The parking space may be provided
as tandem parking on the driveway
Senior Citizens Housing Complex/Congregate '/2 covered space/unit, plus 1 Care uncovered guest space per 5 units
Congregate Care Housing
'/2 covered space/unit, plus 1
uncovered guest space per 5 units
SOURCE: City of Temecula Development Code, 2021.
Additional flexibility in development standards is also provided in the Development Code through the use of variable setbacks. This flexibility allows for creative site planning, especially for irregular sites.
For example, the City adopted a Planned Development Overlay district for the Temecula Creek Village project to provide for mixed -use commercial/residential development. Residential uses for the Planned Development Overlay district include medium- and high -density multi- family uses.
The Citv has not received anv meaningful feedback to suggest that the Citesparking standards are a constraint on residential development.
Single -Family units are often developed with three covered parking spaces based on the developer's/market demands. Additionally, the feedback received from residents of multi -family units is that there is
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-87
not enough parking. The City continues to monitor parking requirements and provide flexibility, such as parking reductions for affordable housing projectsaffe fdab ttvit , as needed. The City also has a process to accommodate reductions in parking through a Minor Exception process up to 15% of the Code requirement.
Affordable Housing Opportunities
To provide additional opportunities for affordable housing, the Development Code and General Plan also allow senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing in some nonresidential zoning districts. Senior housing is also permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), and Professional Office (PO) zoning districts. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Residential, multiple -family housing shall be allowed in the PO zone only if the affordable housing overlay (AHO) applies to the property and the proposed development complies with all requirements of Chapter 17.21.
Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives, provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code.
Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive qualifying density incentives through Section 17.10.020(M)(3)(a) of the Temecula Municipal Code and may also receive qualifying concessions through Section 17.10.020(M)(3)(b) of the Temecula Municipal Code. The types of concessions that may be offered for specific housing projects are discussed in detail in the Density Bonus and Incentive Law section of this Housing Element.
Specific Plans
A specific plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides the development of a defined geographic area in a mix of uses including residential, commercial, industrial, schools, and parks and open space.
Specific plans typically include more detailed information than the General Plan about land use, traffic circulation, affordable housing programs, resource management strategies, development standards, and a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Specific plans are also used as a means of achieving superior design by providing flexibility in development standards beyond those contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Council has adopted more than a dozen specific plans. Each one contains detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and design criteria unique to a defined geographic area within Temecula and is
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-88 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
intended to implement the General Plan. The adopted specific plans are consistent with the General Plan. Future specific plans, specific plan amendments, and development projects must be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use and Community Design Elements. The following discussion summarizes three specific plans that will accommodate a significant portion of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) through the planning period.
Old Town Specific Plan
The Old Town Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1994 and subsequently comprehensively amended in 2010 to plan
comprehensively for the revitalization of Old Town Temecula. The intent of the Old Town Specific Plan is to create a dynamic, walkable and pedestrian friendly mixed -use core in Old Town that consistent of attractive, high quality development, respectful of its existing historic buildings, while maintaining a unified design theme and unique architectural character. The Old Town Specific Plan is a form -based code and does not include minimum or maximum development standards. Although the Old Town Specific Plan allows for mixed -use development in horizontal and vertical formats, projects are allowed to be 100% residential. As included in the Regulating Plan for the Specific Plan, the Downtown Core area is expected to see development at densities between 40-70 du/ac, the Residential/Limited Mixed Use area is expected to see densities of 20-70 du/ac, and the Neighborhood Residential area is expected to see densities between 20-35 du/ac.
Residential development in the Old Town Specific Plan area can occur at densities of at least 30 du/ac.
During the past planning period, the City has seen significant development interest in the Old Town area. In particular, the Old Town area has been particularly attractive for affordable housing development, and the City recently approved two affordable housing projects in Old Town under the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, which applies to several properties within the Old Town Specific Plan.
Harveston Specific Plan
The Harveston Specific Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned community that was initially approved by the City of Temecula City Council in 2001. The Specific Plan was divided into 12 planning areas in an effort to create a distinct cluster of future uses/activities and to identify potential time frames for individual project development to occur in a timely manner within the overall Specific Plan concept. The Specific Plan proposed a maximum 1,921 dwelling units (1,621 single- family residences and 300 multi -family residences); a 110.4-acre service commercial area; a 17.3-acre lake/lake park facility; a 19.5-acre community park; a 13.9-acre arroyo park; a 2-acre paseo park; three mini parks totaling 1.5 acres; a 1.8-acre village green, trails, paseos, and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-89
bike lanes; a 12-acre elementary school on a 550-acre site; and 63.9 acres of major streets. The Specific Plan also allowed for an approximately 13-acre mixed -use district overlay intended to function as the Village Center. This area allowed up to 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office uses; a daycare facility; a congregate care facility; a worship site; an approximately 15,000 square -foot private club house with fitness center; and residential, educational, recreation, and park uses.
The Harveston Specific Plan area has been mostly developed.
However, in 2020, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from Service Commercial to Specific Plan Implementation and add a residential overlay to approximately 87.54- acres of Planning Area 12, allowing for the future development of up to 1,000 additional residential units. At this time, the unit mix of single- family residences and multi -family residences is unknown as there are no specific detailed project plans or proposed project designs.
For the purposes of this analysis, the residential overlay assumes 1,000 small lot detached single family homes that would be developed, the majority of which would be market -rate. However, the 1,000 units allowed for under the Residential Overlay may be distributed over any of the Residential Overlay parcels so that the net density of one parcel could be significantly greater than another parcel. The expected density range for parcels in the Residential Overlay varies from 7-20 du/ac, but the Specific Plan expressly states that densities may exceed this range, with no maximum density identified, so long as the total number of units allowed under the Residential Overlay does not exceed 1,000 units.
This area, which has been identified as a key location to accommodate a portion of the City's RHNA, includes the lot south of the Audi Temecula car dealership, and the lot east of the Mercedes Benz of Temecula, which are currently vacant. The remaining planning areas of the Harveston Specific Plan are developed with single family and multi- family residences; the Ysabel Barnett Elementary School; the ABC Child Care Village; the Harveston Lake and Harveston Lake Park; the Harveston Community Park; and open space areas.
Implementation of the additional residential development would require the construction of public facilities and services to serve the future development of up to 1,000 residential units. Services include:
water, wastewater, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and solid waste disposal. The adequacy of these services were evaluated in the environmental document prepared to support the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and specific
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-90 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
programs and improvements have been identified in order to support development of these new housing units.
Altair Specific Plan
The Altair Specific Plan applies to development of a 270-acre land parcel west of the Old Town planning area. Previously, the General Plan and Zoning Map had designated the majority of the project area as Specific Plan-8, Westside Specific Plan. However, this was a previously adopted document that never developed as a built project.
In 2017, the City Council approved Specific Plan-15, Altair, to reimagine the site and plan for a new vibrant development area just outside of Old Town Temecula.
Altair is envisioned as the complementary residential component to the Old Town Specific Plan area of the City of Temecula. The two plan areas are integral to a successful urban mixed -use environment. Altair is located directly adjacent to Old Town Temecula and its added residential population base will support the commercial uses of Old Town. There are few housing opportunities in Old Town currently, limiting the elientelleclientele of Old Town's shops and restaurants to visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore very dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The downtown area must also satisfy the intense parking demand of all of those visitors. Altair will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of household sizes, income and demographics. The homes of Altair will be a pedestrian -oriented community within walking or cycling distance of Old Town. The dense design will attract residents looking for an urban lifestyle, a demographic that tends to patronize the type of restaurants and shops already in Old Town. These residents will broaden and stabilize the consumer base for Old Town businesses.
Altair also provides public amenities close to Old Town. A central park, plazas, play field and an elementary school are proposed. A new Western Bypass links Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road, an important public benefit to alleviate traffic congestion in Old Town.
Altair's attractive trails, vistas and parks will add to and diversify the tourism market of the vicinity.
The Altair project area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215 acres (which will be developed) and a non-contiguous 55-acre site to the south that is designated for a use benefitting the public, predominantly through conservation. The site slopes dramatically, offering striking views from vantage points on the site as well as providing a visual backdrop to Old Town. A substantial portion of the site will be added to the wildlife corridor established under the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and will, therefore, be maintained in a natural state.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-91
The Altair Specific Plan lays out a vision to provide a range of housing types at different densities and intensities. In particular, the Specific Plan identifies the following allowable building types, at densities and intensities allowing for at least 30 du/ac:
• Detached housing
• Multiplex
• Rowhouses
• Live/Work
• Micro Units
• Multifamily Walk-up
• Multifamily Podium
The Altair Specific Plan does not set minimum or maximum density requirements. The Specific Plan identifies a range of appropriate densities for residential development by sub -planning area, which anticipates development to occur at densities ranging from 4 du/ac (in very limited areas adjacent to natural open space) to 33 du/ac (closer to Old Town). The density ranges identified for each sub -planning area may be increased by the transfer of unused development intensity from one village to another administratively, so long as the total number of dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan is not exceeded. This approach allows for significant flexibility to respond to market trends and demands, accommodate affordable housing, provide a variety of housing types, and create connections to Old Town Temecula.
Additionally, the City has seen significant development interest in building affordable housing in the Old Town area, and anticipating development of additional affordable housing in the Altair community reflects the City's vision to accommodate more affordable development near Old Town and adjacent to goods and services in a walkable, mixed -use environment.
Uptown Specific Plan
The Uptown Specific Plan, adopted in 2014, is intended to bring new life to the Jefferson Avenue corridor by encouraging residential, commercial and retail uses, and reducing development obstacles, such as environmental review, parking, and permit processing. The Uptown Specific Plan is a form based code, expecting residential densities of at least 30 du/ac. The recommended minimum density for all zoning districts within the Uptown Specific Plan area is 25 du/ac, and building heights range from 4- to 8-stories, for areas designated for residential development (as included in Appendix A). The Uptown Specific Plan does not include a maximum density or intensity for new development.
