Not Hispanic or Latino
White Alone 8,992 84.7% 8,686 77.3%
Black/African American 45 0.4% 88 0.8%
American Indian/Alaska Native 14 0.1% 15 0.1%
Asian/Pacific Islander 286 2.7% 386 3.4%
Other/Multiple Races 314 3.0% 685 6.1%
Total 10,618 11,237
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census, Summary File 1, 2010 Census Redistricting Data. Table P2, 2020 Census Redistricting Data, Table P2
Local Trends
Canyon Lake has a much higher percentage of non-Hispanic/Latino White residents (75 percent) compared to Riverside County (34 percent). White residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in Canyon Lake, followed by Hispanic and Latino residents (12 percent), other/multiple race residents (six percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (3 percent). Racial/ethnic diversity in Canyon Lake increased slightly between 2010 and 2020. The percent of nonHispanic/Latino White residents decreased by eight percent and the percent of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by three percent, other/multiple race residents by three percent, and Black/African American residents increased by almost one percent.

The percentage of non-White residents is highest in the northwestern part of the city, where between 61 and 80 percent of the population identifies as non-White, and lowest in the western part of the city, where approximately 22 percent of the population identifies as non-White (Figure B-3). However, the northern part of the city is mostly undeveloped with few housing units. The northwestern corner of the city, where the highest percentage of nonWhite residents is located, is within Census Tract 429.07 which contains a small number of housing units in Canyon Lake (18 housing units out of the 951 housing units in the census tract), as well as a large portion of the neighboring community of Meadowbrook. In Meadowbrook, approximately 76 percent of the population is non-White compared to just 25 percent in Canyon Lake, and 74 percent of Meadowbrook’s population is Hispanic/Latino. Therefore, it is likely that the high percentage of non-White residents in Census Tract 429.07 is skewed by the sociodemographic City Council Agenda,

B-12 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
characteristics of Meadowbrook, as most of the population in that census tract is located outside of Canyon Lake.

Residents in the Canyon Lake area of this census tract consist of homeowners living within the same gated community as other census tracts within the city and is more likely to be representative of the residents of these census tractsin Canyon Lake. The percentage of non-White residents within Census Tract 429.07 in the northwestern corner of the city is likely similar to the rest of the city, between 21 to 40 percent, and the northwestern part of the city likely does not have a higher concentration of non-White residents.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-13
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-2 Percent Total Non-White Population (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-14 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-3 Percent Total Non-White Population (Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-15
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Compared to surrounding cities in Riverside Canyon, Canyon Lake has a lower percentage of non-White residents.

The White Alone population still represents a large majority of the total population in Canyon Lake (74.7 percent) while representing approximately one-third of the population in Riverside County.

B.6.3 Income Disparity
Regional Trends
According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, the median household income in Riverside County is $70,732, which is approximately 11 percent lower than the state’s median household income of $78,672. In Riverside County, median household income various greatly by race/ethnicity (Table B-4). Asian households have the highest median household income ($90,165), while American Indian/Alaska Native households ($62,935), Hispanic/Latino households ($61,637), and other race households ($54,943) have the lowest median household incomes.

In Riverside County, median household income is higher in western areas of the county and lower in eastern parts of the county (Figure B-4). Census tracts in and near the cities of Woodcrest, Canyon Lake, Temecula, and La Quinta have the highest median household incomes in the county, between $120,000 and $175,000 per year. Lower median household incomes, below $55,000 per year, are concentrated in rural areas in the eastern part of the county and in the cities of Hemet, Riverside, Coachella, Cathedral City, Indio, Palm Desert, North Palm Springs, and Desert Hot Springs.

Table B-4 Median Household Income (in 2020 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Householders' Race/Ethnicity (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside County) Race/Ethnicity of Householder City of Canyon Lake Riverside County Hispanic or Latino $120,884 $61,637
White Alone $114,920 $78,847
Black or African American* ** $68,511
American Indian and Alaska Native* ** $62,935
Asian* $102,115 $90,165
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander* ** $83,923
Some Other Race* $120,115 $54,943
Two or More Races* $85,604 $78,846
Total $107,868 $70,732
*. Includes Hispanics or Latinos who are members of this racial group. ** The median household income is not available because the sample size was too small to calculate the margin of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table S1903 Local Trends
According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, overall median household income in Canyon Lake was $107,868 which is 42 percent higher than the median for Riverside County ($70,732) and 31 percent higher than the state median income ($78,672). Additionally, incomes are significantly higher for each racial and ethnic group residing in Canyon Lake compared to Riverside County. Hispanic/Latino households have the highest median household income ($120,884) in Canyon Lake, followed by some other race ($120,115), and White Alone ($114,920). In contrast, Hispanic and Latino households have one of the lowest median household incomes in Riverside County ($61,637). Median household income is highest in the western and southern part of the city (greater than $120,000) and lowest in the northern part of the city less than $68,000) (Figure B-5). Throughout the rest of the city, median household income ranges from $90,000 to $120,000. Areas of the city with higher median household incomes, generally correspond to areas that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino. The range of median household income throughout City Council Agenda,

B-16 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-4 Median Household Income (Riverside County)
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-17
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-5 Median Household Income (Canyon Lake)
City Council Agenda,

B-18 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Canyon Lake is similar to adjacent cities to the east. Cities to the north and west generally have lower median household incomes. While the ACS data shows that the northern part of the city has the lowest median household income, this area is mostly undeveloped and is comprised of Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.48 which mostly include areas within the community of Meadowbrook and Quail Valley and therefore do not reflect the population of Canyon Lake. Existing housing in Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.48 are part of the same gated community as the rest of the city and part of the Property Owners Association and as such have similar housing costs as other households living within the gated community in Canyon Lake. Households in Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.08 within Canyon Lake are homeowners living in single-family detached homes. Due to POA fees, housing costs in the gated community are more expensive than the surrounding areas, and it is likely that residents within the gated community generally have higher incomes to afford the higher housing costs. In addition, based on City observations, it is likely that residents within the northwestern part of Canyon Lake have similar sociodemographic characteristics as the rest of the City.

Therefore, median household income in the northern part of the city is likely similar to the rest of the Canyon Lake.

B.6.4 Population with a Disability
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have housing choice if there are not sufficient housing units with these accessibility features.3

High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.4 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.

Regional Trends
According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, approximately 12 percent of the population has a disability (Table B-5).

Disability rates are highest among non-Hispanic/Latino White residents (16 percent), followed by American Indian/Alaska Native residents (14 percent), Black/African American residents (14 percent), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander residents (13 percent). Disability rates are lowest among Asian residents (9 percent), two or more races (9 percent), Hispanic/Latino residents (9 percent), and some other race (8 percent).

Table B-5 Percent with a Disability by Race/Ethnicity (City of Canyon Lake and Riverside County)
Race/Ethnicity City of Canyon Lake Riverside County
White alone 10.9% 13.3%
Black or African American alone 36.9% 13.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.0% 14.0%
Asian alone 10.4% 9.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0.0% 12.5% Some other race alone 2.9% 8.1%
Two or more races 19.5% 9.1%
3 HCD, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 4 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-19
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Race/Ethnicity City of Canyon Lake Riverside County
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 11.2% 16.1%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 12.8% 8.5%
Total 10.6% 11.6%
*. Includes Hispanics or Latinos who are members of this racial group. ** The median household income is not available because the sample size was too small to calculate the margin of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, Table S1903 The most common disability in Riverside County is ambulatory difficulty (6 percent of the population), followed by difficulty with independent living (4 percent), and cognitive difficulty (4 percent) (Figure B-6).

Figure B-6 Disability by Type
In Riverside County, the percentage of residents with a disability is highest in the cities of Sun City, Hemet, a portion of the Coachella Valley, where up to 42 percent of residents have a disability (Figure B-7). Disability rates are also high in the Mount San Jacinto State Park area, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage, where between 20 and 30 percent of residents have a disability. Disability rates are lowest in the western part of the county, particularly within parts of the cities of Perris, Moreno Valley, and Corona, where less than 10 percent of residents have a disability.

Local Trends
The ACS data is only available for entire census tracts. The census tracts are not split between cities or between a city and unincorporated area. There are six census tracts that are partially within the City of Canyon Lake. However, only two (427.14 and 427.16) have a majority of the area located within Canyon Lake’s city boundaries. As a result, the total household count of 3,236 in Table B-6 is less than the city-wide total of 4,230.

Overall, the percentage of the population with a disability has increased slightly from 2015 to 2020 in the City of Canyon Lake, from 10 percent to 11 percent, which is comparable to the disability rate in Riverside County. Seniors age 65 and older have the highest disability rate among age groups, 28 percent. The percentage of residents with a disability generally increases as the age increases.

City Council Agenda,

B-20 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-6 Population by Age with a Disability 2015 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake) 2015
Population with a Disability Population With a Disability Percent Under 18 Years of Age 2,158 82 3.8%
18 to 64 Years 6,766 506 7.5%
65 Years and Older 1,994 492 24.7%
Total Population 10,918 1,080 9.9%
2020
Population with a Disability Population With a Disability Percent Under 18 Years of Age 2,475 82 3.3%
18 to 64 Years 6,700 535 8.0%
65 Years and Older 2,062 572 27.7%
Total Population 11,237 1,189 10.6%
Source: U.S. Census 2011-2015 and 2016-2020 American Community Survey, Table CP02 As shown in Table B-5, disability rates are significantly higher for Black/African American residents (37 percent) and individuals that identify as two or more races (20 percent), than any other racial/ethnic group in the city. Disability rates are lowest among some other race residents (3 percent). Disability rates for all other races/ethnicities are between 10 and 13 percent. The City will continue to support the needs of residents with a disability by conducting targeted outreach to expand awareness of available resources and identify housing needs and through encouraging the development of affordable housing for residents with a disability. Since the majority of residents with a disability are seniors (65 and older), it is likely that elderly non-White residents have a higher rate of disability than other residents of the city. The City will implement Program 2.3 to facilitate the development of affordable housing for special needs households, including persons with disabilities, through permit streamlining, offering concessions and incentives, and removing constraints to developing housing. Through Housing Programs 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, and 5.1 the City will coordinate with local service providers to conduct outreach to increase awareness of available programs and resources to assist those with special needs, including those with a disability.

The most common disability in Canyon Lake is cognitive difficulty (5 percent of the total population), followed by ambulatory difficulty (4 percent) (Figure B-6).

The percentage of residents with a disability is highest in the center of the city, where between 10 and 12 percent of residents have a disability, and lowest in the northwest and southeast corners of the city, where less than 10 percent of residents have a disability (Figure B-8).

The vast majority of disabled persons live in separate living quarters (a housing unit) not in a group quarter setting (nursing home). There are no Adult Residential Facilities (ARFs) located in Canyon Lake according to the California Department of Social Services/Community Care Licensing Division. An ARF is a residential home for adults 18 to 59 with mental health care needs or who have physical or developmental disabilities and require or prefer assistance with care and supervision. Through Program 5.5, the City will collaborate with the Riverside Transit Agency to evaluate transit and active transportation needs, prioritizing transit needs for residents with disabilities. The City of Canyon Lake and Riverside County offer various resources for the elderly and disabled. Below are some key services available:
 Canyon Lake Senior Center: Provides social and recreational activities for seniors.  Riverside County Office on Aging: provides programs such as meal services, health insurance counseling, caregiver support, employment training, and transportation services.  Aging and Disability Resource Connection (ADRC): Serves as a central hub for information and referrals on aging and disability-related services.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-21
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-7 Percent of Population with a Disability (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-22 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-8 Percent of Population with a Disability (Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-23
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.6.5 Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Examples of differential treatment include limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining households with children to a specific location are potentially discriminatory. Single-parent households are protected by fair housing law. A 2016 HUD study on the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.5 Additionally, female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Regional Trends
In 2020, approximately 32 percent of households in Riverside County comprised of households with children, a decrease of six percent from 2010 (Table B-7). Most households with children are married-couple households (73 percent), followed by female-headed, single-parent households (16 percent) In Riverside County female-headed, single-parent households represent a greater percentage of households with children (20 percent) compared to Canyon Lake. In Riverside County, the highest percentage of children living in female-headed, single-parent households are in portions of the cities of Hemet, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, as well as eastern Riverside County, where 40 to 60 percent of children live in female-headed, single-parent households Figure B-9. In one area in central Rancho Mirage, 100 percent of children live in female-headed, singleparent households. Throughout most of the County less than 20 percent of children live in female-headed, singleparent households, with 20 to 40 percent of children live in female-headed, single-parent households many urban areas.

Local Trends
Approximately 30 percent of households in Canyon Lake are households with children. Table B-17 shows the number of households with children between 2010 and 2020. The number of households with children has increased, but the percent of households with children has decreased by almost four percent, from 87 percent to 83 percent (Table B-7due to new development during that period. Most households with children are married-couple households (83 percent), followed by single-parent female-headed households with children (16 percent). Less than one percent of households with children are male-headed, single-parent households. Throughout the city, less than 20 percent of children live in female-headed, single-parent households (Figure B-10). 5 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

City Council Agenda,

B-24 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-7 Households with Children 2010 and 2020 (City of Canyon Lake) City of Canyon Lake
Selected Households
2010 2020
Number
Percent of
Households with
Children Number
Percent of
Households with
Children
Households with Children 1,185 1,276
Married-Couple Households with Children 1,029 86.8% 1,063 83.3% Female-Headed, Single-Parent
Households with Children
156 13.2% 203 15.9%
Male-Headed, Single-Parent Households
with Children
0 0.0% 10 0.08%
Total Households 3,769 4,151
Percent with Children 31.4% 30.7%
Riverside County
Selected Households
2010 2020
Number
Percent of
Households with
Children Number
Percent of
Households with
Children
Households with Children 253,906 238,175
Married-Couple Households with Children 185,310 73.0% 173,348 72.8% Female-Headed, Single-Parent
Households with Children
48,434 19.1% 46,350 19.5%
Male-Headed, Single-Parent Households
with Children
20,162 7.9% 18,477 7.8%
Total Households 666,906 736,413
Percent with Children 38.1% 32.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 American Community Survey, Table S1101 City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-25
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-9 Percent of Children in Female Household (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-26 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-10 Percent of Children in Female Household (Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-27
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.6.6 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, TCAC categorizes census tracts that have both a poverty rate of over 30 percent and that are designated as being racially segregated (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county) as areas of high segregation and poverty.

Regional Trends
According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, approximately 13 percent of all households were living below the poverty line in Riverside County. Poverty rates vary throughout the county, but are generally highest in urban areas, particularly in parts of the cities of Riverside, North Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, and Coachella (Figure B-11). In portions of these cities more than 40 percent of the population is below the poverty line. Areas in western Riverside County, including areas within cities and unincorporated land, have the lowest poverty rate in the county, less than 10 percent.

Low to moderate income (LMI) populations vary throughout the county,, but are higher near city centers and in the eastern portion of the county. There is a higher LMI population in parts of the cities of riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Corona, Hemet, North Palm Springs, and Coachella (Figure B-13). In these areas of the cities, 75 to 100 percent of the population is low to moderate income.