The City has seen significant development interest in the Uptown Specific Plan area, with a special focus on affordable housing. These projects are attracted to the form based environment in Uptown and find that the proximity to goods and services coupled with the flexible
CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN
HBK-92 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
development plan allow for more affordable housing options to be developed in Temecula. As the City continues to promote Uptown as a desirable location for new affordable residential development, the City expects to continue to see development at densities of at least 30 du/ac (or higher), and finds that Uptown is a logical location to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA.
3. Provisions for a Variety of Housing
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multi -family rental housing, agricultural employee housing, manufactured homes, senior and affordable housing, congregate care facilities, emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, efficiency unit housing, second dwelling units, and housing for persons with disabilities. Table H-50 summarizes Temecula's permitted residential housing by zoning district and the following paragraphs describe the City's provision for these types of housing.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-93
LLI
z
0 N
a
i I 1
a
1 a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
I
x
x
1 a a a
s
U
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
O Co U
O m U
O
O U
a
U C
w>
a V C
w>
w>
U C
fn
a) m
d� o a
a) m
a)a CL
a)�
m m
Qa
c m
c N
c N
m
m
m
0 a
U)
U)
U)
a
IL
a
U
a
a
cn
U
a
a
U
Z
U
,
a
a
x
U
a
a
U
U
U
U
a
a
a
s a a
a
U
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
U
a
J
a
a. I
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
N
J
a
"I I I
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
J
I
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
I
J
a
I I I
a
a
U
a
a
U
I
a
I I I
a
I
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
I
2 a
I I I
a
I
a
U
a
U
a
U
a
U
I
C
a)
C
a)w
X
a)
a)
°
C
N
ca
0 o
x
>
m
c
a U
m e
m e
�^
V O
•�
ip
Lu
m
o
Ea a)
EQ rn,
mE
mE
m 3
E
coo
m
f1
a)
-°
E
my
L
m
°
co CO a)
m m c>
° m
a)
°°
m�
m o
m
m
°
a)
a)
wy
a^
w�
o o
ow
��
0- 0
m
U o
me
U a)U
m
m
U
Z
m
ma F
0 CDE
w��o
°
°E
m.v
m�
m
�o
M
x
U
w�aci�
C
O a) O
oIn
O a) C
a) >
a) >
a)
a)
a)
a)
C
a) a) d
:-
j C
j
a C
- m`o
N N
O C
_ ma)
N y
L>3
U '�
L>a)
U
a
'O
v
'O
v
3 -°o
E
rn
0 2
fn
m 7
a In Z
m
O
a) .X
a '5 'O —
a)
LL '° ° �N.
_U
Q 2 O
_U a)
Q 2
N
a' a)
a)
a' a)
a)
a' w
a)
a' O
O U
U w
z
Q
L
Q
Q1
CC _
L1j
z
W
V
Q
U
LLJ
Lu
F--
LL
F-
0- 1u
W
Z
N
to
a d a
d
U
U U U
U
x
x
U
d d d
d
U
U a s
IL
d
O co U
O M U
ME
IL
2 U C
U C
N
O a Q-0
Ov CLo
Q c V)
C N
m
0 M�I
� �I
a
R
a
NI
I
I
I I I
I
I
I I
I
ZI
I
I I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I I i
I
I
i I i
I
I
VI
i I i
i
I
i I i
i
I
J
I
o d a
d
U
U U U
U
N
J
I
d d d
d
U
U U U
U
I
{
J
I
d d d
d
U
U U U
U
1 a a a
d
U
U U U
U
x
d a a
d
U
U U U
U
=_
21 rnE
m
a
O
C
E a)
7 N
(0
C
L
.N
V1
IL
IL
L
-
L
2 i
2 U)
M.
Y °o
0 HZ
-0 a7)
NN
�
_
LO
C
T
>
E
m N
o t -o
-o
o N O
c— ''
r
U
c
U
N rn q)
a) C
O
Q
N
co
U N E
E
T
6 m N
x
co
Q (9 LL
LL
o
m a) w t=
In
w
a
0 a �—
C_
� 7
O
d T
a)
@ 0 L
Y cm
N c �
a) N a)
co
E > N
�O N U
N
>a
w
oluc
+Lc
t N N N
- T
° °
N -
U d 'V E
a
N N
N
N E
Q w o O
�UU
N
m
U (L :te m
cU c
m r
L.
c
m E as
U o
o c
76 5 N N
E
a)
c � > y
O O y T
O a)
y a)
O a
° U
N
° 3
C y O1 "p0
Nc
w e
a)
.. C N
O
U V.E C C
f0 0
C p
N `p a) a3 p
ur c L
-° dam
-2mo
C
o O yt=
`
'00 L?
L N c"y
U
J
N a)
c
L O O
Soy>
C
°�°'_)
mu 'oc o
E >
0 LL
m 0 a j
.0 U p
p c
O -0
o-
N
C O) N to
a) ,
> E N -
"C a 'c ?�
O c V)
o m L o
oCL
°>: w
a p
a) N y y
2 0 0
C N
d' E O C
M a) U p N
amp
O D �p
'=darn
o •- .
�O cd
o d
V
'D
o Q
°
I_w�Ec
clw
L L
q aa)U
To
_
� s
3 c
>. N a)
7 O Q co
a) O O.
U)c
NE > 01
0 @ s
O
C
C Q .- N
N C) >` C°J
U c (0 i? N
L c C M
` (6 ` d N
a
N O;'O
N N
C
O N L) O
N a) to 'O
'� 2 c
0 U- c 1) 0)
o co O cc
Z5 CL `o_
0 E o S
U U)�
1)
In
O
� w
a ° z
U co
co
() E c
22 L °- o 7
0 .-_ p y 6
O N '- O
N E w 75
E C
O
d 0) a) !� m
O)
U) C -O a
E (n
u E- o-0
cr a) _�
CO o
N
- `0,0 --Q
N a E N
o) o
N
m
co O' O C
p U 3 p'
y T a) E
N
C E
C O
u/ -Ol
']
L)
c w
:p U w N
O_
L w C
ca
L O�
0 E
O w
3°
CD
H
Urn d c�
Na r
Q
c t
�, �.
>. r
�:E
O N
E
E X. O, p 0
C
75 O O y U
U
Z N co ° 75 75
O L ° a) H 0)2°
OQH(A�QfA
m >a0 O
p L O Q
O O
wz
(� �LO)Z cu
-�
NMv6 (OP
Table 51: Permitted Housing By Zoning District
ZONE
PDO-1 PDO-2
PDO-7 Area PDO-7 Area
PDO-7
HOUSING TYPE
1A, 1B 2
Area 3
Single-family detached
P'
P P
P
Duplex (two-family dwellings)
P'
P
Single-family attached (greater than two units)
P
P
Multiple -family
P
P
Manufactured homes
P
Mobile home park
Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or
P
dependent or neglected children (six or fewer)
Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or
P
dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve)
Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility P
(six or fewer)
Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility P
(seven or more)
Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P
C
C
Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or
p
C
C
more)
Residential care facilities (six or fewer)
P
Residential care facilities (seven or more)
P
-
-
Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly
P
-
-
Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities
C
-
-
Accessory dwelling unit
-
-
-
Guest house
P2
-
-
Family day care homes —small
P
-
-
Family day care homes —large'
P
-
-
Day care centers
C
-
-
Bed and breakfast establishments
-
-
-
Emergency shelters
P
-
-
Transitional housing
P
-
-
Supportive Housing
-
-
-
Efficiency Unit Housing
-
SOURCE: City of Temecula 2021.
Notes:
1. Detached residential or zero lot -line units, duplexes and two-family dwellings are permitted only with the approval of the Planning Commission.
2. Allowed onlv with a sinale-familv residence.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-96 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Permanent and Seasonal Housing for Agricultural Employees:
Agriculture is a predominant industry in Riverside County, but there is very little farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of local importance within the City limits (General Plan, Figure OS-3). While there are no agricultural operations in the City of Temecula, nearby wineries represent an employee base for agricultural workers.
Agricultural workers face various housing issues due to their typically lower incomes and the seasonal nature of their work. However, since there is an insignificant amount of existing agricultural land, the City does not provide agricultural employee housing and does not anticipate a need for permanent and seasonal agricultural employee housing.
Other opportunities for agricultural worker housing are discussed earlier in this Housing Element. Additionally, Program 4-6-17 is proposed to address compliance with the Employee Housing Act which includes employee housing requirements for agricultural employees.
Factory -Built Housing/Modular and Mobile Homes: Temecula allows for the provision of manufactured housing in all of its residential zoning districts, but requires a permanent foundation. Mobile home parks are allowed with a conditional use permit in all of the residential zoning districts, except Hillside Residential (HR) and Rural Residential (RR), where they are not permitted. Manufactured housing must be certified according to the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and must conform to all other development and use requirements applicable to the primary units in the zoning district. The units must stand on a permanent foundation, and the materials used for the siding must be approved by the Planning Director. The City complies with State law, which requires that manufactured housing, when constructed as a single-family dwelling on a permanent foundation, be treated as a conventional single-family home subject to the same development standards that a single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would require, except for architectural requirements limited to its roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. Additionally, the City recognizes the potential for additional affordable factory -built housing as second dwelling units.
Senior Housing/Affordable Housing: There are a total of 17 affordable housing developments throughout the City of Temecula.
Affordable housing is permitted in High, Medium, and Low Density Residential zoning districts and in the City's Affordable Housing Overlay areas. In addition to development on vacant land within the permitted zones and overlay areas, the City recognizes the potential for additional affordable housing in future mixed -use areas and Specific Plan areas, including Old Town, Harveston and Altair. Affordable housing can also be achieved in the form of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The Municipal Code allows for ADUs in all residential and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-97
mixed -use zoning districts where single-family residences are permitted, in accordance with State law. For additional information on affordable housing within the City, please reference the Housing Element sections on housing stock and housing resources.
Senior and affordable housing are permitted by -right in the High, Medium, and Low Medium Density Residential zoning districts, with approval of a development plan.
Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Senior housing constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed to be consistent with the development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density Residential zoning district. For the Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts, senior housing will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district.
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing is permitted by -right where the parcel is identified with the Affordable Housing Overlay. There are various types of income levels when defining affordable housing:
Moderate -Income Household.- Persons or families whose income does not exceed 120% of area median income (AMI), adjusted annually for family size.
Low -Income Household. Persons or families whose income does not exceed 80% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size.
Very Low -Income Household. Persons or families whose income does not exceed 50% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size.
Extremely Low -Income Household.- Persons or families whose income does not exceed 30% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size.
Affordable Housing Project Incentives
Currently, there are two basic sources of law governing affordable housing project incentives within the City: (1) density bonus law; and (2) Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.21, which defines the City's Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning District.
► Density Bonus and Incentive Law
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-98 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
The state density bonus statutes require the City to grant a density bonus and incentives or concessions to a developer who agrees to construct or donate land for affordable housing. Density bonuses are allowed as per regulations in Temecula Municipal Code Section
17.06.050. Table 52 below lists the thresholds in which the State decides if a project can be deemed all or partly affordable housing.
The City is committed to implementing its density bonus ordinance consistent with State law. As part of updating its Housing Element, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the City's existing density bonus ordinance and finds it in compliance with State law. However, should updates be necessary now or in the future to maintain compliance; the City has included Program 7 to review updates to Density Bonus Law and amend the City's ordinance as needed. Monitoring will be conducted on an annual basis.
Table 52: Housing Qualifying for Density Bonus
Type of Qualifying Housing Required Percentage of Unit
Lower Income 10% of proposed units
Very Low Income 5% of proposed units
Senior Citizen Housing Development Any senior housing development Moderate -Income Condominium or Planned 10% of proposed units Development
Once the Project has been deemed a partly or fully affordable housing project, the applicant may be allowed to develop additional density. The City must calculate the extra density to which an applicant is entitled.
The density bonus law not only uses a base percentage of the project (listed below), but a sliding scale allows for greater density bonuses when an applicant includes more than the minimum qualifying percentage of affordable units. To qualify for a density bonus through donation of land, the applicant must propose a tentative tract map, parcel map, or other residential development project. The donor of land meeting the specified criteria is entitled to a base 15% density bonus, with a sliding scale increase of 1% and an additional increase of 1% for each unit in the total number of affordable units entitled on the donated land in excess of the 10% qualifying percentage. Listed below are the base and sliding scale bonuses (see Table 53).]
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-99
Table 53: Density Bonuses Allowed
Type of Qualifying
Housing
Base Density Bonus
Sliding Scale Density Bonus
Lower Income
20% increase in the
1.5% increase in density bonus for each 1%
number of units,
increase in lower -income affordable units to a
unless a lesser
maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed units
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
Very Low Income
20% increase in the
2.5% increase in density bonus for each 1%
number of units,
increase in very low-income affordable units up to
unless a lesser
a maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed
percentage is
units
requested by the
applicant
Senior Citizen
20% increase in the
No sliding scale increase
Housing
number of units,
Development
unless a lesser
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
Moderate -Income
5% increase in the
1% increase in density bonus for each 1% increase
Condominium or
number of units,
in moderate income affordable units up to a
Planned
unless a lesser
maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed units.
Development
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
Percentage Number of
of
Incentives or
Affordable Concessions
Units
10% Lower Income or 5% Very Low Income 1
or 10% Moderate Income (condo/planned
development)
20% Lower Income or 10% Very Low Income 2
or 20% Moderate Income (condo/planned
development)
30% Lower Income or 15% Very Low Income 3
or 30% Moderate Income (condo/planned
development)
In addition to the density bonuses described above, the applicant may request specific incentives or concessions. Provided that the City cannot make findings sufficient to deny requested incentives or concessions, as provided by Government Code Section 65915(d), incentives or concessions must be granted if requested by the applicant.
The potential concessions include:
• An increase in the amount of required lot coverage;
• A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; • An increase in the maximum allowable building height; • A reduction in the amount of required on -site parking;
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-100 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
• A reduction in the amount of on -site landscaping, except that no reduction in on -site recreational amenities may be approved unless the affordable housing is in close proximity with easy access to a public park with recreational amenities; or • A reduction in the minimum lot area.
An applicant who receives a density bonus and/or other concessions or incentives must agree to ensure the continued affordability of all low- and very low-income density bonus units for at least 55 years, unless a longer period of time is required. The minimum length of the affordability covenant will depend upon whether the City grants any additional concessions or incentives on top of the density bonus as well as whether any City Housing Fund moneys were also used for the project.
Efficiency Unit Housing: Efficiency unit housing offers one opportunity for low-cost housing that is specifically designed to meet some of the varying needs of several special needs groups.
Efficiency unit housing provides viable housing alternatives for individuals in these special needs groups. The Temecula Municipal Code allows efficiency unit housing in the Medium (M) and High (H) density residential zoning districts and conditionally permits them in the Community Commercial and Professional Office zones.
Congregate Care: Congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements as long as all of the development standards for the zoning district are met. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Low -Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/ Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts.
In Temecula, congregate care facilities include facilities for seniors and the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5, which requires facilities that are "planned, designed, and managed to include facilities and common space that allow for direct services and support services that maximize the residents' potential for independent living and which is occupied by elderly or handicapped persons or households, as defined in Sections 50067 and 50072. Direct services and support services which are provided or made available shall relate to the nutritional, social, recreational, housekeeping, and personal needs of the residents and shall be provided or made available at a level necessary to assist the residents to function independently." Accessory Dwelling Units: Construction of an ADU or TADU (Junior accessory dwelling unit, is permitted on a lot in any zone that allows residential uses and includes a proposed or existing single-family
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-101
or multiple -family residence
dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential and mixed use districts whefe a In 2020, the City updated its
Zoning Code to implement the requirements of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to allow accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in a manner that encourages their development but simultaneously minimizes impacts on traffic, parking, density, and other areas where the city is still permitted to exercise local control. ADUs cannot be sold but may be rented for a period of at least 31 days. See the Housing Element section on housing resources for additional information on second dwelling units.
As specified in Program 4-617, the City will amend its Zoning Code as it relates to Planned Development Overlays 2 and 7 to allow for accessory dwelling units in accordance with State law.
Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional and supportive housing is provided to socially support individuals and provide basic life skills and is coupled with social services such as job training, alcohol and drug abuse programs, and case management.
The Temecula Municipal Code allows transitional and supportive housing in all residential areas within the City. Transitional and supportive housing are permitted by right in Medium and High Density Residential and require a conditional use permit in all other residential zones. Transitional and supportive housing are also allowed in the Community Commercial and Professional Office zoning districts with a conditional use permit. The City does not have any special development standards or requirements unique to transitional and supportive housing, typical development standards apply (see Table 4k� The Development Code will be updated to address permanent supportive housing pursuant to AB 2162.
Emergency Shelters/Homeless Housing: The City facilitates the development of emergency shelters by permitting the development of such facilities in the Medium and High Density Residential districts by right without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action.
These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a conditional use permit. Emergency shelters are also permitted with a conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, Professional office, Business Park, and Light Industrial zoning districts.
In 2021, the City conducted a detailed vacant land survey and identified vacant parcels suitable for development of emergency
shelters/homeless housing in the Medium and High Density Residential districts where this use is permitted by -right. There are four vacant parcels designated for Medium Density Residential uses totaling
92.93 acre and there are 3 parcels designated for High Density
CITY OF TLMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-102 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Residential uses totaling 3.64 acres. Given that the parcel size of available High Density Residential sites are smaller and more appropriately sized, without subdivision of a larger site, the continues to find that these zones are appropriate to accommodate the identified housing need. Moreover, these residential districts are located in areas near goods and services, and access to these opportunities would be available at locations where emergency shelters are permitted by -right. There are no special development standards or requirements for emergency shelters in Medium or High Density Residential zones typical development standards apply (see Table 46).
Program 17 has been included in the Housing Plan which directs the Citypdate the Development Code to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in an emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with AB 139.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The City provides housing opportunities for disabled persons through the provision of affordable, barrier -free housing. The requirements for accessibility in the California Building Code and the Temecula Municipal Code ensure reasonable accommodation and compliance with accessibility requirements and are provided in all projects within Temecula.
Residential care facilities (group homes) for six or fewer residents are permitted in all residential zoning districts. The development of residential care facilities for seven or more residents is permitted in the High Density Residential zoning district by right, without a conditional permit, or other discretionary action. Facilities for seven or more residents are also permitted in all other residential zoning districts with a conditional use permit. The City will amend its Zoning Code to allow group homes for six or fewer residents by -right in all residential zones consistent with State law. The Findings for approval of a conditional use permit for facilities for seven or more residents are below:
In considering applications for conditional use permits, the hearing body, with such conditions as are deemed reasonable in approving or conditionally approving the use, shall find the use will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safe , or general welfare.
1. To approve or conditionally approve a conditional use permit, the planning commission or planning director (or planning commission and city council on appeal) must make the following findings.
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the
general plan and the development code.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-103
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the
nature, condition and development of adjacent uses,
buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required b�planning commission or council
in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not
detrimental to the health, safe , and general welfare of the community.
e. That the decision to approve, conditionallapprove,
or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the planning director, planning commission, or city council on appeal.
2. Conditions of approval imposed by the planning director, planning commission or city council on appeal for a conditional use may involve any pertinent factors affecting the establishment, ooVeration or maintenance of the requested use.
3. Any conditional use permit granted or approved hereunder shall be approved or conditionally approved with the city, and its planning commission and city council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify such conditional use permit —including the conditions of approval —based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the business, a change in scope; emphasis, size, or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration or change of use.
The City has included Program 17 to review its existing Findings and amend them as necessary to ensure zoning permits group homes in accordance with State law.
The maximum densities for residential care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as the project complies with all development standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. The City does not restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in group homes, and Section
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-104 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
17.34.010 of the Zoning Code defines "family" as one or more persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit.
Family also means the persons living together in a licensed residential facility, as that term is defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 1502(a)(1) serving six or fewer persons, excluding the licensee, the members of the licensee's family, and persons employed as facility staff who reside at the facility.
The City permits housing for special needs groups, including for individuals with disabilities, without regard to distances between such uses or the number of uses in any part of the City. The City allows some variation from the application of its parking standards. Section
17.24.040 of the Zoning Ordinance would allow, for example, the reduction of parking spaces for a unique use such as a senior housing project or other special needs.