Areas of high segregation and poverty in Riverside County in and near the city of Moreno Valley, Desert Hot Springs, Coachella, and south of Coachella (
Figure B-15). The cities of Riverside, San Jacinto, Hemet, Cathedral City, and Indio also have areas of high segregation and poverty. Areas of high segregation and poverty are predominantly Hispanic/Latino, median household incomes much lower than the region’s AMI (ranging from $42,782 to $56,595 per year).

Local Trends
Approximately 7 percent of the population is below the poverty line in Canyon Lake, almost 7 percent lower than the county. The northern and western part of the city has a higher poverty rate, ranging from 11 to 17 percent, compared to the rest of the city, ranging from 4 to 10 percent (Figure B-12).

Most of Canyon Lake has 25 percent or fewer of its population that is LMI, however, there are a few areas of the city that have 25 to 50 percent and 50 to 75 percent of the population that is LMI (Figure B-14). This is a similar pattern to other cities within Riverside County, as most of the cities in the county have a similar distribution of LMI populations.

There are no R/ECAPs located in Canyon Lake. However, the northern part of the city has an overlap of predominantly Hispanic/Latino residents and lower median household incomes (less than $68,000 per year). In addition, the northern part of the city has a higher poverty rate compared to the central and southern part of the city, which is predominantly White. However, the northern part of the city is comprised of two census tracts and is mostly undeveloped, due to the topography of the area (hillside valley along a body of water). These census tracts (Census Tracts 429.07 and 417.17) contain a few existing housing units that are part of the gated community but primarily contain housing in the communities of Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. Only about 18 housing units out of a total of 963 housing units in Census Tract 427.07 are in Canyon Lake and 350 housing units out of 1,664 housing units in Census Tract 427.17 are in Canyon Lake. Areas of the city that are less than 10 percent below the poverty line are contained within gated communities, which are typically more affluent communities. The City has not observed any income disparities between different areas of the city and has instead observed that residents within the gated community, including in the northern part of the city and the two Census Tracts referenced above, have similar socioeconomic demographics. In addition, Meadowbrook (14 percent) has a significantly higher poverty rate compared to Canyon Lake (seven percent), which further indicates that data is skewed by the population outside of the city. Recent census data on poverty rates in Quail Valley is not available, as it consists of a portion of the City of Menifee. However, Census Tract 427.17 which covers the entirety of Quail Valley and a small portion of northeastern Canyon Lake has a poverty rate of 23 percent. Therefore, census data for these census tracts likely do not reflect the City Council Agenda,

B-28 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
trends in Canyon Lake and it is likely that residents in the northern part Canyon Lake have similar socioeconomic status compared to the rest of the city. Concentrated Areas of Affluence While racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated and promote equitable access to opportunity, a key to fair housing choice. HCD defines an RCAA as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.6

Regional Trends
RCAAs in Riverside County are concentrated in the southwestern part of the county, in and near the cities of Murrieta and Temecula, and in the cities of Riverside, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and La Quinta (Figure B-16). These areas are typically predominantly White and have median household incomes greater than $120,000 per year.

Local Trends
There are no RCAAs in Canyon Lake. Almost the entire city is within the gated community, with the exception of the residential lots in the southeastern corner of the city. In addition, the entire city is more affluent than other parts of the county, with a higher median household income and higher percentage of White residents. 6 HCD. April 2021. AFFH Guidance for all Public Entities and for Housing Elements. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-29
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-11 Poverty Status (Riverside County)
City Council Agenda,

B-30 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-12 Poverty Status (Canyon Lake)
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-31
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-13 Low to Moderate Income Population (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-32 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-14 Low to Moderate Income Population (Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-33
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-15 TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-34 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-16 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-35
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.7 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access high-opportunity neighborhoods, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health. This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: Quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objectives of this analysis and resulting policies and programs are twofold: To support mobility and access to high-resource neighborhoods and to improve the quality of life for the residents of low-resource communities.7 B.7.1 TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score
Within the context of fair housing assessments, access to opportunity approximates place-based characteristics and its influence over critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity often means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to “high-resource” neighborhoods.

Specifically, access to opportunity is centered around access to education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, recreation, food, and healthy environment (including clean air and water, safe neighborhoods, safety from environmental hazards, and access to social services and cultural institutions).

The California Fair Housing Task Force provides research and evidence-based policy recommendations and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other state agencies to further fair housing goals. This research includes opportunity mapping. Areas of opportunity are places that provide resources people need to thrive, including education, quality employment, transportation, and low poverty. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps present a composite score which combines all categories of indicators (economic, educational, environmental) and categorizes areas from lowest to highest resource.

Regional Trends
Riverside County consists of a range of resource areas, ranging from areas of high segregation and poverty to highest resource areas. High and highest resource areas are concentrated on the western half of the county, within and surrounding the incorporated cities, particularly in Sun City, Murrieta, Temecula, and Palm Desert (Figure B-17). Lowresource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty are scattered throughout the county, including in the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, San Jacinto, Banning, Desert Hot Springs, Coachella, and Blythe.

Local Trends
Similar to the County, Canyon Lake has a range of resource areas from low to high resource (Figure B-18). The northwest corner of the city is a low-resource area, while the central and southern parts of the city are high-resource areas. The rest of the city consists of moderate resource areas. However, the northern corner of the city is in Census Tract 429.07, which overlaps a large portion of the community of Meadowbrook. The Canyon Lake part of Census Tract 429.07 is mostly undeveloped and has only a few housing units which are all part of the gated community in Canyon Lake. It is likely that the Canyon Lake portion of Census Tract 429.07 has similar access opportunities as Census Tract 417.15, directly south of Census Tract 429.07, which is a moderate resource area. The City has not observed any disparities related to access to opportunity within the city, especially not within the northern part of the city since all residents within the gated portion of the community (which includes most of the city, including the northern part of the city within Census Tract 429.07) have access to all the amenities and benefits of the POA. The POA is responsible for roadway, drainage, facility, and infrastructure maintenance and security within the gated community. All residents have access to the lake, parks, and golf course. In addition, the entire city attends the same public elementary, middle, and high schools.
7 California Fair Housing Task Force. 2020. Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. June 2020. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcaF-hcd-methodology.pdf City Council Agenda,

B-36 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-17 TCAC/HUD Mapping Resources Categories by Census Tract (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-37
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-18 TCAC/HUD Mapping Resources Categories by Census Tract (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

B-38 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-8 Percent Below the Poverty Level and Percent with a Bachelor’s Degree (City of Canyon Lake and County of Riverside)
Poverty/Education City County
Percent Below Poverty Level 6.9% 12.5%
Percent With a Bachelor’s Degree 20.7% 6.6%
Sources: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates, Table S1701: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months and Table S1501: Educational Attainment.

As can be seen in Table B-8, the countywide poverty level is nearly twice that of Canyon Lake’s while the City’s percent with a Bachelor’s degree is nearly three times higher than that of the county.

B.7.2 Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to income and housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores (the percentage of 4th graders who met or exceed math proficiency standards), high school graduation rates (the percentage of high school cohorts that graduate on time), and student poverty rates at the census tract level (the percent of students not receiving free or reduced-priced lunch). The TCAC education domain scores are derived from 2018-2019 Department of Education data. This analysis incorporates demographic and socio-economic measures to spatially evaluate access to educational opportunities at the census tract level.

Regional Trends
Riverside County is served by four elementary school districts, one high school district, and 18 unified school districts, with a total student enrollment of 431,521. The majority of students are Hispanic/Latino (64 percent), followed by White (20 percent), Black/African American (6 percent), two or more races (3 percent), Asian (3 percent), and Filipino (2 percent). Less than one percent of students are American Indian/Alaska Native or Pacific Islander. According to the Riverside County Office of Education, 67 percent of students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 17 percent are English learners.8

According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Riverside County has an overall high school graduation rate of 90 percent. Asian and Filipino students have the highest high school graduation rates (96 percent and 95 percent, respectively), while American Indian/Alaska Native students had the lowest high school graduation rates (81 percent).9 Education outcomes vary across Riverside County, with more positive education outcomes concentrated in western parts of the County, in and near the cities of Corona, Murrieta, and Menifee and in the area in and surrounding the City of Palm Desert. The rest of the County has less positive education outcomes, including areas in and surrounding the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, Palm Springs, and the entirety of the eastern half of the county (Figure B-19).

Local Trends
Canyon Lake is served by the Lake Elsinore Unified School District. K-6 children attend two elementary schools in the Lake Elsinore School District, both of which are within the top five rated schools in the district. All middle school children attend Canyon Lake Middle School, and high school children attend Temescal Canyon High School. It is unknown how many students attend private schools.

According to kidsdata.org, Lake Elsinore Unified School District has a similar racial/ethnic makeup. Sixty-three percent of students are Hispanic/Latino, 24 percent are White, 4 percent of Black/African American, 5 percent are 8 Riverside County of Office of Education. 2023. Riverside County Demographics. 9 Kidsdata.org. 2023. Riverside County. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/367/riverside-county/results#cat=18 City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-39
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
multiracial, 2 percent are Asian, 2 percent are Filipino, and less than one percent are American Indian/Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Similar to the overall county, Lake Elsinore Unified School District has a high school graduation rate of 90 percent. Approximately 66 percent of students are eligible for free/reduced price meals, meaning they are low-income, and 10 percent are English learners.10 The eastern part of the city has more positive education outcomes and the western part of the city has less positive education outcomes (Figure B-20). The eastern part of Canyon Lake overlaps with a high environmental opportunity score. While the AFFH Data Viewer shows less positive education outcomes in the western part of the city, the entire city is within the same school district, Lake Elsinore Unified School District. The entire city is within the same school boundaries, meaning all children within the city that attend public school attend the same elementary, middle, and high school as other children throughout Canyon Lake. Therefore, data for educational opportunity likely does not reflect the trends in Canyon Lake and it is likely that residents in the western part Canyon Lake have similar socioeconomic status compared to the rest of the city.
10 Kidsdata.org. 2023. Lake Elsinore Unified. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/1093/lake-elsinore-unified/results#cat=18 City Council Agenda,

B-40 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-19 TCAC Education Opportunity Scores (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-41
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-20 TCAC Education Opportunity Scores (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

B-42 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.7.3 Economic
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes.

The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, Riverside County has a labor force participation rate of 60 percent and an unemployment rate of 7 percent.

Economic outcomes in Riverside County are generally low throughout the county (Figure B-21). Several areas have positive economic outcomes, including portions of the cities of Riverside, Corona, and Redlands.

The Smart Locations Database shows that there is a higher number of jobs within a 45-minute drive in the western part of the county (Figure B-23). This data also shows that there are more jobs the closer you are to a city-center.

Local Trends
Canyon Lake is primarily a residential community with few employment opportunities. Residents must commute to job centers outside of the city. According to the 2020 American Community Survey, 70.5 percent of the employed population worked in Riverside County and another 22.1 percent worked outside of the county. Canyon Lake has a labor force participation rate of 61 percent, similar to Riverside County, and an unemployment rate of 4 percent, slightly lower than Riverside County. The number of jobs within a 45-minute drive in Canyon Lake is about the average seen within the County, between 10,001 to 50,000 jobs (Figure B-24). Meaning that there is average access to jobs throughout the city.

Of the 5,175 people commuting in Canyon Lake, 75 percent are non-Hispanic/Latino White, and 55 percent are of Hispanic or Latino origin, whereas in Riverside County 30 percent of commuters are non-Hispanic/Latino White and 54 percent of commuters are of Hispanic or Latino origin. The median earnings of those commuting in the city are $52,552, which is higher than the earnings of those commuting in Riverside County at $36,722.

Estimates of employment status by disability status are provided in Table B-9. About 3.5 percent of the total employed, and 15.1 percent of total unemployed population had a disability, according to 2011-2015 ACS estimates.

ACS estimates for 2016-2020 show 16.6 percent of total employed since 2011- 2015 ACS estimates. Despite this increase, the percentage of employed residents with a disability remained around 3 percent, while unemployed residents with a disability increased by 1.5 percent overall. Comparatively, the percentage of employed residents with a disability is about the same when compared to the county, but higher when compared to the percentage of unemployed residents with a disability. This higher rate in Canyon Lake could be due to the fact that there is a higher percentage of residents with a disability amongst seniors (65+) who are likely retired.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-43
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-9 Employment Status by Disability Status
Disability Status
Employed 2011-2015
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed 2011 -
2015 (Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Employed 2016-2020
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed 2016-
2020 (Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Canyon Lake
No Disability 4,690 387 4,738 166
With a Disability 172 69 157 33
Total 4,862 456 4,895 199
Riverside County
No Disability 840,238 117,098 949,005 69,711
With a Disability 38,903 10,935 45,485 7,322
Total 879,141 128,033 994,490 77,033
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2011- 2015, 2016-2020 Estimates.

Economic outcomes in Canyon Lake are low throughout the city (Figure B-22). The northern part of the city has the least positive economic outcomes. This area is predominantly Hispanic/Latino and has the lowest median household incomes in the city. The northern part of the city is comprised of Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.15 which contain few housing units in Canyon Lake and mostly consist of areas in the communities of Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. The Canyon Lake portion of these census tracts mostly consists of undeveloped land and a small number of single-family homes that are part of the same gated community as the rest of the city. Economic data for Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.15 is skewed by the population in Meadowbrook and Quail Valley and economic outcomes in the northern part of Canyon Lake are likely similar to the rest of the city.

B.7.4 Environmental Health
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Federal and state regulations require jurisdictions to analyze environmental justice in an effort to ensure people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from California Air Districts, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socio-economic indicators, etc.). The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores as compared to other California census tracts (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects. CalEnviroScreen identifies communities in the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California and CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher as “disadvantaged communities.” Regional Trends
Riverside County has a range of environmental outcomes (TCAC environmental scores equating to areas with low to high pollution burden), with the lowest environmental outcomes in the northwestern corner of the county and higher environmental outcomes in urban areas in the western half of the county (Figure B-25). The cities of Riverside and Moreno Valley have lower environmental outcomes compared to the rest of the county.

City Council Agenda,

B-44 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Local Trends
The eastern half of Canyon Lake has higher environmental outcomes (high TCAC environmental scores equating to low pollution burden) compared to the western half of the city (Figure B-26). Areas with higher environmental outcomes correspond to parts of the city with higher education outcomes (Figure B-22).

Similar to the TCAC environmental outcome map, the CalEnviroScreen map shows that pollution burden is higher in the western part of the city and lower in the eastern part of the city. Census Tract 429.07 in the northwestern corner of the city has the lowest environmental outcomes. However, it is likely that pollution burden in this part of the city is similar to Census Tract 427.48, directly south of Census Tract 429.07. The western part of the city has a higher pollution burden due to drinking water contaminants, proximity to hazardous waste sites, and proximity to solid waste facilities. However, according to CalEnviroScreen there are no hazardous waste sites or solid waste facilities within Canyon Lake. The contributors to pollution burden include: Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District: Railroad Canyon Dam and Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant (hazardous waste), Precision Sports (hazardous waste), Erik’s Transportation Inc. (hazardous waste), Central Wire Inc. (hazardous waste), Elsinore Sanitary Landfill (solid waste), Perris Transfer Station and MRF (solid waste), and CR & R inc. (hazardous and solid waste). The city will work with these contributors to mitigate the pollution burden through the implementation of Program 5.1. Water quality in Canyon Lake is managed by the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. The City and Property Owners Association do not have the authority to regulate pollution burden from these sources as these are all outside their jurisdiction.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-45
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-21 TCAC Economic Opportunity Scores (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-46 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-22 TCAC Economic Opportunity Scores (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-47
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-23 Jobs within a 45-minute Drive (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-48 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-24 Jobs within a 45-minute Drive (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-49
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-25 TCAC Environmental Opportunity Scores (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-50 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-26 TCAC Environmental Opportunity Scores (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-51
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-27 CalEnviroScreen Percentile Scores (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

B-52 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.7.5 Transportation
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options (walking and biking) are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. Access to employment via public transit and active transportation can reduce income burden and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing in more areas. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income residents in accessing opportunities.

Regional Trends
Transit access in Riverside County varies significantly based on location. Urban areas in the eastern and central parts of the county have the highest access to transit, with the greatest number of transit stops of any type (Figure B-28).

Rural areas in most of the county are not in proximity to any transit stops.

AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. Riverside County received an average AllTransit performance score of 5.3 which equates to a moderate combination of transit trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.

According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, approximately one percent of residents use public transportation to get to work.

Local Trends
Transit access in Canyon Lake is very limited. The City of Canyon Lake does not have its own transit system. Canyon Lake is not served within the gated portion by any Riverside Transportation Authority (RTA) buses. However, RTA does provide Dial-A-Ride services in Canyon Lake. Dial-A-Ride is an origin-to-destination advanced reservation transportation service for seniors and persons with disabilities. Dial-A-Ride vehicles travel to areas within threequarters of a mile of an RTA local fixed route, which encompasses a portion of the eastern area of Canyon Lake.

There is a bus stop at the commercial area outside of the gated portion of the city (Figure B-29). There is a Metrolink station in the City of Perris that provides commuter rail service to Riverside and, from there, service to Los Angeles County and Orange County.

Canyon Lake received an AllTransit performance score of 1.3 out of 10, equating to a very low number of transit trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. Less the one percent of the Canyon Lake commuters used public transportation.

Most commuters drive alone to work (70 percent), followed by those who work from home (20 percent), those who carpool (nine percent), and less than one percent walk or bike to work. Those who use public transit to commute identify as Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander or Hispanic/Latino and have an annual income ranging from $25,000 to $34,000. The mean travel time to work for Canyon Lake residents who do not work from home is 46 minutes, indicating most people work outside the city. According to ACS estimates, all residents who use public transit to commute to work depart for work between 8:30 am and 12:00 pm with a travel time of either less than 10 minutes or between 30 and 35 minutes. Less than four percent of employed residents work in Canyon Lake. Working residents work in various jurisdictions throughout the region, including Lake Elsinore, the city of Riverside, Los Angeles, Temecula, and Murrieta. In addition, 25 percent of working residents work outside of Riverside County.

Given that most residents commute outside the city to work and there is a general lack of access to public transit, most employed residents likely experience high transportation costs. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) developed the Housing and Transportation (H+T) Affordability Index which measures affordability by combining housing and transportation costs for households. The CNT sets the benchmark for affordability at no more than 45% of household income for combined housing and transportation costs. According to the CNT, on average households in Canyon Lake spend 68 percent of their income on housing and transportation. Annual transportation costs average $17,570 per year per household and housing costs average $2,239 monthly. The northeastern and southwestern parts of the city have the highest combined housing and transportation costs, at between 50 and 75 percent of total household income. However, as previously discussed, it is likely that census tract data for Canyon City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-53
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Lake is skewed by households located outside of the city, Therefore, it is likely that this data does not accurately portray household characteristics in Canyon Lake, and instead, residents throughout the city have similar housing and transportation costs. This indicates that households are paying too much for housing and transportation. Greater access to public transit could reduce transportation costs for households that work outside the city.

To address the lack of public transportation within Canyon Lake, Program 5.5 commits the City to working with the Riverside Transportation Authority to expand public transportation options within Canyon Lake.

City Council Agenda,

B-54 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-28 Transit Stop Areas (Riverside County)
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-55
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-29 Transit Stop Areas (City of Canyon Lake)
City Council Agenda,

B-56 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.8 Disproportionate Housing Needs
For purposes of the Assessment of Fair Housing –
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions…. 24 CFR 5.154 [Emphasis added]
“Disproportionate,” according to the Assessment of Fair Housing federal rules, means that there are significant disparities – within a protected class – of the percentage of people or households experiencing a housing need. No threshold measures are provided in the AFFH Rule to enable jurisdictions to determine what is “significant.” B.8.1 Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs.

Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate.

Regional Trends
Cost burden is high among homeowners and renters in Riverside County. In Riverside County, approximately 53 percent of renter households and 31 percent of owner households are cost burdened. Cost burden among homeowners is higher in urban centers compared to unincorporated parts of the county, particularly within parts of the city of Riverside, Hemet, Desert Hot Springs, and Coachella (Figure B-30).Similarly, cost burden among renter households is higher in urban centers, within the cities of Lake Elsinore, Perris, Hemet, Beaumont, Desert Hot Springs, North Palm Springs, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Indio (Figure B-31).

Local Trends
The percentage of households experiencing cost burden generally increases as income decreases in Canyon Lake.

Extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households experience cost burden at disproportionately high rates compared to moderate- and above moderate-income households for both renter and owner households (Table B-10). In addition, renter households are more likely to be cost burdened than owner households.

Approximately 42 percent of all renters are cost burdened and 31 percent of owners are cost burdened. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). Among extremely low-income renters, 62 percent are cost burdened and 100 percent of very low-income and low-income renters are cost burdened. For owners, housing cost is “selected monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. The data shows that 100 percent of extremely low income owners are cost burdened, 58 percent of very low-income owners are cost burdened, and 55 percent of low-income owners are cost burdened. In contrast, only 18 percent of moderate- and above moderate-income renter and owner households are cost burdened.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-57
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-10 Housing Problems by Income Level, 2016-2020 (City of Canyon Lake) Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Renter Owner Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) 145 160 305
With any housing problem 90 62.1% 160 100.0% 250 82.0%
With cost burden >30% 90 62.1% 160 100.0% 250 82.0%
With cost burden >50% 90 62.1% 125 78.1% 215 70.5%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 130 275 405
With any housing problem 130 100.0% 160 58.2% 290 71.6% With cost burden >30% 130 100.0% 160 58.2% 290 71.6%
With cost burden >50% 130 100.0% 125 45.5% 255 63.0%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 55 430 485
With any housing problem 55 100.0% 245 57.0% 300 61.9%
With cost burden >30% 55 100.0% 235 54.7% 290 59.8%
With cost burden >50% 35 63.6% 95 22.1% 130 26.8%
Moderate & Above Moderate-Income
(>80% AMI)
630 2325 2,955
With any housing problem 115 18.3% 420 18.1% 535 18.1%
With cost burden >30% 115 18.3% 420 18.1% 535 18.1%
With cost burden >50% 10 1.6% 70 3.0% 80 2.7%
Total Households 960 3,190 4,150
With any housing problem 390 40.6% 985 30.9% 1,375 33.1% With cost burden >30% 390 40.6% 975 30.6% 1,365 32.9%
With cost burden >50% 265 27.6% 415 13.0% 680 16.4%
Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development 2016-2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data Similar to Riverside County, rates of cost burden are higher among renters than among homeowners. Approximately 41 percent of renters and 31 percent of homeowners are cost burdened in Canyon Lake. Cost burden among homeowners is highest in the northeastern part of the city, where 49 percent of homeowners are cost burdened (Figure B-32). Throughout the rest of the city, between 20 and 40 percent of owners are cost burdened. Cost burden among renter households is highest in the northern and southeastern parts of the city, where between 70 and 80 percent of renters are cost burdened (Figure B-33). Throughout the rest of the city, between 20 and 60 percent of renters are cost burdened. The northern part of the city is comprised of Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.15 which contain few housing units in Canyon Lake and mostly consist of areas in the communities of Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. The Canyon Lake portion of these census tracts mostly consists of undeveloped land and a small number of single-family homes that are part of the same gated community as the rest of the city. Cost burden data for Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.15 is likely skewed by the population in Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. In Census Tract 429.07 Block Group 2, there are only 18 housing units in the city of Canyon Lake, representing less than five percent of the total housing units in the block group. In Census Tract 427.17 Block Group 2, only about 150 housing units are in the city of Canyon Lake, representing 41 percent of the total housing units in that block group. Therefore, households in the Canyon Lake portion of Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.17 represent a very small percentage of the total households in those block groups/census tracts and the overall trends within those census tracts are not necessarily an indicator for conditions within Canyon Lake.

City Council Agenda,

B-58 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Therefore, rates of cost burden among homeowners and rentersin the northern part of Canyon Lake are likely similar to the rest of the city.

Table B-11 shows that the percentages of extremely low-income Asian and Hispanic households are twice as high as White households. This may indicate that Asian and Hispanic households experience disproportionate housing needs relating to cost burden and severe cost burden when compared to White households. None of the Black households have extremely low incomes.

Table B-11 Extremely Low-Income Households by Race/Ethnicity: 2012-2016 (City of Canyon Lake)
Race and Ethnicity Total Households Extremely Low Households Percent Extremely LowIncome Households
White, Non-Hispanic 3,560 100 2.8%
Black, Non-Hispanic 10 0 0.0%
Asian and Other, Non-Hispanic 175 10 5.7%
Hispanic 425 20 4.7%
Total 4,170 130 3.1%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, August 2020, based on HUD CHAS Data 2012- 2016
As shown in Table B-12, a higher percentage of renter households are extremely low-income (6 percent) compared to owner households (3 percent).

Table B-12 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure: 2012-2016 (City of Canyon Lake) Race and Ethnicity Total Households Extremely Low Households Percent Extremely LowIncome Households
Renter-occupied 750 45 6.0%
Owner-occupied 3,410 85 2.5%
Total 4,160 130 3.1%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, August 2020, based on HUD CHAS Data 2012- 2016
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-59
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-30 Cost Burden by Homeowners (Riverside County) City Council Agenda,

B-60 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-31 Cost Burden by Renters (Riverside County)
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-61
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-32 Cost Burden by Homeowners (Canyon Lake)
City Council Agenda,

B-62 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-33 Cost Burden by Renters (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-63
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.8.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as a condition in which a housing unit is occupied by more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Severe overcrowding refers to more than

1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is reflective of various living situations: a housing unit is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families share a single housing unit.

Overcrowding is a measure to understand the needs of large families where there are five or more persons per household. Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms. Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding.

According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.

Regional Trends
Overcrowding is higher among renter households compared to owner households. Approximately five percent of owner households are overcrowded in Riverside County and 12 percent of renter households are overcrowded.

Local Trends
A very small percentage of households in Canyon Lake are overcrowded. There are a total of 10 overcrowded households in the city and all are homeowner households, which equates to less than one percent of owner households. As shown in Table B-13, all overcrowded households are White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino.

Table B-13 Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity (City of Canyon Lake) Race/Ethnicity Number of Households Number Overcrowded Percent Overcrowded Hispanic 377 0 0.0%
Some Other Race Alone 177 0 0.0%
Black/African American 30 0 0.0%
Asian 94 0 0.0%
White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino 3,450 10 0.3%
Two or More Races 187 0 0.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native 15 0 0.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 10 0 0.0%
Total 4,416 10 0.2%
Source: U.S Census Bureau American Community Survey 2016-2020 5-Year Estimates Tables B25014B-B25014I B.8.3 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
 Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and  Has a primary nighttime residence that is:

City Council Agenda,

B-64 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
 A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);  An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or  A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Regional Trends
The Riverside County Continuum of Care 2023 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count, conducted on January 25, 2023, recorded 3,725 individuals experiencing homelessness in the county, a 12 percent increase from the previous PIT Count conducted in 2022. The primary factors identified as contributing to unsheltered homelessness were family disruption, lack of income, and unemployment. The majority (66 percent) of homeless individuals were unsheltered.

Among unsheltered individuals, 20 percent were living in a vehicle, 16 percent in a tent/shed, 7 percent in an abandoned building, 16 percent in an encampment, and 33 percent in the street.11 Approximately nine percent of homeless individuals reported a mental health issue and 12 percent reported substance abuse issues. Sixty-eight percent of homeless individuals identified as White, 37 as Hispanic/Latino, 15 percent as Black/African American, 11 percent as multiple races, and 3 percent as American Indian/Alaskan.

Local Trends
According to the Riverside County Continuum of Care 2023 PIT Count, no homeless individuals were identified in Canyon Lake.12 This is likely due to the fact that almost the entire city is a gated community. There are three gated entrances to the gated portion of the city which are staffed 24/7. Only residents and their guests are permitted entry into the gated community. There are no homeless shelters and no services for homeless individuals in the city.

Restricted access to most of the city islikely why there were no homeless individuals identified in Canyon Lake during the 2023 PIT Count. City staff have repeatedly observed one transient homeless individual within the city, near the Canyon Lake Golf and Country Club in the southern portion of the city. However, as there are no services for homeless individuals within the city, no services were provided.

B.8.4 Displacement Risk
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production. Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.13
To analyze displacement risk, the UDP has established categories that reflect varying levels of displacement vulnerability. Communities are designated “sensitive” and vulnerable to displacement if the share of very lowincome residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics: The share of renters is above 40 percent, the share of people of color is above 50 percent, the share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median, or the percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases. Areas categorized as at-risk of or experiencing gentrification refer to neighborhoods that demonstrate characteristics of increasing housing costs, changes in housing supply, and are located near 11 Riverside County Continuum of Care. 2023. Homeless Point-In-Time Count. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mA9xcnGMqNTVZUTrdfksF1WGk-uxCNWj/view 12 Riverside County Continuum of Care. 2023. Homeless Point-In-Time Count Summary. Riverside County Continuum of Care 13 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-65
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
communities that have also experienced increasing housing costs and an increasing risk of displacement in the future. The stable moderate/mixed income category refers to neighborhoods that have moderate- to high-income residents that are not at-risk of becoming neighborhoods that exclude all but wealthy households. The stable/advanced exclusive category refers to neighborhoods that have exhibited characteristics of exclusion for long periods of time.

Regional Trends
Low-income residents are at risk of displacement throughout various parts of the county, including in portions of the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Hemet, Beaumont, Banning, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Coachella, and the unincorporated area south of Coachella (Figure B-34).

Local Trends
Displacement risk is low throughout Canyon Lake and no areas have been identified as having an elevated risk of displacement (Figure B-35).

City Council Agenda,

B-66 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-34 Displacement Risk (Riverside County)
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-67
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-35 Displacement Risk (City of Canyon Lake)
City Council Agenda,

B-68 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.9 Housing Sites Inventory Analysis
This portion of the AFFH analyzes the relation between the housing opportunity sites and AFFH-related issues.

Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the housing opportunity sites to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that sites designated for low-income households are dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low-resource areas that have historically been underserved, and conversely, that sites designated for above moderate-income households are not concentrated in areas of high resources. By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Site Inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity.

B.9.1 Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. Canyon Lake has a mix of resource areas. The northwestern corner of the city is a low resource area, while the southern and southeastern part of the city is a high resource area. The rest of the city consists of moderate resource areas.

The City’s Site Inventory can accommodate 357 housing units. Figure B-36 shows the housing opportunity sites by TCAC designated resource area. The housing opportunity sites are designated by income category – whether the sites could accommodate housing appropriate for low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income households. The “appropriateness” of sites for various affordability levels is dictated by State housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors. More information about the sites and income designations is available in Appendix E, Housing Resources.

Most of the housing opportunity sites are in high resource areas (81 percent of the proposed housing units) and moderate-resource areas (17 percent of proposed housing units). A large portion of housing units in high resource areas of the city (188 housing units) are within the Towne Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area, including all of the proposed low- and moderate-income housing units and 22 percent of the proposed above-moderate income units.

The remaining housing units proposed by the Site Inventory are scattered throughout the city on small lots zoned R1 (169 housing units), with one above moderate housing unit proposed on each lot. A total of 5 housing units are proposed in low resource areas which are located in in the northwest corner of the (Census Tract 429.07).

Because of Canyon Lake’s unique development as a private gated community which later incorporated as a city, and due to limited capacity of the gated portion of the community to accommodate lower-income housing, the entirety of income-restricted RHNA requirements are planned to be accommodated within the TCSP. While all these sites are located with a high opportunity census tract, the concentration of all lower-income units within one census tract could potentially exacerbate fair housing conditions. To ensure that the location of these sites does not further segregation or result in inequitable living conditions for occupants of income-restricted apartments, the City will implement Program 5.6 to promote equitable quality of life throughout the city.

Total Units by Resource Area
There are five units planned in areas of high segregation and poverty and low resource, all of which will be above moderate-income units. In contrast, 62 units are planned in areas designated moderate-resource and 290 units are in high-resource areas. All of the units in moderate resource areas will be above moderate-income (62 units).

Approximately 20 percent of units in high resource areas (57 units) will be moderate-income units and 80 percent (1,49 units) will be above moderate-income units.

Table B-14 shows the number of proposed housing units by income level in each resource area.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-69
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-14 Proposed Housing Units by Resource Area (Housing Opportunity Sties) Income Level Lower-Income Moderate-Income Above-Moderate Income Total Units Areas of High Segregation
and Poverty
0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
5 units
(2% of above moderateincome units)
5 units
(1% of total
units)
Low-Resource Areas 0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
5 units
(2% of above moderateincome units)
5 units
(1% of total
units)
Moderate-Resource Areas 0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
62 units
(29% of above moderateincome units)
62 units
(17% of total
units)
High/Highest-Resource
Areas
84 units
(100% of lowerincome units)
57 units
(100% of
moderate-income
units)
149 units
(69% of above moderateincome units)
290 units
(81% of total
units)
The housing opportunity sites, will add all of the proposed lower- and moderate-income units in high-resource areas.

These units are all proposed within the TCSP area in Census Tract 427.33 due to the availability of appropriately zoned land within this census tract. This area is the only land within the city that is available for housing development appropriate for lower-income housing, with an allowed density of 20 units per acre or greater. Above moderateincome units are scattered throughout the city. Most of the land within the gated portion of the city is already developed with newer housing units built within the past 20 years. Therefore, these lots are unlikely to be redeveloped during this housing element cycle. Recent market trends show that development on vacant land within the gated portion of Canyon Lake consists solely of single-family homes on lots of at least 7,200 square feet for sale at the above moderate-income level. Therefore, the Site Inventory does not propose any lower- or moderate-income units in these areas. In addition these vacant lots are zoned with a maximum allowable density of 6.05 units per acre, which does not accommodate lower-income units.

City Council Agenda,

B-70 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-36 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-71
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.9.2 Sites by Income Population
Census tracts with more than 50 percent low- and moderate-income (LMI) households are located in the northern and northeastern part of the city. Figure B-37 shows the housing opportunity sites by percentage of LMI populations.

Thirty-two of the total housing units included in the opportunity sites are located in census tracts with more than 50 percent LMI households, equal to approximately 15 percent of the total proposed above moderate-income housing units and nine percent of the total proposed housing units. Of the opportunity sites in these areas, all are appropriate for above moderate-income households. The Site Inventory will improve the mixture of housing opportunities by income level in the city and will not exacerbate segregation by income between neighborhoods.

B.9.3 Sites by Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is highest in the northwestern corner of the city, where approximately nine percent of housing units are overcrowded. However, this part of the city is part of Census Tract 429.07 (data skewed by housing and population in Meadowbrook) and contains a total of 20 housing units in Canyon Lake. Figure B-38 show the housing opportunity sites by levels of overcrowded housing across the city. The Site Inventory assumes that sites in areas with higher rates of overcrowding could accommodate a total of 5 above moderate-income housing units, equal to approximately two percent of the total above moderate-income housing units proposed in the Site Inventory. This part of the city consists primarily of undeveloped land zoned Natural Recreation Area and has little land available for housing development. Sites to accommodate the remaining 352 housing units are located throughout the rest of the city. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overcrowding conditions but will add new housing opportunities throughout the city.

B.9.4 Sites by Cost Burden by Renters
The percentage of overpayment by renters is highest in the northern and southeastern parts of the city, where between 70 and 79 percent of renters are experiencing cost burden. Figure B-39 show the housing opportunity sites by overpayment by renters. The housing opportunity sites will provide housing opportunities for a mix of income levels in areas with high rates of cost burden among renters, including 84 units appropriate for lower-income households, 57 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 79 units appropriate for above moderateincome households. These housing units will likely be a mix of rental units and owned units, based on trends in planning entitlements and developer interest. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overpayment by renters but will add new housing opportunities in areas that need them.

According to the UDP, new market-rate construction in gentrifying areas neither worsens nor eases rates of people moving out of the area. It increases rates of people moving to an area across all socio-economic groups, particularly high-socio-economic residents. The UDP recommends subsidized housing construction and housing preservation to help existing residents stay in their neighborhood. The mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate-income housing units in southern Canyon Lake will provide affordable housing options for existing lower-income residents as well as encourage higher-income households to move into the area.

City Council Agenda,

B-72 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-37 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-73
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-38 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

B-74 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-39 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-75
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.9.5 Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation
Areas of Canyon Lake in the northwestern, western, and southeastern parts of the city have the highest percentage of non-White residents (between 48 and 61 percent). Housing opportunity sites in these parts of the city accommodate a mix of income levels in areas that already have a diverse mix of ethnic and racial groups. Figure B-40 shows the housing opportunity sites by percent non-White residents. The Sites Inventory will not contribute to segregation based on race/ethnicity or income level.

As discussed in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately 12 percent of the population has one or more disabilities. For persons with disabilities who live independently or with other family members, independent living can be supported with special housing features, financial support, and in-home supportive services. The location of housing is also an important factor for people with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel. Areas with a higher percentage of residents with a disability are in the center of the city. Housing opportunity sites in these areas would add a total of 164 units appropriate for above moderate-income households.

B.9.6 Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement
The entire city has a low risk of displacement. Figure B-41 shows the housing opportunity sites in relation to the location of displacement risk. The Site Inventory includes capacity for 84 units appropriate for lower-income households. These units will provide affordable housing options for existing very low- and low-income residents at risk of displacement.

B.9.7 Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score
The northwestern corner of the city has the highest CalEnviroScreen scores, 82nd percentile, as well as the western part of the city, 49th percentile. The rest of the city has a CalEnviroScreen percentile score of 32 or lower. Housing units proposed by the Site Inventory in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score greater than 49 can accommodate 40 above moderate-income housing units (approximately 11 percent of total proposed housing units). Figure B-42 shows the housing opportunity sites by CalEnviroScreen score. The Site Inventory would not concentrate lowerincome units in areas of higher pollution burden.

City Council Agenda,

B-76 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-40 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-77
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-41 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

B-78 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure B-42 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score (City of Canyon Lake) City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-79
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-15 Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics Sites Inventory Capacity (Units)
AFFH Indicators
Segregation and Integration Access to Opportunity Disproportionate Housing Needs Census Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households Low-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncomeMedian
Income Poverty Rate
Percent LMI
Households
Percent NonWhite
Population
Percent
Disability
TCAC Resource
Designation
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
Overcrowding
(Percent)
Overpayment
by Renters
(Percent)
Overpayment
by Owners
(Percent) Displacement Risk
6065042714 1,141 0 0 41 $131,042 7.1% 20.6% 20.5% 10.1% High Resource 11.6 0.7% 38.2% 23.2% Lower Displacement Risk 6065042716 1,929 0 0 61 $99,911 3.5% 28.6% 30.0% 12.4% High Resource 12.2 0.6% 40.2% 38.5% Lower Displacement Risk 6065042717 1,607 0 0 27 $67,673 16.7% 53.5% 37.1% 10.3% Moderate Resource 31.5 3.2% 69.9% 48.8% Lower Displacement Risk 6065042733 3,636 84 57 47 $106,477 9.6% 40.0% 48.3% 8.5% High Resource 31.6 2.2% 74.5% 36.2% Lower Displacement Risk 6065042748 1,696 0 0 35 $123,750 14.7% 20.7% 41.2% 10.1% Moderate Resource 48. 9 0.8% 38.6% 31.3% Lower Displacement Risk 6065042907 928 0 0 5 $64,500 11.3% 69.9% 61.1% 7.9% Low Resource 81.9 9.5% 78.7% 34.0% Lower Displacement Risk Total 84 57 216 357
City Council Agenda,

B-80 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.10 Local Knowledge
B.10.1 Canyon Lake History
Canyon Lake was formed by a dam built by the Temescal Water Company of Corona, completed in 1929. The Temescal Water Company of Corona granted concession rights to George and Leeta Evans. The Evans family built a small concession stand, which grew into a popular fishing camp.16 The lake was drained in 1949 to allow for repairs to the floodgates on the dam and heavy rains in 1952 refilled the lake. In 1955, the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and Temescal Water Company reached a settlement to store 3,000 acre-feet of water in the lake for domestic use. Subsequently, a treatment plant was built, and later fish screens were installed over the floodgates so that all the fish would not travel downstream to Lake Elsinore. Several subsidiary companies were formed from the original Temescal Water Company, one of which became the Corona Land Company.16
In 1968, the Corona Land Company began the development of 5,000 lots around Canyon Lake.16 The Canyon Lake Property Owners Association was incorporated in 1968. It is a not-for-profit corporation that is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the common areas in Canyon Lake.14 The single-family subdivision maps were recorded in the 1960s, before the incorporation of the city. The original intent of the development was a master plan for senior living located around the reservoir. This development was similar to several planned retirement communities made popular in Southern California and other places around the country at this time. Leisure World Seal Beach opened in 1962, which was the first mass-marketed housing project for seniors and a gated community.15 Nearby, in what is now the City of Menifee, an area identified as Sun City, began in the early 1960s as the concept of an active retirement community. In the 1960s and 70s, population growth increased in Riverside County, generally in a sprawl of new houses and businesses, particularly in western Riverside County.

In December 1990, Canyon Lake became an incorporated city, and all of the areas outside the gates are under the jurisdiction of the city council.16 The residents wanted to establish their own direction and control their own future, which could only occur through incorporation. According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, “incorporation of the city was not a result of dissatisfaction with [the existing land use and zoning] patterns, designations or community design, but may have been a result of the means by which those codes had been [implemented and enforced].”17
Although the community was originally envisioned as a retirement and weekend-getaway destination, the community is currently populated by a mix of residents, including retirees and young families.16 The city’s population has become more racially diverse in the past decade and has also had an increase in the share of the population that is young adult (20-34 years). However, the city’s population is more White and older than Riverside County as a whole.

Due to the limited area of vacant land for new housing development and the City’s desire for mixed-use development consistent with the State’s desire to reduce vehicle miles traveled and diminish resulting air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, the City took steps to adopt a Specific Plan for the Towne Center to meet the City’s housing needs.

The City hired a consultant to provide a design concept and the City discussed development with an interested developer. New multi-family housing in the city will reduce financial barriers to entry for new residents and may provide optional lifestyle and housing choices for a wider variety of income groups. 14 Canyon Lake Property Owners Association. 2023. About Canyon Lake. https://www.canyonlakepoa.com/about-canyonlake#:~:text=Canyon%20Lake%20was%20formed%20by,stable%20supply%20to%20the%20reservoir. 15 OC Seniors. 2024. https://www.orangecounty.net/html/seniorsarticle1.html#:~:text=Leisure%20World%2C%20Laguna%20Hills%2C%20California,last%20manor%20in%20September%201980. 16 City of Canyon Lake. 2023. The History of Canyon Lake. https://www.canyonlakeca.gov/history 17 City of Canyon Lake. 2009. Chapter Three Land Use Element (page III-3). https://www.canyonlakeca.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B914485A7-E93B4BFA-A369-593050FBB784%7D/uploads/Land_Use_Element.pdf City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-81
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Gated Community
Almost the entire city of Canyon Lake is a private gated community with staffed security gates that restrict access to non-residents. All residential property owners within the gated community, including the gated Fairway Estates Mobile Home Park, and areas outside of the gates, are members of the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association.

All land use and community activities within the gated community are subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Commercial areas are located outside of the gated community and serve the residents of Canyon Lake and the general public.

B.10.2 Community Feedback
The City conducted outreach to update the community on the Housing Element update process and garner feedback from the community. Participation from community members was very limited. The City hosted a workshop on July 1, 2021 for the Housing Element which was advertised through the Property Owners Association and local newspaper and invitations were sent to local organizations, including the Canyon Lake Community Church and Canyon Lake Chamber of Commerce. There were no participants at the workshop (in-person or virtual). A video of the workshop was posted on the City’s website following the event. The City held a City Council hearing on the Draft Housing Element, on September 1, 2021, and no comments or questions were received. The Draft Housing Element was also posted on the City’s website for public review, however, no comments were received.

B.10.3 Other Relevant Factors
Land Use and Zoning Laws
Canyon Lake was developed as a master planned community with predetermined density and zoning at the time of development. Residential land uses within the City are subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth by the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association and are largely a result of the land use and zoning policies set forth by the original master plan. Most of Canyon Lake is zoned for single-family residences. According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, approximately 92 percent of housing units in Canyon Lake consist of single-family residences, 7 percent consists of multi-family housing units, and 2 percent consists of mobile homes. The single-family subdivision pattern of Canyon Lake is substantially built out, with only 186 vacant lots as of the date of the last survey. All but 17 of those lots are less than 0.5 acre, too small to be ideal for the density required for lower-income housing. The rest of the vacant lots are located in areas with steep slopes or irregular configurations, and not ideal for housing development.

The initial criteria adopted by the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association, that attempted to restrict the number of floors in a residential structure with the intent to make housing design amenable for seniors and reflect their greater potential for disabilities, has been modified, thereby permitting a wider variety of residents not originally envisioned when first adopted. Most households in the city are owner households (77 percent) and a smaller share of households are renters (23 percent).