Currently, Temecula has two group homes for teenagers with a total capacity of 18 persons. In addition, two residential facilities in the City offer housing for up to approximately 14 developmentally disabled persons. Although, cities retain land use jurisdiction regarding these homes, the State Fire Marshal ensures the safety of group homes with seven or more residents. The City of Temecula contracts with the State Fire Marshal through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) in conjunction with the Riverside County Fire Department. The Building and Safety Division has developed a positive working relationship with the County Fire Department that ensures that any improvements and/or maintenance for group homes are handled through the City's normal concurrent review process. The Fire Marshal has not denied approval of any group home that meets building and safety requirements. There have been no complaints that coordination with the State Fire Marshal, Cal Fire, or Riverside County Fire Department has constrained housing for persons with disabilities.
As part of Program 10, the City will continue to work closely with the State Fire Marshal through Cal Fire and Riverside County Fire to ensure that this coordination does not become a constraint to development in the future.
It has been a departmental philosophy to provide complete direction for applicants, as well as looking for solutions when problems or barriers present themselves on a project. Because of this, in the past the City has had success finding reasonable solutions to noncompliant code issues with successful end results.
The City's site planning requirements and assistance programs reduce housing constraints for persons with disabilities by providing necessary regulations for a variety of disabilities and housing conditions. The City does not impose special permit procedures or requirements that could impede the retrofitting of homes for accessibility.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-105
Compliance with these development standards ensures reasonable accommodation is provided for all new projects. The City will continue to implement the existing requirements as well as continue to implement its formalized reasonable accommodation processes for individual homeowners requesting exceptions to development standards to accommodate a specific disability. In addition, retrofit assistance for persons with disabilities may be available through a future Residential Rehabilitation Program for lower income families as listed in the City's Five -Year Consolidated Plan.
4. Development and Planning Fees
The cost of development is a constraint to the implementation of affordable housing projects. Typically, the cost of developing raw land is significantly increased by the various regulations and fees local governments impose on developers.
The City of Temecula charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and utilities. Table 54 summarizes that City's planning fee requirements for residential development, while Table 55 depicts the City's development impact fees for residential development. In compliance with State transparency laws, Tthe City's development and planning fees are also available on the City's website in a one -stop location, TemeculaCA.gov/fees. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) mitigation fee was established in order to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP and to mitigate the impacts caused by new developments in western Riverside County. The fee is part of the mitigation fees for species protection required under the MSHCP. The collection of the fees supplements the financing for the acquisition of lands supporting species covered by the MSHCP and to cover new development's share of this cost. Developments where the MSHCP fee applies have the same fee structure throughout the MSHCP plan area.
Nearly all of the vacant developable parcels located west of I-15 in western Temecula are within the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas, as are all parcels located in the southwestern corner of the City.
Additional vacant developable parcels in the northeast corner of the City are also located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas.
Few underutilized residential properties are located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. If a site is located in a criteria cell, a HANS application must be completed and submitted to the City along with a $1,500 check made payable to Western Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA). The check and one copy of the application are mailed to the County for review and determination of any site inclusion for the MSHCP conservation area.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-106 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
It is estimated that the total development fees are $13,375 for a single- family unit and $10,920 for a multi -family unit. These fees are similar to other fees in the region. Comparing the cost of one jurisdiction's development and planning fees to another is difficult since each jurisdiction calculates and applies its fee schedule in its own unique way.
While no recent studies available to the general public have been completed in Riverside County to compare the fees charged by various jurisdictions, a recent trend used by other jurisdictions is to assess a deposit that varies per application type, and then charge an hourly "fully burdened" rate to recover costs. The City of Temecula assesses a fixed rate for each application type, based on the average hours of staff time required to process each application. This fee schedule is adjusted annually based on the consumer price index for the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area. Table H 31-54 reflects the fee schedule for the 2012-201320210-202247fiscal year.
Table 54: Planning Fee Schedule*
Project Type
City of
Temecula Fee
Department of
Environmental Health Fee
Planning and Zoning
Conditional Use Permit — No Site Changes'•2,3,4
$4-,089
$234
Conditional Use Permit — with a Development Plan',2,3,4 $1,303
N/A
Development Agreement
$65,820
N/A
Development Agreement— Major Modification' 23,4
$15,078
N/A
Development Agreement — Minor Modification' 2 3,4
$4,309
N/A
DIF Credit or Reduction
$1,100
N/A
Development Plan — Less than 10,000 sf',2,3,4
$9,839
$136
Development Plan — 10,000 sf to 100,000 sf',2,3,4
$13,366
$136
Development Plan — Over 100,000 sf' 2.3.4
$16,078
$136
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment — Text or Exhibit 1,234 $9,287
$59
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment — Official Zoning Map $7,278
$59
and Land Map'•2,3,4
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment— Official Zoning Map $5,009
$59
or Land Map'.2,3,4
Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit
$934
N/A
Variance' .2,3,4
$4, 721
$120
Minor Exception'•2.3.4
$634
N/A
Minor Exception (individual homeowner)
$158
N/A
Municipal Code Amendment'
$7,279
Specific Plan — New'.2,3,4
$104,279
$197
Specific Plan Amendment— Major
$41,388
$61
Specific Plan Amendment — Minor
$147,441
$61
Planned Development Overlay'•2,3.4
$38,367
N/A
Subdivisions
Certificate of Land Division Compliance (fee per parcel)',2.3.4 $1,594
$138
Common Interest Development Conversion'.2,3.4
$5,524
N/A
Lot Line Adjustment
$1,612
N/A
Merger of Contiguous Parcels
$2,419
N/A
CITY OF TLMLCULA GLNLRAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
HBK-107
Project Type
City of
Temecula Fee
Department of
Environmental Health Fee
Minor Change (to approved Tentative Map)
$2,442
N/A
Parcel Map — Tentative (Residential) w/Waiver of Final Map' 2.3 $3,927
$389
Parcel Map — Tentative (Residential) Standard ' 2.3
$4,904
$675
Parcel Map —Tentative (Vesting)' 2.3
$4,298
$424
Parcel Map — Tentative (Revised)' 23
$4,273
$203
Condominium Map1,2,3
$14,326
$538
Tract Map — Standard 5-34 lots/units' 2,1
$12,874
$203
Tract Map — Standard 35-75 lots/units' 2 3
$14,563
$203
Tract Map — Standard 76-165 lots/units' 23
$16,688
$203
Tract Map — Standard 166+ lots/units' 2,3
$18,661
$203
Tract Map — Standard - Revised Map' 2,3
$7,292
$203
Tract Map — Vesting 5-34 lots/units''23
$16,520
$424
Tract Map — Vesting 35-75 lots/units' 23
$18,347
$424
Tract Map — Vesting 76-165 lots/units' 2,1
$20,570
$424
Tract Map — Vesting 166 lots/units''2 3
$22,319
$424
Tract Map — Vesting — Revised Map' 2.3
$10,262
$424
Phasing Plan for Tentative Map — Sewered
$4,366
$57
Phasing Plan for Tentative Map — Subsurface Disposal
$4,366
$138
Residential Tract Product Review' 4
$12,631
N/A
Reversion to Acreage
$930
$72
Miscellaneous Charges
Certificate of Historic Appropriateness'•2,3,4
$562
N/A
Substantial Conformance
$7,706
$61
Extension of Time with Public Hearing'•2,3,4
$3,429
$63
Extension of Time without Public Hearing'•2,3,4
$1,739
$63
Extension of Time — Subdivision Ordinance'•2,1,4
$4,301
$63
-SOURCE: Temecula User Fee Schedule (2021-2022); updated annually each July 1.
1. Add CEQA Fee of $325 for environmental determination. If environmental determination is not exempt
from CEQA, add $5,552
for Negative Declaration without Mitigation, or $7,590 for Negative Declaration with Mitigation. If EIR is required, add $59,811 for City -managed EIR or $88,192 for applicant -managed EIR. Environmental Impact Reports and some other Environmental fluctuates based on market conditions, potential challenges, and the complexity of the proposed project.
2. Add UC Regents Fee of $60 (if required) — not applicable to duplicate applications
3. Add Traffic Study Fee (if required) of $3,008 (major) or $752 (minor)
4. Add DRC Landscape Fee of $250 (if new/modified landscaping is proposed) and DRC Architectural Review Fee of $.05 per building square foot (if new/modified architecture is proposed)
5. $528 to Environmental Health if Sewered; $424 to Environmental Health if Subsurface Disposal 5 6. The above fees apply to single-family units and multi -family units as appropriate
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-108 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 55: Development Impact Fees For The City of Temecula Development Fee
Street System Improvements
Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems
Corporate Facilities
Police Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Parks and Recreational Improvements
Open Space & Trails Development
Libraries
Total
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Single Family
Multi -Family
Stephen' Kangaroo Rat Plan Fee (K-RAT)
Lot greater than '% gross acre — per dwelling unit
All other Residential — per gross acre
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan Fee (MSHCP)
Residential Less than 8.0 DU
Residential Between 8.1 and 14.0 DU
Residential Greater than 14.1 DU
Art in Public Places
Residential — Single/Multi — Family
Quimby — In -Lieu Fee $310,000 per acre
Single Family residential (Detached Garage)
Single family Attached (Attached Garage)
Multi -Family Attached (2-4 Units)
Multi -Family Attached (5 or More Units)
Mobile Homes
School Developer Fees
Single Family and Multifamily Residential
Restricted Senior Communities
SOURCE: City of Temecula 2021.
Land Use (Fee/Unit)
Residential Attached Residential Detached
$1,717.58
$243.11
$356.92
$627.33
$390.77
$2,901.20
$845.65
$772.74
$7,866.30
$9,810
$6,389
$250-$500
$2,935
$1,473
$670
1/10 of 1 % of project cost in
excess of $100,000
3.12 Avg. Density/DU
2.85 Avg. Density/DU
2.48 Avg. Density/DU
2.43 Avg. Density/DU
2.00 Avg. Density/DU
$3.20/Sq. Ft
$0.66/Sq. Ft.