B.11 Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in the AI, community outreach, and the analysis in this document.

B.11.1 Enforcement and Outreach
The City’s website does not have information on fair housing or fair housing rights and responsibilities for tenants and landlords. In addition, information on the City’s website is limited to English.

Contributing factors to insufficient enforcement and outreach in Canyon Lake include:
 Lack of language access (low priority): The City’s website and fair housing informational materials are not provided in multiple languages.

City Council Agenda,

B-82 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
 Limited distribution of fair housing information (medium priority): The City’s website has no information on fair housing and there are very few community outreach events dedicated to fair housing.  Limited community participation in outreach efforts: As experienced throughout the Housing Element update process, the City has difficulty engaging the community in housing related issues.

B.11.2 Segregation and Integration
Canyon Lake does not have significant patterns of segregation based on race, income, disability status, or familial status within the city. The city almost entirely consists of a private gated community, and is primarily zoned for single-family housing. There is little variety in the types of housing available in the city and limited resources for lowincome households. The City has observed that the sociodemographic characteristics of the community are somewhat homogeneous and there are no patterns of segregation by neighborhood within the city.

Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns and trends in in Canyon Lake include:
 Land use and zoning laws (medium priority): Most of the city consists of a gated community that contains lots primarily zoned for single-family homes.
 Lack of sufficient affordable housing (high priority): The city does not contain any subsidized or public housing.  Limited access to financial assistance for low-income households: While Riverside County and the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside provide financial assistance programs for low-income renters and lowincome homebuyers, there is limited education/marketing for these programs.  Concentration of rental units and low- and moderate-income units within Census Tract 427.33, outside the gated community (high priority): The Site Inventory proposes all lower- and moderate-income households in Census Tract 427.33. All proposed units within the gated portion of the city are above moderate-income units.

B.11.3 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost burden among renters is highest in the northern and southeastern parts of the city. Cost burden among homeowners is in the northeastern corner of the city. Overcrowding is highest in the northwestern corner of the city. However, the northwest corner of the city is part of Census Tract 429.07 which also includes large areas within the community of Meadowbrook. Therefore, census data is likely skewed by the population in Meadowbrook and does not accurately reflect trends experienced in Canyon Lake. Northern parts of the city are likely experiencing similar rates of cost burden and overcrowding as the rest of the city. The southerly part of the city is outside of the main gated community and contains a mobile home park. Renters in the larger hillside lots located in the southeastern corner of the city are likely experiencing cost burden at a higher rate than the rest of the city. While there were no homeless individuals identified in the PIT Count, this may be due to the lack of resources for homeless individuals in the city. In addition, the security gates prevent non-residents from entering most areas in the city which prevents access to homeless individuals. The entire city has a low displacement risk.

Contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs in Canyon Lake include:

Rising home values (medium priority): The median home value in Canyon Lake has increased significantly over the past couple years, from $381,238 in 2015 to $677,488 in 2023.  High rental costs (medium priority): As analyzed in Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment, rental costs in Canyon Lake are 17 percent higher than the regional average and are the highest out of cities analyzed in Riverside County. The monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Canyon Lake is $2,100, while the regional average is $1,960.

Lack of housing in a range of sizes and types (high priority): Most housing in Canyon Lake consists of single-family homes in the gated part of the city. In addition, there are very few rental units in the city. The City has observed that most housing units within the city consist of well-maintained single-family homes that are owned by affluent households, including the few housing units outside the gated community in the southeastern corner of the city.

These housing units also consist of single-family homes, in good condition, and are on large lots.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-83
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
 Lack of sufficient affordable housing (high priority): The city does not contain any subsidized or public housing.  Lack of services for homeless individuals (medium priority): The city does not have any homeless shelters or services for persons experiencing homelessness.

B.11.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Canyon Lake has a mix of resource areas. However, most developed areas of the city are high resource. The northern part of the city has the least positive economic, education, and environmental outcome scores. However, this part of the city is comprised of Census Tracts 429.07 and 427.15 which mostly consists of areas in the communities of Meadowbrook and Quail Valley. The Canyon Lake portion of these census tracts mostly consists of undeveloped land and a small number of single-family homes that are part of the same gated community as the rest of the city.

Residents within these census tracts and the rest of the gated community have the same access to public facilities, open space, parks and recreational activities, and services provided by the POA. In addition, the entire city is located within the same school district and attends the same public elementary, middle, and high school. Therefore, access to opportunities in the northern part of the city is likely similar to the rest of the city. However, the entire city has low access to public transit which disproportionately affects low-income residents and non-white residents, as a higher percentage of low-income and non-white residents rely on transit to commute to work.

Contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities in Canyon Lake include:
 Limited access to transit and regional connection (medium priority): Most of the city does not have access to a transit stop. Low-income households rely on public transit to commute to work more than any other income level, however most of the city does not have access to public transit services. In addition, most employed residents work outside of the city, with a large portion working outside of Riverside County (25 percent) but there is little to no regional connection via public transit.  Higher pollution burden in the western part of the city: The western part of the city has a higher pollution burden than the eastern part due to drinking water contaminants and proximity to solid waste facilities and hazardous waste sites.

B.12 Fair Housing Priorities, Goals And Strategies
The fair housing priorities, goals and strategies are set forth in the context of the following:
 Findings and conclusions drawn from the research and analysis conducted to prepare the Assessment of Fair Housing.
 Findings and conclusions drawn from completion of the Assessment of Housing Needs (Appendix A), especially in regard to cost burdens, severe cost burdens, overcrowding and the special needs of the elderly, families with children, female householders, and large families.
 City’s share of the regional housing need (129 housing units)  Fair housing services available from the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.

B.12.1 Priorities
 Addressing disproportionate housing needs
 Addressing the housing needs of fair housing protected groups by the development of a diversity of housing types. (e.g., Towne Center Specific Plan)
 Increasing the community’s awareness of fair housing (e.g., POA, City staff, local groups) B.12.2 Goals
 Continue to seek ways to enhance the City’s ability to affirmatively further fair housing.  Create new affordable housing that addresses racial and ethnic inclusive patterns of housing occupancy.  Create new affordable housing that addresses economic inclusive patterns of housing occupancy.

City Council Agenda,

B-84 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
B.12.3 Meaningful Actions
Based on the analysis conducted in this AFFH document, Table B-16 highlights the prominent fair housing issues and contributing factors that impede access to safe, affordable, and vibrant housing in Canyon Lake. Furthermore, the findings of this analysis were used to develop meaningful actions, metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities in the city. The contributing factors were prioritized to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to further fair housing. Meaningful actions to address fair housing issues are included in the housing programs located in Section II, Housing Plan.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-85
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table B-16 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Metrics and Timeline
Fair housing
enforcement and
outreach
 Lack of language
access (low priority)
 Limited distribution of
fair housing
information (medium
priority)
 Coordinate with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County/other fair housing nonprofit organizations to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services, including
investigation of discrimination complaints, fair housing counseling and education, fair housing testing, and
tenant/landlord counseling and mediation.
 Become a member of the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to receive quarterly data and analysis of fair housing complaints.
 Partner with local organizations to distribute information on fair housing services and homebuyer education programs by distributing flyers, attending local events, social media campaigns, and educational workshops in both English and Spanish.
 Coordinate with non-profit organizations, local community groups, and service organizations to increase awareness of and access to housing resources and fair housing assistance by distributing flyers, attending local events, social media campaigns, and educational workshops.
 Coordinate with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to investigate all formal housing discrimination complaints received and make appropriate referrals to enforcement
agencies.
 Update the City’s website to include fair housing rights and responsibilities for landlords and lenders. Add a language translation feature to the City’s website.
 Publicly post fair housing resources within six
months of adoption of the 2021-2019 Housing
Element.
 Schedule and complete an initial Fair Housing
Workshop with Fair Housing Council of Riverside
County/other fair housing nonprofit
organizations by the end of 2024. Conduct
additional workshops annually.
 Conduct annual meetings with the following
agencies to discuss and determine best practices
for AFFH within Canyon Lake:
▫ Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
(FHCRC)
▫ California Department of Fair Employment
and Housing (DFEH)
▫ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
Complete initial round of meetings by the end of
2024; conduct follow-up meetings annually.
 Provide annual trainings to City staff on how to refer residents for fair housing complaints.
 Research and conduct initial City staff training by
the end of 2026.

Lack of Variety of
Housing/Affordable
Housing
 Land use and zoning
laws (medium
priority)
 Rising home values
(medium priority)
 High rental costs
(medium priority)
 Develop a web-based Housing Development Toolkit that
outlines a step-by-step process for residential development, including identifying steps in the entitlement and building permit process, detailed information on development
incentives, and funding programs and resources for
affordable housing development.
 Develop concessions and incentives beyond
State standards for housing developments which
designate at least 10 percent of their units for
extremely low-income households or 15 percent
of their units for lower-income households by
the end of 2026.
 Review the General Plan, applicable Specific Plans, and Zoning Code and Zoning Map to evaluate opportunities for  Adopt applicable zoning ordinance amendments
pertaining to emergency shelters, low barrier
City Council Agenda,

B-86 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Metrics and Timeline
 Lack of housing in a
range of sizes and
types (high priority)
 Lack of sufficient
affordable housing
(high priority)
removing barriers to housing production such as adding
housing capacity and accommodating a greater mix of
dwelling types and sizes, prioritizing areas designated as high resource by TCAC. Recommend amendments, as feasible, to accommodate added housing capacity in these areas.

Additionally, review the Zoning Code to identify
opportunities to increase and encourage a greater mix of dwelling types and sizes, specifically housing types that may accommodate moderate-income households (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, courtyard buildings), in lower-density residential areas and mixed-use zones
citywide.
navigation centers, permanent supportive
housing, single-room occupancy units, employee
housing, accessory dwelling units, and large
family daycare homes pursuant to State Law by
the end of 2026.
 Partner with the Housing Authority of the County of
Riverside to expand the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Canyon Lake. Publish information and links to the Housing Choice Voucher Program on the City’s website. Conduct an annual workshop for community members and landlords to
spread awareness of the program.
 Promote Housing Choice Vouchers to tenants by
posting to the website by the end of 2024.
 Promote Housing Choice Vouchers to owners of
rental properties through conducting a workshop
with the Housing Authority by the end of 2024.
 Provide assistance to at least five extremely lowand very low-income households by the end of 2029.
 Expand awareness and participation in the County’s FirstTime Homebuyer Program, Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (reduced federal income tax liability) and the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (silent second mortgage purchase price assistance). Publish information and links to the County’s homebuyer assistance programs on the City’s website. Host an annual workshop on available assistance programs, specifically targeting existing renters in the city and realtors. Develop a fact sheet for each assistance
program and distribute it to realtors, rental housing
developments, and by attending local events.
 Post information on the program on its website
annually throughout the planning period.

Annually conduct a FTHB Workshop hosted by
the City and Fair Housing Council of Riverside
County (FHCRC).
 Facilitate First Time Homebuyer Assistance to
five buyers purchasing homes in Canyon Lake by
the end of 2029.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-87
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Metrics and Timeline
 Determine and implement strategy to promote ADUs for
moderate- and lower-income households. Prepare a report on potential strategies to encourage affordability of ADUs for moderate- and lower-income households, including but not limited to, promoting the use of Section 8 vouchers or development of cost incentive programs or no-interest loan program for ADU developers in exchange for income
restrictions. Prepare report by January 2026 and present to City Council for adoption of a pilot program by August 2026.

If adopted, implement pilot program by January 2027.
 Develop an ADU policy consistent with state law. Update the Municipal Code to comply with state ADU law by January
2026.
 By the end of 2024:
▫ Post on the City’s website examples of design
features and methods to construct attached
ADUs
▫ Provide owners with a brochure and/or
online material describing ADU opportunities.
▫ Provide owners with strategies on how to
reduce ADU construction costs, including
information about outside funding sources.
▫ Research and promote awareness of
available fee waivers and reductions from
City, school district and special district fees.
▫ Provide owners with examples of ADUs of
various sizes.
▫ Inform owners of the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program and County of
Riverside Housing Authority contacts.
▫ Implement incentives to produce lower cost
ADUs.

Limited access to
transit
 Limited access to
transit and regional
connection (medium
priority):
 Collaborate with the Riverside Transit Agency to prepare a study on transit and active transportation needs for Canyon Lake residents and identify actions to address those needs, focusing on connecting residents to job centers.
 Work with the Riverside Transit Agency to offer reduced fares for low-income households
 By the end of 2025:
▫ Conduct a community survey on transit
needs.
▫ Meet with the Riverside Transit Agency to
discuss options for providing reduced
ridership bus and Dial-A-Ride fare to lowincome households.  By the end of 2026:
▫ Prepare a transit and active transportation
needs study and identify actions to address
those needs.
 Implement at least three of the actions identified
in the study by the end of the planning period.

City Council Agenda,

B-88 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Metrics and Timeline
Pollution burden  Higher pollution
burden in the western
part of the city due to
drinking water
contaminants,
hazardous waste
sites, and solid waste
sites.
 Work with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) to address potential drinking water contamination issues.
 Communicate with property owners of hazardous waste
sites and solid waste facilities to ensure the safety and health of residents.
 Meet annually with the EVMWD to discuss issues
related to drinking water contaminants.
 Publish the annual Water Quality Consumer
Confidence Report on the City’s website.
 In partnership with the EVMWD, host an annual
workshop to educate residents on water quality
in the community.
 Conduct annual communication with nearby
solid waste facilities and property owners of
active hazardous waste sites to identify
potential safety/health issues and ensure
proper safety measures are in effect.

Segregation by
income level
 Concentration of
single-family and
above moderateincome units in the
gated portion of the
city
 Concentration of
lower- and moderateincome in Census
Tract 427.33
 Encourage the production of ADUs and work to provide
affordable units for lower income households through
permit streamlining, providing resources on ADU
development, and promote the use of ADUs for low- and
moderate-income households.
 Ensure all areas of the city have adequate infrastructure to support existing and proposed development.
 Implement place-based strategies to foster a sense of community within the TCSP area.
 Host citywide community events.
 By the end of 2025:
▫ Update the Zoning Code to comply with State
ADU law and Senate Bill 9.
▫ Develop an ADU application checklist and
publish the checklist on the City’s website.
▫ Add information on the ADU and Senate Bill 9
permitting processes, as well as available
resources and incentives.
▫ Offer free consultation meetings with
planning staff for property owners interested
in developing ADUs or SB 9 units.
▫ Adopt pre-approved ADU plans, in
compliance with AB 1332.
 By the end of 2026:
▫ Prepare a report on potential strategies to
encourage affordability of ADUs for
moderate and lower-income households.
▫ Review the City’s Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP) to ensure public facilities and
infrastructure are supportive of the needs of
planned housing development throughout
the city.
 Support community building efforts through
funding and dedicating staff resources. Annually
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-89
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions
Metrics and Timeline
allocate resources and funds to support
community building efforts that include all
residents within the city such as an annual
fair/festival.
 Prepare a report that identifies community
building strategies for the TCSP area that
outlines specific projects for the City to
implement, such as an annual community
event/street fair, community gardens,
community spaces (parks, community center,
library, etc.). Complete at least two of these
actions within the planning period.