$2,453.64
$347.33
$665.69
$354.58
$842.15
$4,049.59
$1,180.35
$1, 078.60
$10,971.93
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-109
Table 56 provides the ratio of typical development cost to fees per unit for single and multi -family developments in Temecula that do not require preparation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. The exact fees associated with an individual project will vary greatly based on the exact project parameters. However, the City reviews its fees annually to confirm that its fees are in line with those charged by other agencies in the region and that they do not present a constraint to development.
As part of this Housing Element Update, the City has considered all fees incurred by the development community and considered these fees as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. As demonstrated throughout this Background Report, the City of Temecula has a strong history of housing production at all income levels and proactively coordinates with the development communi , on a regular (at least annual) basis. The City continues to see applications for housing development and provides incentives for the production of affordable housing, including fee deferral and/or reimbursement (see Housing Program 13). The City has reviewed its fees and considered the fees of neighboring Jurisdictions and, in concert with ongoing development and input from development community, has determined that the City's fees do not constrain housing supply or affordability.
Table 56: Total Processing and Fees for Typical Single- and Multi -Family Units Housing Type Total Fees Estimated Development Estimated Proportion of Fees to Cost per Unit Development Costs per Unit
Single Family Unit $13,375 $350,000 3.8 %
Multi -Family Unit $10,920 $200,000 5.5 %
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2021.
Procedures for Typical Developments
The City of Temecula uses the same process for approving single- family tract developments and multi -family developments. The City's process can be broken down into three major steps:
1. Pre -application optional and free
2. Entitlements (which includes maps. conditional use permits development plans/home product reviews (which incorporate design review and site plan review). Environmental reviews, if required, would be included in thine phase. Most development in the city with existing_ zoning and general plan land use designations does not require additional environmental review.
3. Post entitlements (grading plans, building permits)
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-110 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Any items within the entitlement Phase, or Post entitlement Phase may be Processed concurrently, and in the Ci , 's experience, almost all development elects to process concurrently at each phase. For the entitlement process, projects with existing Zoning and General Plan designations see one hearing, unless appealed. As far at the City is aware, no existing Zoning/General Plan designation residential project has been appealed in the last decade and it is -a rare occurrence.
There is no unreasonable amount of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that could potentially hinder the construction of the City's share of regional housing nee
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-111
Approval findings for Development Plans include:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
3. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Approval findings for Conditional Use Permits include:
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general Plan and the development code.
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community_ e. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or denim application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record before the planning director, planning commission, or city council on appeal.
The City has considered the approval findings above for impacts on approval certainty and has determined that they do not represent a constraint to development. The only residential projects subject to a conditional use permit process are those located in the Community Commercial zone. The Ci , is permitted, under State law, to make projects subject to a discretionary review process, but understands that it is limited by and complies with the Housing Accountability Act and other provisions of State law, which ensures that its discretionary process does not act as a constraint on development. A residential project seeking a conditional use permit has never been denied. The City expects to continue working proactively with applicants to address potential concerns so that t1tehousing�aeleprojects can be found consistent with applicable requirements, including approval requirements for a conditional use permit.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-112 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Em
in
Al2proval Body/Authority: Table 57 identifies the
approval authority involved in the various planning, zoning and land use permits issued in the city.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR B
Table 57: Planning and Zoning
Approval Authority
Administrative
Application
Planning Director Planning Commission City Council
Approval
General plan amendment
Recommendation' X'
Zoning amendment: text
Recommendation' X'
changes
—
Zoning amendment: map
Recommendation' X'
changes
—
Zoning amendment: specific
plan, includes specific plan
Recommendation' X'
amendments
Conditional use permit—
X1,2
existing building
Conditional use permit with
X1,2,3
X1,3
a development plan
Development plan
X'
(10,000 sg. ft. or greater)
Development plan
X'
(less than 10,000 sq. ft.)
Major modifications
X2,4
X1A
Minor modifications
X2
Administrative development
X2
>I Ian
—
Home occupation plan
X2
Large family day care home
facility
X
—
Minor exceptions
X2
Sign permits
X2
Sign programs, including
X2
sign program modifications
—
TemporanL use permits
X2
Variance
X'
Secondary dwellinq unit
X5
Hillside development permit
X'
SOURCE: City of Temecula. 2021.
Notes:
1. Requires consideration at a noticed public hearing.
2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the director of planning may refer such items to the planning commission for consideration.
3. Conditional use permits without development plans are approvable by the director of planning. Conditional use permits with development
plans are approvable by hearing
body required for the development plan.
4. Major modifications of projects which were approved by the planning commission or city council shall be considered by the original
approval body. Increases in building square footage that results in a building larger than 10,000 square feet shall be considered by the planning commission.
5. State law requires the administrative consideration of secondary dwelling units. These applications cannot be promoted to the planning commission.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-114
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Other Hearing Bodies:
Besides the above hearing bodies/authorities, projects within Old Town Temecula Specific Plan are required to go through the Old Town Local Review Board for the City's historic district. This generally includes one meeting that is then followed -up by the approval body meetingfin almost all instances, the Planning Commission).
Certain :
Many of the City's development includes previously approved Specific Plans that have very pecific and certain standards for development (including some with form -based codes). When a project is not located within a re�Specific Plan does fiat r-esidearea, projects previously used the City s Design Guidelines. These guidelines have provided certainty to developers for many years but will be replaced with Objective Design Standards in 2022, as required by State Law. The Cityhas an excellent track record of projects receiving approval by a single hearing body for projects with existing land use/general plan designations. Projects with land use/general plan designation changes generally have only had two hearings (PC and CCU
Single -Family Custom Homes:
Single family custom homes generally only go through the post entitlement phase due to no architectural requirements for custom homes.
Other Considerations:
The City has considered the variety of factors reflected in the prior discussion regarding its processing and permit procedures. The City has found that in general, the City's existing12rocesses and procedures do not constrain development. Projects are reviewed and considered b the appropriate parties in a timely manner. Any difference in processing times (for example, between a single-family unit and a multifamily project) are due to a project's inherent complexity. Multifam4l2rojects, as opposed to single-family projects, may require a higher level of environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) coordination with staff and outside agencies, and refinements of a project's design to meet financial metrics prior to project approval. This length of time is largely outside of the City's control; Staff will continue to work proactively with applicants to address all potential issue areas in a timely fashion and work to bring a project forward for consideration in a reasonable and appropriate timeframe.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR 15
Although they are typically larger than 10,000 square feet, multifamily projects do not require a discretionary hearing by the City Council specifically due to their size.
In the City's affordable housing overlay, projects can be 100% affordable (there is not a mixed -income requirement.
Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the City has considered how its processing and permit procedures impact housing costs, supply, timing and certainty. The City has consulted with the development community and has received no feedback that its processing and permit procedures make housing costs more expensive, reduce or limit supply, extend the timeframe beyond a reasonable expectation (in line with neighboring Jurisdictions) or do no support approval certainty_
The Housing Plan includes several programs designed specifically to reduce government constraints to the extent feasible. Examples of how the City is working to improve processing and permit procedures include:
• Program 3: Preapproved plans for accessory dwelling units • Program 6: Priority processing for large sites
• Program 7: Proactive outreach to advertise density bonus provisions
• Program 8: Deferral/reimbursement of development fees • Program 9: Expedited processing of affordable housing projects
5. Building Codes and Enforcement
Staffing and Process
As Building and Safety and Code Enforcement are under the same department supervision, the exchange of information between Building and Code Enforcement staff members is excellent. Enforcement items are a regularly occurring weekly meeting topic during Building and Safety weekly staff meetings.
The Code Enforcement Division consists of three permanent officers.
Each officer has an assigned geographic area of the City and is very familiar with problematic properties. Each officer regularly patrols their
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-116 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
area to ensure that any prior complaints have been resolved and that they have responded to any new complaints.
The department is complaint -driven, which means that officers respond to complaints as they come in to the City. In addition, the officers make every effort to be proactive in their assigned geographic areas. Several of the code enforcement officers have received training in dealing with housing issues and are able to respond with building inspectors to calls on substandard housing.
Building Codes
The City of Temecula has adopted the California Building Code, 2019 Edition, Volumes 1 and 2 (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), including Appendix C-Agricultural Buildings, and Appendix F—Rodent Proofing. This includes the Historical Building Code, Existing Building code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Administrative Code, Energy Code, Green Building Standards Code, Reference Standards Code, and Residential Code.
Amendments have been made to the California Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, and Mechanical Code, as detailed in Chapter 15.04 of the City's Municipal Code. These amendments have been assessed for their impact on the production of market rate and affordable housing and there are no constraints as a result. A copy of each code is maintained in the office of the City Clerk and is made available for public inspection.
This collection of codes is considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City is responsible for enforcement of all the model codes. Further, the requirements for accessibility in the California Building Code will ensure that reasonable accommodation and compliance with accessibility requirements are provided in all projects within Temecula.
Overall, the housing stock is in excellent condition. The City's Code Enforcement program is complaint -based and will not constrain the development or preservation of housing. When housing code violations are cited for units occupied by low- and moderate -income households, the Code Enforcement staff may offer information regarding rehabilitation programs.
Reasonable Accommodations
The City's process for providing reasonable accommodations allows individuals, or their representatives, to make requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities as part of the permit process. No additional permits are required or additional fees charged by the City. Requests for reasonable accommodations to meet the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-117
needs of persons with disabilities are generally approved administratively, and a use permit is not required. An exception would be a use (in contrast to an accessory structure or appurtenance) that requires a discretionary (use) permit, such as a residential care facility of seven or more persons. City staff is available to provide assistance regarding the processing of requests for the construction of accessory structures. Information regarding the approval of these structures is included within all public notices and agendas, as applicable.
The procedure for annlication review is as follows:
1. Applicant. A request for a reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, his or her representative, or a developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability.
2. Application. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall be made on a form provided by the planning department. No fee shall be required for a request for reasonable accommodation, but if the project requires another discretionary_ permit, then the prescribed fee shall be paid for all other discretionaryermits. If an individual needs assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the city will provide assistance to ensure that the process is accessible.
3. Other Discretionary Permits. If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary permit or approval, the applicant may file the request for reasonable accommodation together with the application for the other discretionary permit or approval. The processing procedures of the discretionary permit shall govern the joint processing of both the reasonable accommodation and the discretionary permit.
4. Required Submittals. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall include the following:
a. Documentation that the applicant is: W a person with a disability, (iil applying on behalf of one or more persons with a disability, or UW a developer or provider of housing for one or more persons with a disability-,
b. The name and address of the individual(s) requesting the reasonable accommodation,
C. The name and address of the property owner(s);
d. The address of the property for which accommodation is requested;
e. A description of the reasonable accommodation requested by the applicant;
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-118 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
f. An explanation of how the specific reasonable accommodation requested b, t�l2plicant is necessary one or more persons with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence, g. Where applicable, documentation that the requested
accommodation is designed and constructed pursuant to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations to allow access, circulation and full use of the building and facilities by persons with disabilities.
5. The planning director may request additional information from the applicant if the application does not provide sufficient information for the city to make the findings required below.
Basis for Approval or Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation.
1. Findings. The written decision shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval:
a. The requested accommodation is requested by or on behalf of one or more persons with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws;
b. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling;
C. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city;
d. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoningj2ro rg am; e. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others.
2. In determining whether the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to provide one or more disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling pursuant to subsection the city may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:
a. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a disabili
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR 19
b. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their choice absent the accommodation:
C. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants:
d. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.
3. In determining whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoning program, Pursuant to subsection (E)(1)(d), the city may consider, but is not limited to; the following factors:
a. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood:
b. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking,
C. Whether granting the requested accommodation would
substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city's P-eneral plan or an applicable specific elan:
d. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.
4. Rules While Decision is Pending. While a request for reasonable accommodation is pending, all laws and regulations otherwise applicable to the property that is the subject of the request shall remain in full force and effect.
6. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The time and cost of permit processing and review can be a constraint to housing development if significant development review is required.
Project review and permit processing are necessary steps to ensure that residential construction proceeds in an orderly manner. The time required for project approval is often not so much a factor of the approval body (Director versus Planning Commission), but the complexity of the project and associated environmental issues.
However, small infill projects that can be approved administratively are
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-120 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
generally less complex and take a shorter time to obtain appropriate approvals. Large, residential subdivision maps, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA compliance) require a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
The evaluation and review process required by City procedures contributes to the cost of housing in that the holding costs incurred by developers during the review period are ultimately manifested in the unit's selling price. All discretionary development projects that involve new construction but are less than 10,000 square feet are subject to a Planning Director's hearing. The hearing is a publicly noticed hearing that permits the Planning Director to be the decision -maker on relatively minor applications. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required findings, the project cannot be denied by the Planning Director.
Development applications for projects greater than 10,000 square feet are subject to a Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission hearing is a publicly noticed hearing and the Commission may be the decision -maker for such applications provided there is no legislative action associated with the development application, such as a zone change or a General Plan amendment. The Planning Commission may also serve as an appeal board for the Director's hearing decisions. Multifamily projects over 10,000 square feet are not required to bybe considered at a discretionary hearing by the City Council due to their size. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required findings, the project cannot be denied by the Planning Commission.
Required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are as follows:
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-121
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal.
Required findings for approval of a development plan are as follows:
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The City Council hearing is a noticed public hearing for development applications that require a legislative action. The City Council may also serve as an appeal board for decisions made by the Planning Commission. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required findings, the project cannot be denied. The City Council is the final decision -maker on all appeal actions. City Council reviews of residential development projects requiring a development plan or conditional use permit that are consistent with the existing Zoning and General Plan designations are an anomaly and very rare. There have been no appeals of projects approved by the Planning Commission to the City Council during the prior planning_ period and the City does not find that this is a constraint to development.
Mixed -use projects may be subject to any of the above types of public hearings, but are unlikely to be heard at the Planning Director's hearing because of the size of the project. The processing and permit procedures for mixed -use projects are no different than the processing of any other development application. The General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element discuss concessions that can be made to accommodate the scale, density, or intensity of such projects. As a result, findings can be made to support consistency with the General Plan.
Some minor development applications, such as a Minor Modification of an approved Development Plan, may be approved at the staff level.
The average time for such administrative approvals is two to three weeks (see Table 5 7). The average time for projects to get to a Planning Director's hearing is eight to 14 weeks. Once approval is given, the property owner must submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department and a building plan to the Building and Safety
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-122 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Department. Once approval is given, the property owner must submit the approved plans to the Community Development and Public Works departments to obtain the required permits.
The average period for a project to get to the Planning Commission is four to six months. If the project needs to be heard by the City Council, the average time to get to this hearing is 12 to 18 months, projects that go to City Council are almost always those involving General Plan and/or Zoning changes. In the last housing cam, no
qje housing development that received approval by the Planning Commission with existine zonitig an&o-vr' -Q-' Plaft de we •was appealed to the City Council.
13 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-123
Table 58: Typical Processinq Times for Single Family Units (Tract), Multi -Family Units, and Single -Family (Custom Homes)
Process/Step
Single Family Units (Tract
Multi -Family Units
Homes
Tract/Parcel Map*
Three week initial review
Three week initial review
(with a meeting scheduled
(with a meeting scheduled
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
weeks (with comments or
weeks (with comments or
approval on the third week).
approval on the third week).
Average processing time: 5-
Average processing time: 5-
7 months
7 months
Conditional Use Permits*
Required to run concurrent
Required to run with
Development Plan/Home
with Development
Plan/Home Product
Review/Design Review. No
Product Review/Design
Review. No additional time
additional time is required
is required for Conditional
for Conditional Use Permits.
Use Permits.
Development Plan/Home
Three week initial review
Three week initial review
Product Review/Design
Review/Site Plan Review*
(with a meeting scheduled
(with a meeting scheduled
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
weeks (with comments or
weeks (with comments or
approval on the third week).
approval on the third week).
Average processing time: 5-
Average processing time: 5-
7 months
7 months
Grading Plans**
Four weeks on first
submittal. Two weeks on
Four weeks on first
submittal. Two weeks on
subse gent submittals.
subse uent submittals.
Building Plan
Review/Building Permit
Ready to Issue**
10-12 business days for first
10-12 business days for first
reviews. 7-10 business days
reviews. 7-10 business days
for subsequent reviews.
Average processing time: 2-
for subsequent reviews.
Average processing time: 2-
3 months.
3 months.
Estimated Total Processing
8-11 months
8-11 months
Time:
SOURCE: City of Temecula. 2021
*Maps and Development Plan/Home Product Review/Design Reviews/Conditional Use Permits are encouraged to run concurrently.
**Grading Plans & Building Plans are encouraged to run concurrently.
NOTE: At risk concurrent submittals of Development Plans/Home Product Reviews/Design Reviews are permitted once the project is scheduled for public hearing.
Table 59: Proiects with Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments & EIRs * Zone Change/General Plan
Amendment
Highly dependent on the scope of the
Highly dependent on the scope of the
project and level of environmental
project and level of environmental
review. 12-18 months.
review. 12-18 months.
EIR
Highly dependent on the scope of the
Highly dependent on the scope of the
protect and level of environmental
project and level of environmental
review. 12-18 months.
review. 12-18 months.
Estimated Total Processing Time:
12-18 months.
12-18 months.
*Note: Whenever possible. the City utilizes existing Environmental Documents or CEQA exemptions as legally permissible. -T-able57. T piGal Processing Ties f r Lingle_ and Multi Family Un:ftc
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-124 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
There are no special process requirements to develop or subdivide lots into developable parcels in specific plan areas. Additionally, Tthe City has not adopted any special design or environmental review processes that would add additional time to the processing period. However, the City must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Riverside County regulations. In 2009, the City produced an environmental review procedures handbook for private development projects. The goal of this handbook is to help guide developers, City staff, and consultants through the environmental and City review process. This handbook is publicly available on the City's website.
CEQA applies to all projects that require discretionary approval unless the project is determined to be exempt. A discretionary project is one that requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public agency in determining whether the project will be approved or if a permit will be issued. For example, if a property owner wants to construct a new building or subdivide a property, it would be considered a discretionary project because the City must review the proposal before issuing an approval or permit. CEQA also applies to decisions that could lead to indirect impacts, such as making changes to local codes, policies, and general and specific plans.
Usually CEQA does not apply to projects that are only subject to ministerial approval. A ministerial project is one that requires a public official to determine only that the project conforms to applicable zoning and building code requirements and that applicable fees have been paid. Some examples of projects that are generally ministerial include sign permits, roof replacements, interior alterations to residences, and landscaping changes.
In addition to the CEQA process, Riverside County has completed a comprehensive planning effort called the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). RCIP integrates three regional planning efforts: the County General Plan, a Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process to determine present and future roadway infrastructure, and the MSHCP to conserve listed and sensitive species and their habitats. The final MSHCP was approved by
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-125
the County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, and went into effect in March 2004.
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional effort that includes the County and 16 cities. Rather than deal with endangered species on a one -by -one basis, this plan focuses on the conservation of 146 species. The MSHCP supports a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres, of which approximately 347,000 acres are currently in public ownership and 153,000 acres are currently in private ownership.
The approved MSHCP contributes to the economic viability of the region by providing landowners, developers, and those who build public infrastructure with more certainty, a streamlined regulatory process, and identified project mitigation. The MSHCP is administered by the Regional Conservation Authority which represents the County and 16 cities which are participants in the plan.
7. Streamlining Approvals
Lower Income Sites Included in Previous Elements
While the site plan review process is not considered a constraint to housing, Program 4,617 has been provided to comply with Government Code 65583.2. This program will provide for ministerial approval (e.g., Planning Division Director's approval of site plan review and entitlements other than a subdivision map) of housing projects with a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower income households and will increase certainty for affordable and multifamily developers related to residential sites throughout the community, as identified in Appendix A.
SB 35
SB 35 provides provisions for streamlining projects based on a jurisdiction's progress towards its RHNA and timely submittal of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report. When jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their above moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report, these jurisdictions are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.
HCD reviews the annual progress report deadlines and RHNA progress on an annual basis. Temecula is currently subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions when proposed developments include 50% affordability. Program 46r17 has been provided to incorporate the mandatory streamlining provisions into the City's Zoning Code. These streamlining provisions will reduce approval requirements for projects
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-126 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
that include a minimum of 50 percent of units affordable to lower income households and that meet the criteria specified by State law.