City Council Agenda,

B-90 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Attachment A
City of Canyon Lake
2021-2029 Housing Element
Fair Housing Resources
Fair Housing Enforcement Agencies
 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
 hud.gov
Los Angeles Field Office
United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Los Angeles Field Office
300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 4054
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 894-8000
Email: Customer Service
Fax: (213) 894-8107
TTY: (213) 894-8133 or (800) 877-8339 or dial 7-1-1 (Not available in all areas.)  California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/
Los Angeles Office
320 West 4th Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Monday to Friday: 8am to 5pm
Phone: (213) 439-6799
 Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
https://fairhousing.net/
Email: [email protected]
Main Office:
4164 Brockton Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 682-6581
Fax: (951) 682-0262
Hours: Monday to Friday: 8 am to 5 pm
Phone: 1-951-682-6581
City Council Agenda,

Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing B-91
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Independent Living Center
Community Access Center
6848 Magnolia Ave. Suite 150
Riverside, CA 92506
https://www.ilcac.org/about.html
Executive Director:

Paul Van Doren; 951-274-0358 ext. 107
E-Mail: [email protected]
Programs Director:

Faustino Alvarez; 951-274-0358 ext. 123
E-Mail: [email protected]
Disability Advocates
Disability Rights California
https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/
Ontario Office
3602 Inland Empire Blvd Suite C-110
Ontario, CA 91764
City Council Agenda,

B-92 Appendix B – Assessment of Fair Housing
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

City Council Agenda,

Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-i
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table of Contents
C Sites Inventory and Analysis............................................................................................................................. C-1 C.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)......................................................................................... C-1 C.2 Meeting the RHNA ............................................................................................................................... C-2 C.3 Site Selection Methodology ................................................................................................................. C-2 C.4 Regional Development Trends............................................................................................................. C-4 C.5 Realistic Development Capacity........................................................................................................... C-7 C.6 Adequacy of Nonvacant Sites............................................................................................................. C-13 C.7 Existing Conditions in the TCSP .......................................................................................................... C-17 C.8 City-owned and Leased Sites.............................................................................................................. C-18 C.9 Adequacy of Public Facilities and Infrastructure................................................................................ C-19 C.10 Environmental Constraints ............................................................................................................... C-21 C.11 Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................................. C-21 C.12 Summary of Adequate Sites.............................................................................................................. C-33 Tables
Table C-1 Canyon Lake 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation................................................................. C-2 Table C-2 Regional Redevelopment Trends of Residential Uses in Existing Retail Centers ................................. C-5 Table C-3 Development in Nonresidential Zones in City of Menifee ................................................................... C-6 Table C-4 Median Rents and Vacancy Rates for Regional Cities.......................................................................... C-9 Table C-5 Land Use Summary by Planning Area for the Towne Center Specific Plan ........................................ C-11 Table C-6 General Development Standards for the Towne Center Specific Plan............................................... C-11 Table C-7 City-owned and Leased Sites.............................................................................................................. C-19 Table C-8 Public Facility Providers...................................................................................................................... C-19 Table C-9 Nonvacant Sites in the TCSP............................................................................................................... C-22 Table C-10 Vacant R-1 Sites in Canyon Lake ........................................................................................................ C-25 Table C-11 Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory ............................................................................................. C-33 Figures
Figure C-1 Opportunity Lots................................................................................................................................ C-13 Figure C-2 Towne Center Specific Plan Conceptual Site Plan.............................................................................. C-16 Figure C-3 Water and Sewer Mains Within the TCSP.......................................................................................... C-20 Figure C-4 Nonvacant Sites in the Towne Center Specific Plan........................................................................... C-24 Figure C-5 Vacant R-1 Sites in Canyon Lake ........................................................................................................ C-32 City Council Agenda,

C-ii Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-1
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
C Sites Inventory and Analysis
State law requires every jurisdiction to undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate regional housing needs.1 A jurisdiction must demonstrate in its Housing Element that its land inventory is adequate to accommodate its share of the region’s projected growth. This section details the Sites Inventory process for the City of Canyon Lake.

C.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
This Housing Element covers the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029 (also referred to as the 6th cycle). The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is responsible for distributing the RHNA among jurisdictions in the region based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. This methodology must align with State objectives, including but not limited to:
 Promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection  Ensuring jobs-housing balance
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing
The process to allocate WRCOG’s regional housing needs was completed in March 2021 with the adoption of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan.2 Each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need is allocated based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. The RHNA methodology uses weighted indicators such as access to opportunity and job proximity to allocate housing units affordable to households of different income categories. WRCOG is required to allocate units across income categories with the goal of reducing the concentration of lower-income households in historically lower-income communities. The RHNA for each jurisdiction is distributed into four income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI)3
:
 Very low-income (less than 50 percent of AMI)
 Low-income (50-80 percent of AMI)
 Moderate-income (80-120 percent of AMI)
 Above moderate-income (more than 120 percent of the AMI) As part of the Housing Element Update, each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its assigned share of the region’s housing needs. Canyon Lake’s 6th cycle RHNA is 129 units. These units are distributed across five income categories within each jurisdiction, as shown below in Table C-1.
1 Government Code section 65100 – 65763, Article 10.6. Housing Elements 2 SCAG. 2021. 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1616462966 3 The Area Median Income of Riverside County is $76,066 for a household in 2021.

City Council Agenda,

C-2 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table C-1 Canyon Lake 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Total RHNA
Allocation
Very Low-Income
Allocation
Low-Income
Allocation
Moderate-Income
Allocation
Above ModerateIncome Allocation
Jurisdiction Units Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Canyon Lake 129 43 33% 24 19% 24 19% 38 29%
Source: SCAG. 2021. 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan C.2 Meeting the RHNA
Each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to fulfill its required RHNA. Once the City demonstrates that it has the development capacity to accommodate the RHNA, it has two obligations:
 Maintain a “no net loss” policy of its residential development capacity over the housing element planning period, meaning that sites listed in the adopted Housing Element land inventory may not be down-zoned to a lower-density residential zone or rezoned to a nonresidential zone, unless the City up-zones or rezones alternative sites prior to the density reduction or rezone on the inventoried site.  Continue to allocate available funding resources to and facilitate the development of affordable housing, as it has done frequently in the past. The City is not obligated to ensure construction of lower-income housing on any particular site within its city limits.

C.2.1 RHNA Credits
Residential developments approved and permitted, but not yet built (“pipeline projects”) can be credited towards the City’s RHNA for the 6th cycle Housing Element provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built by the end of the 6th cycle’s planning period. Similarly, units that have received a certificate of occupancy as of June 30, 2021 can also be credited towards the RHNA. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) anticipated to be built between 2023 and 2029 can also be credited towards the City’s RHNA.

However, due to a slow housing construction market in Canyon Lake, no pipeline projects have been applied to the Sites Inventory. Furthermore, only one ADU has been approved for construction in Canyon Lake, indicating there is not a trend of ADU development in the city. The City does not rely on future ADU development to meet the RHNA.

C.3 Site Selection Methodology
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD’s) Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, the purpose of the Sites Inventory is to identify and analyze specific land (sites) that is available and suitable for residential development to accommodate the jurisdiction’s anticipated growth. The Sites Inventory enables the jurisdiction to determine whether there are sufficient adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA for each income category. Sites used in Canyon Lake’s Sites Inventory include individual parcels or groups of parcels that meet the following criteria:
 Vacant sites zoned for low density residential use (e.g., R-1 lots)  Nonvacant sites zoned for mixed-use that can be redeveloped for high density residential use (e.g., Towne Center Specific Plan)
Sites are suitable for residential development if zoned appropriately and available for residential use during the planning period. If the inventory demonstrates that there are insufficient sites to accommodate the RHNA, the City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-3
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
inventory must identify sites for rezoning to identify and make available additional sites to accommodate the shortfall of housing units within the planning period.

C.3.1 Density and Parcel Size Requirements for Lower-Income Housing State law has established “default” density standards for the purpose of estimating potential units by income range.

In Canyon Lake, a density standard of 30 or more units per acre (primarily for higher density multi-family developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the low- and very low-income category.

In addition to default density standards, HCD established that parcels intended to support the development of units appropriate for lower-income households should be between 0.5 and 10 acres. Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres, even when zoned for high densities, may not facilitate the scale of development required to access the competitive funding resources that facilitate affordable housing projects. Conversely, affordable housing developers may be unable to finance the scale of project necessitated by parcels greater than 10 acres.

C.3.2 Sites to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) sites must be identified throughout a community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities. For purposes of the Site Inventory, this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower-income need are not concentrated in low-resourced areas (lack of access to high performing schools, proximity to jobs, locations disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty.

When determining sites to include in the Sites Inventory to meet the lower-income housing need, HCD recommends that a jurisdiction identify development potential in high opportunity neighborhoods. This will assist the local government in meeting its requirements to affirmatively further fair housing and ensure developments are more competitive for development financing.

According to the 2023 Opportunity Map published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) and the HCD, all of Canyon Lake is located within either High Resource or Highest Resources areas4 . Generally, the west
and south sides of the Lake are within Highest Resource Areas, including the Towne Center Specific Plan, and the east side of the lake is located within a High Resource area.

C.3.3 No Net Loss Law
Senate Bill (SB) 166, also referred to as “No Net Loss”, encourages cities to identify sites with a total housing unit capacity that exceeds the RHNA allocation for each income group. To comply with the No Net Loss law as jurisdictions make decisions regarding zoning and land use or development occurs, jurisdictions must assess their ability to accommodate new housing in each income category on the remaining inventoried sites. A jurisdiction must add additional sites to its inventory if land use decisions or development results in a shortfall of sufficient sites to accommodate its remaining RHNA.

To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, HCD recommends the jurisdiction include a buffer of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required in its Site Inventory, especially for the lower-income RHNA. Jurisdictions can also create a buffer by projecting site capacity at less than the maximum density to allow for some reductions in density at a project level.5 4 Othering & Belonging Institute. 2023. “California Adopts OBI’s Latest Opportunity Maps.” Othering & Belonging Institute. January 19, 2023. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/california-adopts-obis-latest-opportunity-maps (Accessed November, 2023) 5 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, June 10, 2020, page 22 City Council Agenda,

C-4 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
C.3.4 Sites Used in Previous Planning Periods
In accordance with Government Code Section 65583, vacant parcels from both the 4th and 5th cycles and non-vacant parcels from the 5th cycle may be reused in this Housing Element to accommodate lower-income housing, provided they are rezoned to allow projects that have at least 20 percent of the units set aside to be affordable for lowerincome households to be allowed by right (i.e., can be approved administratively without requiring Planning Commission or City Council approval). No sites on the Sites Inventory are subject to this by-right requirement.

C.4 Regional Development Trends
Establishing development trends provides an understanding of the type of housing development that is feasible during the planning period, by estimating the density (dwelling units per acre) that could be assumed on individual sites. The following analysis identifies regional projects with similar predevelopment characteristics as parcels identified in the Sites Inventory.

Since its incorporation in 1968, Canyon Lake’s housing development has occurred within the gated portion of the community and development trends have consistently resulted in one single-family home per parcel. Due to limited parcels remaining within the gated community that are suitable for single-family homes, the City is now planning for multi-family housing outside of the gated portion of the community, beginning with the development of the Towne Center Specific Plan (TCSP), which was adopted in 2022 and is intended to revitalize the marginally used Towne Center commercial area.

The TCSP is unique for Canyon Lake as it represents the City’s first experience with the development of multi-family housing. Furthermore, the repurposing of retail and commercial areas into mixed-use developments is also unique for the region, as the vast majority of land in Southern California and Western Riverside County is reserved for single uses. Because of this, there are no comparable projects to the TCSP in Canyon Lake, and few comparable projects regionally. Eight recently developed or planned residential developments comparable to the TCSP in the wider region are discussed further in this section to establish that repurposing of commercial and retail centers into mixed-use is emerging as an important development trend for many jurisdictions in California.

Table C-2 provides a breakdown of each project, specifying the type of redevelopment involved. The analysis shows that redevelopment in these types of projects often begins with constructing new residential buildings on available parking lots, followed by phased demolition or repurposing of existing buildings to introduce mixed-use development. These eight projects were selected due to their similarity to the TCSP existing commercial and retail centers approved for the addition of residential uses, either by replacing existing retail buildings with mixed-use buildings or by adding new residential or mixed-use buildings to the existing property.

The framework of the TCSP accommodates flexibility in its redevelopment strategy, allowing for mixed-use or residential buildings to either be constructed on existing parking lots or within the footprints of demolished structures. Examples from Table C-2 demonstrate how similar projects in the region have supported the construction of affordable housing. The history of this type of redevelopment, particularly for affordable housing, shows that it is feasible to incorporate residential uses while maintaining existing business operations, minimizing or fully mitigating impacts to existing leases. Furthermore, the TCSP's flexible approach allows the potential for additional residential units within the existing structures. This approach enables flexibility for future residential development to adapt to changing market demands.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-5
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table C-2 Regional Redevelopment Trends of Residential Uses in Existing Retail Centers Project Name Location Development Type
Size
(Acres) Units
Density
(dwelling
units per
acres)
IncomeRestricted
Units
Included?
Stage of
Development
Estimated
Completion
Mainplace
Mall6
Santa Ana New residential
building on a former
parking lot7
49 1,900 39 Yes, per City
requirements
309 units
completed in
October 20238
In phases from
2023-2040
Moreno
Valley Mall9
Moreno
Valley
New residential
buildings on former
parking lots
87 1,627 19 N/A Approved June
2023
Groundbreaking
in 2024
Panorama
Mall10
Panorama
City
New residential
buildings; early
phases are built on
former parking lots.