8. On- and Off -Site Improvements
The Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan identifies eight different roadway classifications (Table C-2) and cross -sections (Figure C-1) that include minimum dimensions for right-of-way accounting for lane width, center median, bike lane and/or multipurpose trails, curb, gutter, landscaping, and sidewalks. Figure C-2 of the Circulation Element identifies the locations and alignments of each road in Temecula by classification. Applicants for new development applications should consult the Circulation Element to determine the roadway classification fronting the project site and to determine the type of improvements that may be required for the proposed project.
The City makes available standard drawings for on- and off -site improvements that establish infrastructure or site requirements that support new residential development. Typical site improvements for high density development include half -width street improvements for all frontage streets, built to General Plan standards. A typical local street width is 60 feet with 40 feet of pavement (two lanes). In addition, the appropriate level of R-O-W landscaping, 6-inch curb and gutter, and sidewalk improvements (either curb or parkway adjacent) are required for property frontage. Water, sewer, and drainage facilities are traditionally not under the direct control of the City.
The City of Temecula coordinates with several water and sewer districts that directly administer the construction of water and sewer improvements. These improvements, for a high density/affordable housing project, typically require both potable and reclaimed water systems. With respect to flood control and drainage facilities, these on - site improvements are under the direct control of the Riverside County Flood Control. While these improvements are necessary to ensure that new housing meets the City's development goals, the cost of these requirements can represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing. Site improvement costs include the cost of providing access to the site, clearing the site, and grading the pad area. In the case of a subdivision, such costs may also include major improvements such as building roads and installing sewer, water, and other utilities. As with land costs, several variables affect costs, including site topography and proximity to established roads, sewers, and water lines. Engineering and other technical assistance costs are usually included with site improvements as these services are required to ensure that development is constructed according to established codes and standards. Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code outlines site improvement requirements (Chapter 16.30) for a variety of parcel map division and subdivision scenarios and includes specific requirements
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-127
for streets, domestic water, fire protection, sewage disposal. These and other site improvement costs are typical of all cities in California and do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in Temecula. The City does not impose any unusual requirements as conditions of approval for new development.
The City of Temecula requires full -frontage improvements for all approved development projects. The City typically does not make exceptions for frontage improvements because of the need to make connections for existing bike lanes and trails, and to correctly align roadways to avoid bottlenecks at narrower sections. The City may permit the possibility of deferring some improvements on a project -by - project basis. The deferral of improvements may be permitted when the costs of the improvements greatly outweighs the contractor's ability to enter into a reimbursement agreement or when timing of the needed improvements is beyond the control of the applicant, such as improvements to be made by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The City of Temecula recognizes that such requirements can potentially be considered regulatory barriers to affordable housing if the jurisdiction -determined requirements are greater (and hence, more costly) than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements in the community. However, the cost to design such improvements is dramatically decreased when utilizing the City's standard drawings.
C. State Tax Policies and Regulations
1. Article 34 of the California Constitution
Article 34 was enacted in 1950. It requires that low rent housing projects developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state or public agency, including cities, receive voter approval through the referendum process. The residents of Temecula have not passed a referendum to allow the City to develop, construct, or acquire affordable housing.
While California Health and Safety Code further clarifies the scope and applicability of Article 34 to exclude housing projects that have deed - restrictions on less than 49% of the units or rehabilitation/ reconstruction of housing projects that are currently deed -restricted or occupied by lower -income persons, Article 34 still constitutes an obstacle for local governments to be directly involved in the production of long-term affordable housing.
2. Environmental Protection
State regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits). Costs
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-128 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
resulting from fees charged by local government and private consultants needed to complete the environmental analysis, and from delays caused by the mandated public review periods, are also added to the cost of housing and passed on to the consumer. However, the presence of these regulations helps preserve the environment and ensure environmental safety to Temecula's residents. In addition, much of the remaining vacant residential land is located within approved specific plan areas for which the required environmental review has already been completed.
D. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the cost of providing adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; water and sewer lines; and street lighting), which is required to be built or installed in new development. In most cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is covered by developers and is added to the cost of new housing units, which is eventually passed on to the homebuyer or property owner.
In addition, two areas of the City, which are designated for residential uses, are partially developed and do not have sewer service.
Development of this land is limited to Very Low Density Residential uses. The majority of the remainder of future residential development within the City will occur in master planned communities or on sites adjacent to existing infrastructure. As a result, future residential development will not be constrained by the lack of sufficient infrastructure in the remainder of the City.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is the retail supplier of potable water to Temecula. According to the Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, the RCWD has adequate water supply to meet current demand and is investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands.
Upgrading existing wells, adding new wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water are among the major strategies devised by the RCWD.
Wastewater facilities in Temecula are provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), which has adequate capacity to meet current treatment demand. By closely working with the RCWD and the EMWD in developing supply options, conservation techniques, including the use of reclaimed water; and development monitoring systems, the City can ensure that development does not outpace the long-term availability of water and the adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-129
Southern California Edison (SCE,) provides electrical service and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to residences and businesses throughout the City.
Infrastructure to deliver electricity and natural gas throughout Temecula is currentlinplace. SCE and SoCalGas can generally provide these services to newer development on request and there is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and anv future need.
Telecommunications services in Temecula are provided by a variety of service providers including Spectrum and Frontier Communications.
Infrastructure to deliver telecommunications throughout Temecula is currently place and can generally be provided to newer development upon request and there is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need.
With the City of Temecula and its infrastructure providers coordinating planning and construction consistent with General Plan land use policy, future needs, including the 2021-2029 RHNA, can be met.
To comply with Senate Bill 1087, upon adoption the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower - income households.
E. Environmental Constraints
Temecula is impacted by various environmental hazards that include active fault traces, liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. These natural hazards constrain residential development by threatening public safety and infrastructure. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted regulations that limit development within areas of high risk and/or require design standards that can withstand natural hazards. Other environmental constraints include infrastructure constraints. In preparing the City's inventory of vacant sites designated for residential velopment (Appendix A�, the City considered the extent to which sites were constrained by hazards, and potential hazards are aeeattnd accounted for as part of the capacity study. There are no known environmental constraints or other constraints that would preclude housing development on identified sites in the planning period or reduce the potential capacity of a site to a level lower than what has been assumed in Appendix A. Parties interested in obtaining more information for specific parcel listings in Appendix A may do so by contacting the City of Temecula Planning Department or by visiting the City's website at TemeculaCA.gov. The City's Information Systems department maintains an online GIS parcel search that can be used to
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-130 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
identify any parcel within Temecula, including known environmental and other on -site constraints.
Flood Plain (FP) Overlay District: The City has applied a Flood Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of structures within the district. These design standards have been adopted to reduce the flood hazards threatening people and structures within the overlay district. Development on this property must comply with specific structural design standards that raise the cost of construction. However, this property represents only a fraction of the City's vacant land with Medium Density Residential zoning.
The environmental constraints and the associated cost factor impacting this property will not compromise the City's ability to provide adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the planning period. Pursuant to the default density assigned to the City of Temecula through Section 65583.2, affordable housing is expected to be accommodated within areas where density is 30 units per acre by right or more through density bonus provisions. The City's Medium Density Residential zone allows a density of up to 12 units per acre by right and up to 18 units per acre with a density bonus. Medium Density Residential zoned property therefore is not considered suitable for affordable housing.
Dam Inundation: Portions of Temecula face inundation if any of the three dams located in areas surrounding Temecula should fail. Lake Skinner Dam is an earthen dam at Skinner Reservoir (also known as Lake Skinner and located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of Temecula). Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road, which is located near the south side of the reservoir, as well as flooding along parts of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Warm Springs Creek. Vail Lake is located over 6.0 miles southeast of Temecula; dam failure would inundate portions of the Pauba and Temecula valleys, including I-15 and an adjacent 3-mile area.
Diamond Valley Lake is the largest reservoir in Southern California and is located north of Skinner Reservoir, nearly 6.0 miles northeast of Temecula. Its water is detained by two earthen dams. Failure of the western dam would result in flooding in the northern parts of the City.
Several vacant developable parcels located near the western and southern perimeters of the City are at risk of inundation if dams north of the project site were breached. Far fewer vacant underutilized residential properties would be at risk of inundation.
100-Year and 500-Year Floodplains: A 100-year flood has an annual 1 % probability of occurring, and a 500-year flood has an annual 0.2%
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-131
probability of occurring. The 100-year floodplain in the City of Temecula forms a "U" along the alignment of the northern, western (west of and adjacent to I-15), and southern perimeters of the City. The 500-year floodplain is noncontiguous and is generally located in the western and southern areas of the City, adjacent to 100-year floodplains. The 100-year floodplain includes several vacant developable parcels near the northern and western perimeters of the City, and the 500-year floodplain is generally outside of or adjacent to vacant developable parcels in the same area. In general, no underutilized residential parcels are located in the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain.
Alquist-Priolo: Temecula is located within a highly active seismic region. Three Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are located in Temecula: Wildomar, Willard, and Wolf Valley. These zones have been delineated by the State Geologist and encompass the area on either side of potentially or recently active fault traces where the potential for surface rupture exists. The Wildomar fault is the predominant fault in the City. This fault trends in a northwest direction and transects the length of the City. The Willard fault is located southwest of the Wildomar fault zone. South of the Willard fault is the Wolf Valley fault zone.
Within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, habitable structures must maintain a minimum 50-foot setback distance from the fault trace per state law. The existence of Alquist-Priolo zones in Temecula effectively limits the amount of land and the intensity of development of residential uses adjacent to these zones. However, only a few vacant residential sites designated for Very Low Density Residential use are impacted by these Alquist-Priolo zones.
Faults and Fault Zones: The Elsinore and Wildomar faults and their associated fault zones extend through the western side of the City on a northwest -southeast alignment across I-15. Although the Elsinore fault zone is one of the largest in Southern California, it has been one of the quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the Laguna Salada fault, ruptured in 1892 in a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but, as noted in the City's General Plan Public Safety Element, the main trace of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2. In 1920, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake near Temescal Valley produced no known surface rupture. Other faults that surround Temecula include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport -Inglewood, and San Clemente Island faults.