Later phases will
demolish and
replace existing
retail buildings.11
20 3,544 177 N/A ~20% of units
completed
N/A
Tyler
Galleria12
Riverside Housing built on site
of former retail
building
60 450 8 N/A Unknown N/A
The Village13 Santa Ana N/A 42 3,750 89 Yes, per City
requirements
Unknown N/A
Village at
Buena Park14
Buena Park Housing built on
surface lots and
partial demolition of
existing mall
23 1,302 58 N/A City Council
approved June
2023,
groundbreaking
Summer, 2024
N/A
Village at
Montclair15
Montclair New residential
building on a former
parking lot

6.3 350 57 In
development
6 City wins Orange County Business Council award for MainPlace Mall plan. (2022, November 18). City of Santa Ana. https://www.santaana.org/city-wins-orange-county-business-council-award-for-mainplace-mall-plan 7 Roughly $8B Invested to Reshape Orange County's Malls. (2023, November 6). Orange County Business Journal. https://www.ocbj.com/retail/roughly-8b-invested-to-reshape-orange-countys-malls 8 Lowe and Centennial open the new Paloma apartments at MainPlace. (2023, October 31). News Santa Ana. https://newsantaana.com/loweand-centennial-open-the-new-paloma-apartments-at-mainplace 9 City Council Unanimously Approves Moreno Valley Mall Revitalization Plan. (2023, June 7). City of Moreno Valley. https://moval.gov/news/news_23/060723-mall-project.html 10 “Notice of Preparation for the Panorama City Center Project.” n.d. Accessed March 12, 2024. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/aa3c6942- a8c3-416f-a58f-93101602476f/PanoramaCityCenter__NOP.pdf. 11 Primestor plans high-rise complex at Panorama Mall. (May 12, 2022). Urbanize Los Angeles. https://la.urbanize.city/post/primestor-plans-highrise-complex-panorama-mall 12 Magnolia Flats near Tyler Galleria to emerge from land bought by Newport Beach-based Realm Group. (2021, August 11). Orange County Register. https://www.ocregister.com/2021/08/11/450-apartments-coming-to-riverside-near-tyler-galleria 13 Review of The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan. n.d. https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2023/08/23.08.07-TheVillage-Santa-Ana-Specific-Plan-City-of-Santa-Ana-Compressed.pdf. 14 City of Buena Park. Village at Buena Park Development Plans (Combined). Accessed March 12, 2024. https://cms7files1.revize.com/buenaparkca/Document_center/City%20Departments/Community%20development/Planning%20Division/Keyn ote%20Projects/Village%20at%20Buena%20Park/Development%20Plans%20_Combined.pdf 15 Village Partners. “Montclair Real Estate.” Village Partners, n.d. https://www.villagepartners.com/montclair/ City Council Agenda,

C-6 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Project Name Location Development Type
Size
(Acres) Units
Density
(dwelling
units per
acres)
IncomeRestricted
Units
Included?
Stage of
Development
Estimated
Completion
Westminster
Mall Specific
Plan16
Westminster Housing replacing
underutilized retail
spaces17
100 3,000 30 Yes, 10% total Approved by City
Council
December, 2022
N/A
TCSP Canyon Lake Housing addition to
retail center,
development type
may vary

19.6 188 9.9 Yes SP approved;
project in
development
N/A
Averages 42 1,639 52
C.4.1 Development Trends in Nonresidential Zones
There are no examples of nonresidential land being converted into residential uses in Canyon Lake due to its unique history and development patterns. However, the neighboring city of Menifee cites two redevelopment projects in its most current Housing Element. Both these nonresidential redevelopment projects converted existing uses to single-family homes. These projects are shown in Table C-3 below.

Table C-3 Development in Nonresidential Zones in City of Menifee Project APNs Units Acres Density Zoning Use prior to development Project Analysis 372050041,
372050042,
37205040,
37205038,
37205037,
37205039
327 29 11 EDD-CC (Economic
Development
CorridorCommunity Core)
Electrical facility on the
northeast corner and a golf
driving range operation
along Antelope Road
Prior to the golf driving range, a
recreational facility available
since 1991, the site had a singlefamily home (built circa 1910).

The site is now being
redeveloped to accommodate
327 condominiums.
364190004,
364190005
305 79.68 4 Rockport Ranch
Specific Plan
Dairy Farm with a singlefamily residence and
accessory structures
The site is under construction to
accommodate 305 single-family
homes.

Averages 316 54 8
The first project transitioned from a former electrical facility and golf driving range into a 327-unit development.

This site previously hosted a recreational facility and a single-family home built around 1910, emphasizing how older nonresidential land can be repurposed for higher-density housing.

The second project converted a dairy farm with an associated single-family residence and accessory structures into 305 single-family homes. This redevelopment, part of the Rockport Ranch Specific Plan, demonstrates how agricultural lands are being transformed to meet residential demands.

The average density across both projects is relatively low, with eight dwelling units per acre. This suggests that while nonresidential redevelopment is happening, it does not always result in high-density housing, which may reflect local zoning constraints, community preferences, or market conditions. To address this, the City has implemented the TCSP which is zoned for high-density mixed uses.
16 City of Westminster, California. “City Council Agenda Item: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 22, 2022.” City of Westminster. Accessed March 12, 2024. https://www.westminster-ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5829/638100904105270000 17 Westminster Mall's redevelopment plans include 1,100 homes, new retail, food hall. (2023, April 24). Spectrum 1 News. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/southern-california/business/2023/04/24/westminster-mall-s-redevelopment-plans-include-1-100-homes-- new-retail--food-hall
City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-7
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
These trends illustrate how nearby cities like Menifee are leveraging underutilized or obsolete nonresidential lands for residential use, which could serve as a model for Canyon Lake if similar opportunities arise in the future. This type of redevelopment aligns with broader state goals of increasing housing supply, particularly in areas where nonresidential uses are no longer viable or in demand.

C.4.2 Summary of Development Trends
Development characteristics in the region indicate that most residential projects developed, or will develop, on land that was designated for commercial uses. Development statistics indicate an estimated density range from a low of eight dwelling units per acre to a high of 177 dwelling units per acre and an average of 52 dwelling units per acre.

Parcel sizes range from a low of 6.5 acres to a high of 100 acres and an average of 42 acres. Housing unit counts range from 279 unitsto 3,750 units with an average of 1,639 units. Additionally, recent State-Level legislation (Senate Bill 6 and Assembly Bill 11) has been passed to facilitate conversion from commercial to mixed-use or residential, further incentivizing repurposing of commercial areas to mixed-use and residential. 18 As a result of high demand for housing compared to demand for retail and commercial spaces, the State’s active encouragement of adaptive reuse, the economic and political incentives to redevelop sites like the TCSP are expected to remain high throughout the 6th cycle. The City is actively seeking one or more developers to build out the TCSP. Programs 1.2a includes measures to ensure that the updated plans for housing fulfill RHNA requirements at each income level. Additionally, the City will evaluate all development in the TCSP to better determine how often development has a residential component and adjust, as necessary, to maintain adequate sites throughout the planning period within one year. Adjustments may include modifying capacity assumptions, identifying additional sites, providing additional incentives, or rezoning.

C.5 Realistic Development Capacity
To demonstrate capacity to accommodate the RHNA, the City has identified sites with zoning suitable for housing development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), the City is required to calculate the realistic number of units (or, realistic development capacity) of the sites identified. The Sites Inventory includes parcels within the R-1 zone district and within the TCSP area. All R-1 parcels are located outside of the TCSP and within the city’s gated community. The realistic capacity of both the gated community and the TCSP is discussed below.

The Canyon Lake Municipal Code (CLMU) classifies each of the sites into one of the following zones:
 Low-Density Residential (R-1) allows one family dwellings at a maximum allowable density of 6.05 dwelling units per acre.
 Specific Plan (S-P) allows for a variety of uses including office, commercial, and residential. The TSCP discussed in this section has a maximum allowable density of 125 dwelling units per acre on individual parcels.

The City assumed that the realistic development capacity of the chosen sites may be significantly less than the full development capacity allowed by the parcel’s zoning or land use designation. This assumption is based on site specific conditions and development standards that may reduce the development potential of a given site. Steep slopes, protected wetlands or watercourses, open space or parking requirements, and irregularly shaped parcels all impact the ability to achieve the maximum density allowed by the CLMU.

C.5.1 Realistic Capacity for R-1 Sites
Based on the city's development patterns since 1968, housing within the gated portion of the community has consistently developed as one single-family home per parcel. Assumptions for the Site Inventory reflect this development pattern, regardless of lot size. All parcels included on the Site Inventory within the gated portion of the 18 Holland and Knight. "California Legislature Creates Pathways for Residential Development on Commercially Zoned Land." September 1, 2022 (accessed September 2023). https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/09/california-legislature-creates-pathways-for-residentialdevelopment City Council Agenda,

C-8 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
community are vacant and with lot sizes of at least 7,200 square feet. All units in these zones are allocated to the above moderate-income category. This estimate is conservative and does not factor in the provisions of SB 9, which allows for the ministerial approval of certain housing development projects containing up to two dwelling units on a single-family zoned parcel, or the potential inclusion of ADUs.

C.5.2 Realistic Development Capacity of the Towne Center Specific Plan (TCSP) The City has analyzed the development potential of the TCSP based on regional trends, site conditions, and land use controls. The TCSP was designed specifically to facilitate development at densities that support both market-rate and affordable housing, in line with the City’s RHNA obligations. To address the concern about the realistic development capacity of the TCSP, the following key points provide the basis for the assumptions made:
 Trends and Factors Supporting Assumptions: The TCSP was created to accommodate a mixed-use, walkable environment, leveraging the area’s high redevelopment potential, including the presence of aging, underutilized buildings, and parking fields. Although the TCSP is smaller in size, unit count, and density compared to other regional redevelopment projects, it follows local and regional trends that favor higher-density housing developments in mixed-use zones, particularly in areas with increased demand for affordable housing.

Moreover, the rezoning to Mixed-Use creates strong financial incentives for redevelopment, even within the constraints of a smaller project area.
 Analysis of Land Use Controls and Their Impact: While the TCSP includes a projected unit count of 188 units and affordability requirements, the actual unit count of proposals may exceed this projection. Additionally, Program 1.2a ensures that full buildout will at minimum meet this projected number as market conditions evolve. Furthermore, the income-restricted requirements are balanced by favorable conditions within the TCSP which increase the TCSP’s feasibility and support the assumption that full buildout will be achievable under current and foreseeable conditions.

The combination of these factors, including increased density, height allowances, and underutilized parcels, supports the City’s assumption that the TCSP will be built out as planned. Any potential adjustments to unit numbers will be made in a manner that continues to fulfill the City's RHNA obligations.

On July 6, 2022, the City adopted Ordinance 222 to rezone the TCSP area from C-1 to Mixed-Use to provide development opportunities for residential and commercial development on the same parcel or a contiguous group of parcels. The ordinance requires an adopted development plan for any project to utilize the utilize the Mixed-Use zoning category. In June 2022, the City passed Resolution 2022-33 to adopt the TCSP to utilize the Mixed-Use zone.

The TCSP was funded through SB 2 grants and was specifically designed to facilitate development at a capacity and affordability that is consistent with the City’s RHNA obligation.

The TCSP covers an area of approximately 19.6 acres near the southern border of Canyon Lake, outside the gated portion of the community. The Plan was created with the purpose of designating a suitable space to develop both affordable and market-rate housing in a walkable, amenity and service-rich mixed-use environment. Of the at least 188 units projected by the TCSP, at least 75 are required to be income-restricted, accommodating and exceeding all of Canyon Lake’s RHNA requirements for affordable housing. Development of the site could occur as either a large redevelopment project of the entire property or incrementally. If developed incrementally, individual buildings could be constructed separately from the balance of the TCSP area.

As discussed in Section C.4.4 above, the TCSP has one-third the acreage of the smallest comparable project, about 42 percent of the number of units of the smallest project and has comparable density to the least-dense comparable project. Additionally, the TCSP has a higher requirement for income-restricted units than the other projects in order to achieve the City’s RHNA obligation. Program 1.2a will ensure the full build-out of the TCSP, including at least 188 units to accommodate RHNA requirements.

Likelihood that TCSP Will Be Built
The adoption of the TCSP significantly increases the density and intensity standards and opens the area up to potentially significant redevelopment. The City of Canyon Lake has been actively pursuing a developer to build out City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-9
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
the TCSP. Recent efforts include developing and approving the TCSP in consultation with WHA Inc. and Albert A.

Webb Associates. The site was selected based on its feasibility for development in consultation with Diversified Pacific, a real estate development firm.

The existing conditions of the TCSP also indicate high redevelopment potential. The following factors contribute to the high likelihood that the existing uses within the TCSP will be redeveloped:
 Structure age. All buildings within the TCSP area were built prior to 1980 and are more than 40 years old, indicating potential underutilization as a result of substandard condition and lower property value.  Increase in Revenue due to added residential uses: Considering the median rents in the region of $2,379 and a vacancy rate of 4.8 percent, the rental revenue from a fully built-out TCSP with 188 housing units would be approximately $4.36 million per year, after accounting for the rent restrictions of the 47 Very-Low Income Units and 28 Low-Income Units. This estimate projects a total income of about $130.83 million over 30 years, which significantly increases the potential revenue of the TCSP area. Notably, this estimate is conservative as it assumes no more than 188 units will be built at full buildout although density at the site permits more units, which could further increase potential revenue at the site. Table C-4 below shows the median rents and vacancy rates for regional cities based on data from Redfin.com and Rate.com.

Table C-4 Median Rents and Vacancy Rates for Regional Cities City Median Rent19 Median Rental Vacancy Rate20
Canyon Lake $3,435 5.3%
Lake Elsinore $1,955 7.8%
Menifee $2,286 2.3%
Murietta $2,339 4.3%
Perris $1,883 4.4%
Temecula $2,378 4.7%
Overall Averages $2,379 4.8%
 Improvement-to-Land Value (ILR) Ratio. The land on which the TSCP is located has much greater development potential than what is currently built on the site. Based on the potential for increased revenue as discussed in the previous bullet, the Improvement to Land Ratio (ILR) of the TCSP can be presumed to be below 1.0, indicating that the currently developed buildings are worth less than the value of the land. Therefore, the TCSP can be presumed to have an Improvement to Land Ratio well below 1.0.  Height increase. The TCSP allows maximum building heights up to 95 feet or 8 stories, significantly higher than the current existing uses. Presently, all but a few of the existing buildings are single-story and single use.  Rezoning to Mixed-Use. The TCSP rezones the area to allow mixed-use developments, which encourages higherdensity residential and commercial uses in the same area, making redevelopment more financially viable.  Greater density. The TCSP permits significantly increased residential and commercial density, providing opportunities to meet housing demand and creating a more vibrant mixed-use environment.  Increased demand for housing. The region’s growing demand for housing, particularly affordable and workforce housing, enhances the market feasibility for redevelopment projects in this area.  High availability of infrastructure and services. The existing shopping center is well-serviced by roadways, pedestrian infrastructure, utilities, and services, including the City’s offices, as well as a range of retail and grocery services. Furthermore, the site of the TCSP is located within a Highest Resource area, according to the 2023 Opportunity Map published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). 19 Data from Redfin.com. Annual revenue from Very Low Income Units are estimated at $41,000*0.3*47. Annual revenue from Low Income Units are estimated at $65,300*0.3*28. Annual revenue from market-rate units is calculated at $2,379*12*121. 20 Rate.com/research. Total annual rental revenue was calculated at $4,580,308*0.952 to adjust for a vacancy rate of 4.8%.

City Council Agenda,

C-10 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). New mixed-use buildings consisting of multiple stories are planned to replace existing commercial buildings. The area of these existing buildings will accommodate the residential intensities necessary to facilitate mixed-income housing. The TCSP allows a maximum FAR of 2.0. All parcels identified for future residential use on the Sites Inventory have an existing FAR of less than 1.0. Additionally, 75 percent of acreage of the identified TCSP sites are currently used for parking and have a FAR of 0. Therefore, all identified sites have the potential to exponentially increase their building footprint.  Underutilized parking lots. A substantial portion of the TCSP area is dominated by large surface parking lots, which are underutilized given the area's redevelopment potential. The TCSP enables the possibility of repurposing these lots or consolidating them into parking structures with more compact footprints to accommodate mixed-use and residential development, greatly increasing the value of the site.  Marginally operating commercial businesses. The existing shopping center is underutilized and experiences low customer traffic, with many residents choosing to shop in nearby cities that offer a wider variety of retail options. This lack of foot traffic has led to marginally operating businesses. The TCSP helps to address this by providing an opportunity for revitalization while also introducing a customer base that will live on-site.  Existing Leases. There are no long-term leases in place that would obstruct redevelopment efforts, allowing for flexibility in implementing the TCSP. Additionally, the shopping center currently lacks a major anchor store which provides a clear path for implementing the mixed-use and residential developments planned under the TCSP. It is anticipated that current commercial tenants would be retained in the shopping center due to the mixed use nature of the TCSP.

A key concern for mixed-use parcels included in a Sites Inventory is whether parcels that permit uses other than residential are likely be developed as residential or as a use other than residential. In the case of sites located on the TCSP, existing City regulations within the text of the TCSP require that these sites are developed with a certain number of residential units, regardless of the zoning of the parcel. To ensure that the mixed-use sites are developed with sufficient residential units to fulfill RHNA requirements, Program 1.2a includes measures to ensure the full development of permitted residential uses.

Additionally, as discussed in Section C.4, market conditions are anticipated to remain elevated in favor of residential development. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Policy Development and Research, demand for commercial and retail spaces are declining, and demand for housing will remain high for the foreseeable future21. Based on this analysis, projects zoned for mixed-use will likely continue to be developed primarily with residential uses while demand for retail, commercial, and office development remains low, further ensuring that any development which takes place on the TCSP will likely favor residential uses over nonresidential uses. These development standards and development trends strongly support the City’s assumption that the TCSP will be built out as intended, fully accommodating the RHNA.

For planning purposes, the TCSP is divided into eight planning areas. Four of these planning areas would accommodate residential uses with densities ranging from 16 to 61 dwelling units per acre. The cumulative density for the TCSP under current conditions is 9.9 dwelling units per acre. Table C-5 shows the planned land use of the TCSP planning areas.
21U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. "The Adaptive Reuse of Commercial Space as Housing in California." March, 2022 (accessed September, 2023). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-030822.html City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-11
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Table C-5 Land Use Summary by Planning Area for the Towne Center Specific Plan Planning
Area SP Land Use Designation Acres
CommercialRetail
Square Feet Office
Dwelling
Units
Target Density
(dwelling units
per acre)
1 Mixed-Use (Residential Site D)1,2,3 0.7 – – 16 16.0
2 Mixed-Use (Residential Site B)1,2,4 2.6 6,000 – 46 47.7 3 Mixed-Use 4.3 – 44,000 – –
4 Mixed-Use (Residential Site A)1,5 2.6 6,500 – 40 51.3 5 Mixed-Use (Residential Site C)1,6 1.9 18,000 – 86 60.6 6 Mixed-Use7 4.1 – 9,000 – –
7 Mixed-Use 0.8 – 22,000 – –
8 Mixed-Use 2.6 – 28,000 – –
Existing – 171,800 – – –
Totals 19.6 202,300 103,000 188 –
1 A total of 202,300 square feet of commercial-retail uses is provided as part of this plan. Square footage identified in PA 2, 4, 5 is additional commercial-retail acreage that may develop within these planning areas, that does not exceed total 202,300 square feet. 2 A total of 43 Very-Low income-qualified housing units and 24 Low income-qualified housing units are required for City of Canyon Lake to meet State Regional Housing Need Allocations (RHNA). Including the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) 10 percent buffer recommendation, this plan has the capacity to provide an additional 7 units to provide a total of at least 75 affordable housing units within Planning Areas 1 and 2 (Residential Sites B and D). Any adjustments to the housing capacity of a Planning Area will be completed in accordance with the No Net Loss Law.
3 Target Density Based on 36,000 SF footprint and is based upon building footprint that includes no external setbacks or additional lot area. 4 Target Density Based on 45,000 SF footprint and is based upon building footprint that includes no external setbacks or additional lot area. 5 Target Density Based on 35,000 SF footprint and is based upon building footprint that includes no external setbacks or additional lot area. 6 Target Density Based on 62,000 SF footprint and is based upon building footprint that includes no external setbacks or additional lot area. 7 Building 17 may be removed allowing for a large open space public gathering area.

The distribution of these units between planning areas may vary based on phasing and market conditions. To eliminate the risk of the project developing with insufficient residential and income-restricted units, Program 1.2a includes measures to ensure the TCSP is built out at the income categories detailed in the TCSP.

Table C-6 outlines the general development standards for the TCSP. The allowed density, maximum height, minimum setbacks, and other requirements all accommodate high densities required to accommodate affordable housing, and do not present a constraint.

Table C-6 General Development Standards for the Towne Center Specific Plan Development Standards
Maximum Non-Residential FAR1 2.0
Maximum Density1 125 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Building Height2 95 feet/ 8 stories (measured per CBC) Minimum Building Setbacks3, 4
Front 10 feet from curb face
Side 10 feet from curb face
Rear 10 feet from curb face
Between Buildings 10 feet from face of building
Minimum Residential Open Space Refer to Section 3.11: open space City Council Agenda,

C-12 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Development Standards
Minimum Floor Area for Residential Units (excluding garages) SRO/efficiency Unit 150 S.F. - 400 S.F.

Studio Unit 500 S.F.

One Bedroom Unit 650 S.F.

Two Bedroom Unit 800 S.F.

Three Bedroom Unit 1,000 S.F.

Four Bedroom Unit 1,200 S.F.
1 Individual parcels or structures may exceed this requirement provided that the entire Specific Plan area does not exceed 103,000 SF of Office, 202,300 SF of Commercial-Retail, and 188 Residential Units. 2 Architectural features such as towers, cupolas, and similar elements may exceed the maximum building height by up to 10 feet. 3 Awnings, entrance porticoes, porches, patio walls, stoops, unenclosed stairs, balconies, eaves, entrance overhangs, trellises, signs, and other architectural design elements are permitted in setbacks as long as they don’t hinder vehicular line of sight for pedestrian safety. 4 Intent for setback is to ensure pedestrian pathway and encourage a safe and prominent pedestrian experience.

C.5.3 Opportunity Lots Within the Towne Center Specific Plan Within the TCSP, four opportunity lots have been identified as prime locations for residential developments based on the following criteria:
 Each one takes advantage of golf course and mountain views;  The locations are at higher elevations on the site;
 A, B, C are setback from Railroad Canyon Road minimizing road noise, while D is closest to the street but can be strategically designed to also minimize noise.

Figure C-1 shows the approximate location of the opportunity lots within the TCSP.

City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-13
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure C-1 Opportunity Lots
C.6 Adequacy of Nonvacant Sites
According to HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook,22 if the Sites Inventory identifies nonvacant sites to address a portion of the RHNA, the housing element must describe the realistic development potential of each site within the planning period. Specifically, the analysis must consider the extent that the nonvacant site’s existing use impedes additional residential development, the jurisdiction's past experience converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards that encourage additional housing development on the non-vacant sites.

The Site Inventory assumes all lower-income units on nonvacant sites. As a result, the existing uses of the nonvacant sites are presumed to impede additional residential development, unless the housing element describes findings based on substantial evidence that the use will likely be discontinued during the planning period. As part of the resolution adopting the housing element, findings stating the uses on non- vacant sites identified in the inventory to accommodate the RHNA for lower income are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and the factors 22 HCD. Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook. June 2020. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf City Council Agenda,

C-14 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
used to make that determination. In general, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Examples of substantial evidence that an existing use will likely be discontinued in the current planning period include, but are not limited to:
 The lease for the existing use expires early in the planning period.  The building is dilapidated, and the structure is likely to be removed, or a demolition permit has been issued for the existing uses.
 There is a development agreement that exists to develop the site within the planning period.  The entity operating the existing use has agreed to move to another location early enough within the planning period to allow residential development within the planning period.  The property owner provides a letter stating their intention to develop the property with residences during the planning period.

C.6.1 Adequacy of Development in the TCSP
The City has identified the TCSP as an area that could facilitate the development of a variety of housing types due to its location, existing condition, and underutilization of the area as a commercial space. The TCSP is divided into eight planning areas. Of these planning areas, at least four are projected to have residential uses providing at least 188 mixed-income dwelling units. Table C-5 on page C-7 shows the land use, area, and target density of each planning area.

The TCSP emphasizes the development of residential and nonresidential uses by encouraging mixed-use and higher density residential projects. Current uses of identified sites consist of office buildings, parking lots, restaurants, and retail centers. The sites are expected to be developed within the 8-year planning period based on the following factors:
 The Specific Plan was approved in June 2022.
 The owners of the sites that make up the TCSP are motivated to redevelop due to falling retail sales and a general stagnancy on the sites. Adding residential uses will increase revenue and foot traffic on the site, increasing its vibrancy and making it more attractive to retailers and other businesses.  The City is supportive of developing the TCSP due to the need for mixed-income housing in the area and the need to stabilize the retail center which is the city's main resource for groceries and other commercial services.  Market factors have contributed to a growing trend of repurposing retail, office, and commercial spaces into residential or mixed-uses due to elevated demand for housing and declining demand for commercial and retail spaces in California.
23 The TCSP is an outgrowth of this economic trend, which is expected to continue through the current housing cycle.
 The Specific Plan allows height increases up to eight stories and 95 feet, which compares to the single-story limit of existing structures, posing a potential for much higher land value and revenue for developers.

There are 18 parcels within the TCSP that have been identified as sites with high residential development potential.

These sites are zoned as mixed-use to support both residential and non-residential development. The proposed housing units would be located within an existing old and marginally used commercial shopping center. Many existing commercial uses in the TCSP are on their own parcel, configured to match the existing building size and, as such, do not include setback areas for landscaping or parking. A number of these parcels with individual uses and individual parcel numbers would be consolidated under the proposed specific plan into four different sites.

Figure C-2 on page C-13 shows the Conceptual Site Plan for the Towne Center, depicting how existing buildings at the Towne Center will be utilized for redevelopment proposed under the TCSP to accommodate mixed-use residential. Not all of the buildings in the Towne Center are proposed to be affected by the Specific Plan at this time and it is expected that the current tenants and uses of these buildings will remain. Residential development will be 23 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. "The Adaptive Reuse of Commercial Space as Housing in California." March 2022 (accessed September, 2023). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article030822.html City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-15
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
focused on four Opportunity Lots (see Figure C-1) and areas outside these Opportunity Lots are expected to remain.

To mitigate potential impacts on existing commercial tenants, Program 1.2c includes measures that provide displacement prevention measures as part of proposal and buildout.

The intended attraction of the TCSP is to enhance the viability of the site for existing and future commercial uses by incorporating additional housing units that would provide potential users with greater access to services including transportation, thereby promoting greater opportunity for new residences. The proximity of commercial businesses and services in the TCSP and the surrounding area would improve the attractiveness of the site to future occupants and stimulate developer interest.

As discussed in Section C.4, the TCSP permits flexible phasing strategies, allowing new residential or mixed-use buildings to be constructed either on the footprints of demolished buildings or adjacent to existing structures. This phased approach ensures that redevelopment can proceed without displacing existing businesses or impacting existing leases.

Considering all factors, the TCSP sites are considered highly suitable for development of housing, and therefore do not pose a constraint.

C.6.2 Constraints Posed by the Small Sites and Future Project Design Parameters
Small sites can pose a constraint to affordable housing development. The Sites Inventory includes eight parcels smaller than half an acre that are projected to accommodate a combined total of 13 lower income units and eight moderate income units. Under Program 1.2b, the City will work with developers to consolidate these small parcels consistent with project applications as part of the entitlement process. Additionally, these sites will have no setback, parking, or open space requirements because these services will be provided by adjacent parcels within the TCSP, which maximizes their ability to accommodate affordable housing. Therefore, small sites do not pose a constraint on housing. Figure C-1 provides a conceptual layout of the TCSP.

City Council Agenda,

C-16 Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
Figure C-2 Towne Center Specific Plan Conceptual Site Plan City Council Agenda,

Appendix C – Sites Inventory and Analysis C-17
Canyon Lake Housing Element (2021-2029)
C.7 Existing Conditions in the TCSP
The Towne Center is a fully developed shopping center. Existing land uses include offices, retail, civic offices, a post office, and a hotel. The general layout of the Towne Center includes 17 separate stand-alone buildings with over 40 separate property ownerships. As of summer 2021, there were a total of 127 tenants consisting of office, retail, restaurants, and lodging. The TCSP is divided into eight conceptual planning areas, which may be developed concurrently or separately in any order depending on market conditions. These pre-development conditions are consistent with the example projects discussed in Section C.4. The following planning areas would support residential uses as part of the TCSP.

C.7.1 Planning Area 1 – Housing
Planning Area 1 (PA1) is the smallest planning area at 0.7 acres. The TCSP conceptualizes at least 16 dwelling units in this planning area with a density of at least 23 dwellings per acre. The site is currently developed with a hotel (Building B). PA1 is identified within the TCSP as a preferred location to accommodate affordable housing units as it is adjacent to existing multi-family residential to the west and includes both pedestrian and enhanced pedestrian pathways allowing pedestrian access to Railroad Canyon Road.

C.7.2 Planning Area 2 – Commercial Retail and Housing
Planning Area (PA2) 2 is 2.6 acres. The TCSP conceptualizes at least 46 dwelling units in this planning area with a density of 18 dwellings per acre. Approximately 71 percent of PA2 is occupied by surface parking and includes one of the two vehicular access points into the Towne Center. The remaining area is occupied by two buildings which house restaurants and commercial businesses.

C.7.3 Planning Area 3 – Commercial Retail and Housing
Planning Area 3 (PA3) is the largest of the planning areas at 4.3 acres. Although housing could be built in this area, the TCSP does not currently conceptualize housing in this planning area. Approximately 70 percent of PA3 is occupied by surface parking. The remaining area is occupied by five buildings which house restaurants and commercial businesses.

C.7.4 Planning Area 4 – Commercial Retail and Housing
Planning Area 4 (PA4) is 2.6 acres. The TCSP conceptualizes at least 40 dwelling units in this planning area with a density of at least 15 dwellings per acre. Approximately 77 percent of PA4 is occupied by surface parking. The remaining area is occupied by the city’s current civic center and office uses. Referred to as Residential Site A, this planning area provides one of the two vehicular access points into the Towne Center and affords high visibility to the community from Railroad Canyon Road. PA4 has the potential to redevelop as a four-level mixed-use structure with at least one level of commercial retail and at least three levels of residential.

C.7.5 Planning Area 5 – Commercial Retail and Housing
Planning Area 5 (PA5) is 1.9 acres. The TCSP conceptualizes at least 86 dwelling units in this planning area with a density of at least 45 dwellings per acre. Approximately 68 percent of the site is occupied by surface parking. The remaining area is occupied by civic uses and offices.

C.7.6 Planning Area 6 – Mixed-Use
Planning Area 6 (PA6) is 4.1 acres. Although housing could be built in this area, the TCSP does not currently conceptualize housing on this planning area. Approximately 75 percent of PA6 is occupied by surface parking. The rest of the PA6 houses commercial uses and open space.

City Council Agenda,