The Elsinore fault and fault zones extend through several vacant developable land parcels, as well as through a large underutilized residential parcel.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-132 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Liquefaction: Liquefaction can occur as a secondary effect of seismic shaking during an earthquake or another event significant enough to cause equivalent pressure on the susceptible soils, like a dam failure and inundation. Liquefaction is unlikely to occur unless the earthquake is large with multiple shaking cycles. Liquefaction occurs in areas of saturated, loose, fine- to medium -grained soils where the water table is 50 feet or less below the ground surface. Seismic shaking temporarily eliminates the grain -to -grain support normally provided by the sediment grains. The waters between the grains assume the weight of the overlying material and the sudden increase in pore water pressure results in the soil losing its friction properties. The saturated material (with the frictionless properties of a liquid) will fail to support overlying structures. Liquefaction -related effects include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and slumping.
In Temecula, liquefaction zones generally align with areas in the City subject to 100-year and 500-year floods and the areas subject to inundation if a nearby dam is breached. The liquefaction zones are, however, more far-reaching. Although only a few underutilized residential properties are located in areas subject to liquefaction, many vacant and developed properties are located within or immediately adjacent to areas subject to liquefaction.
Liquefaction and other seismic -related issues are addressed by the state Universal Building Code (UBC). The UBC requirements for construction in liquefaction zones are not significantly more costly than standard California construction standards and will not compromise the City's ability to provide adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA.
In addition, the City analyzes and mitigates for liquefaction constraints when applicable.
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in Local
Responsibility Area (LRA): Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas encroach at the City's western and southern boundaries, encompassing or partially encompassing several large vacant developable parcels, including the Altair Specific Plan. As included in the Altair Specific Plan, the project's Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and new development. In addition, a Fuel Modification Plan was be prepared as part of the project and incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Also, the project is required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance with the most recent Uniform Fire Code, which provides minimum fire safety measures that would be incorporated into all building designs.
With these mitigation measures, residential development is permitted to occur throughout the Altair project area and is not considered a constraint to development.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-133
Hazardous Waste Sites: Small hazardous waste sites are located along and near the west side of I-15. These sites encompass small portions of vacant developable land and are near several vacant developable parcels. None of underutilized residential properties are located on or near hazardous waste sites.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP): Encompassing the western one-third of Riverside County and approximately 1.26 million acres, the Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional habitat conservation plan (HCP) designed to conserve species and their habitats. The goal is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within an increasingly urbanized area. The MSHCP includes areas in northern, western, and southern Temecula. Nearly all of the vacant developable parcels located west of I-15 in western Temecula are within the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas, as are all parcels located in the southwestern corner of the City. Additional vacant developable parcels in the northeast corner of the City are also located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. Few underutilized residential properties are located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas.
Riparian Areas: Riparian areas are locales that relate to the bank of a stream, river, or lake. In Temecula, riparian areas encompass southern cottonwood -willow riparian and riparian scrub communities. These communities are limited to an area west of 1-15 and an area in the southeast corner of the City. No vacant developable land or underutilized parcels are located in riparian areas. Although a few vacant developable parcels are located immediately adjacent to a riparian area, no underutilized parcels are located in or near a riparian area.
Archaeological, Historic, and Native American Cultural
Resources: Temecula has a rich history with many Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, villages and resources, places where significant events occurred, both historically and pre -historically, and historic buildings and locales identified within and surrounding its boundaries. While a large majority of these historic and pre -historic and resources have been formally recorded, there are still properties that contain buried cultural and archaeological resources and unrecorded structures. Because of the confidentiality of these resources, especially archaeological and Native American sites, the city will follow State law requirements with regards to analysis of these resources and consultation with local tribes.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-134 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
V. HOUSINC RESOURCES
A. Regional Housing Need
1. Temecula's Regional Housing Need
The City of Temecula falls under the jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible for developing a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) allocating the region's share of the statewide housing needs to lower -level councils of governments, which then allocate the needs to cities and counties in the region. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the Housing Element's statutory planning period.
This RHNA covers an 8-year planning period (2021 through 2029) and is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low income allocation; therefore, the City's very low income RHNA of 1,359 units can be split into 680 extremely low income and 678 very low income units
Table 60§8 shows the breakdown of the 4,193 units in Temecula's RHNA into the required income categories.
Table 6058 Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021-2029
Income Category
Allocation
Percentage
Extremely Low
680
16%
Very Low
679
16%
Low
801
19%
Moderate
778
19%
Above Moderate
1,255
30%
Total
4,193
100%
SOURCE: SCAG RHNP, 2020
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-135
B. Progress Towards the RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the 2021-2029 planning period, jurisdictions may count toward the RHNA housing units that have been developed, are under construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30, 2021. Since this time, 27 housing units have been developed, are under construction, or have received their building permits in Temecula.
Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but not yet built or under construction. While the City of Temecula is actively reviewing a number of project proposals, for the purposes of identifying process towards meeting the City's RHNA, the City has included two approved affordable projects (Las Haciendas and Rancho Highlands) that are expected to begin construction by the end of 2021.
Las Haciendas, a 77-unit housing unit complex, has received California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC funding and Cit,�-proval and is ready to pull building permit and grading permits as of December 2021. Construction of Rancho Highlands, a 55-unit housing complex, is currently underway; grading began in November 2021. There are no remaining entitlements on either project. These two projects represent 132 affordable housing units, including 24 units affordable to extremely low income households, 8 units affordable to very low income households, and 99 units affordable to low income households. All affordable units are deed restricted. These credits towards meeting the City's RHNA are specified in Table 61-59, and the relative affordability of each unit type/project is described below.
Table 6159: Progress Towards Meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA Extremely
Low
income (0-
30% AMI)
Very
Low
income
(30-50%
AMI)
Low
income
(51-
80%
AMI)
Moderate
income
(81-120%
AMI)
Above
Moderate
income
(121%+
AMI)
Total
Units Constructed/Under Construction/Building Permits Issued since June 30, 2021 Various Single -Family Units
0 0
0 0
6 6
Various
Con dos/Du plex/Town homes
0 0
0 21*
0 21
Subtotal
0 0
0 21*
6 27
Approved/Entitled Units Not Yet Under Construction
Las Haciendas
24 8
44 0
1 77
Rancho Highlands
0 0
55 0
0 55
Subtotal
24 8
99 0
0 132
Total
24**
8**
99**
21 7
159
Source: City of Temecula, 2021.
*Note: These units do not have affordability restrictions. Market rate rents and sale prices for apartments and condominiums fall within levels affordable to the households earning moderate incomes (81-120%AMI) and are allocated as such. **Note: Units identified as affordable to extremely and very low and low income households are all deed restricted.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-136 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
1. Affordability of Units Credited Towards the RHNA
Units credited towards the RHNA are distributed among the four affordability groups (extremely/very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) based on affordability restrictions (as is the case with affordable housing projects) or housing cost for those specific types of units based on real home rental/sale rates and established affordability levels. For example, the market rate rents and sale prices for apartments and condominiums in Temecula fall within levels affordable to households earning moderate incomes (81-120% AMI) and are allocated as such, as discussed in the above Housing Affordability by Income Level discussion.
Based on rental data information from Zillow.com and
Apartments.com, the average rents reported for Temecula are $1,632 for 1-bedroom apartments, $1,816 for 2-bedroom apartments, and $2,290 for apartments with three or more bedrooms. Based on this data and the housing affordability thresholds shown in the Needs Assessment, these apartment unit sizes are affordable to 4-person moderate income (81-120% AMI) households (where the affordable monthly rent is $2,259), and the smaller apartment units (1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units) are affordable to 2-person moderate income (51- 80% AMI) households (where the affordable monthly rent is $1,808).
Actual unit affordability will vary greatly based on unit size and household size. However, because the City cannot predict the profile of household size and unit size, all multifamily rental units are credits towards meeting the City's moderate income RHNA, even though some units may ultimately be affordable to lower -income households depending on the household size and unit size.
Condominium units are considered entry-level homes and based on pricing are allocated as affordable to moderate income households.
According to Zillow.com, in February 2020 the median price for condominiums sold in the City was $360,000. While home prices have risen since April 2020 as a direct result of impacts of COVID-19 on the housing market, the average cost identified in April 2020 generally represents the "business -as -usual" model and provides a more realistic understanding of the long-term pricing trends associated with housing in Temecula, outside of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This price is approximately equal to the affordability level for a 4- person, moderate income family and is allocated as such. As the maximum affordable price for a 4-person, moderate income family to purchase a home (as shown in the Needs Assessment) is $360,740, if condominiums continue to be priced higher than pre -pandemic values, the City may need to update its site inventory to reflect a high proportion of multifamily for -sale units being affordable to above moderate income households, versus moderate income households.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-137
However, as demonstrated later in this chapter, the City has identified a surplus of approximately 4,-3093.600 moderate income units and could easily accommodate a change in affordability level from moderate to above moderate income levels. The market rate cost of single-family units is considered affordable to above moderate income households.
2. Units Constructed or Under Construction
According to City building permit records, since June 30, 2021, 27 new units have been constructed, are under construction, or have building permits pulled in Temecula, of which 21 are affordable to moderate income households based on market rate rents, and the remaining 6 units are affordable to above -moderate income households.
3. Units Approved/Entitled
Based on City records, 159 units have recently been approved in Temecula; these units are not currently under construction but are expected to come online during the planning period. Of these 159 units, 32 will be deed -restricted affordable to extremely low/ very low income households and 99 will be deed -restricted to low income households.
4. Remaining RHNA
Even in the short timeframe between the beginning of the planning period Quly 1, 2021) and preparation of this Housing Element (August 2021), the City has already demonstrated progress towards meeting its overall RHNA with housing units constructed, under construction, or approved/entitled or under review (159 units).
Table 628: Remaining RHNA
Extremely
Very
Low
Moderate
Above
Total
Low
Low
income
income
Moderate
income (0-
income
(51-
(81-120%
income
30% AMI)
(30-50%
80%
AMI)
(121%+
AMI)
AMI)
AMI)
RHNA Allocation
680
679
801
778
1,255
4,193
Constructed, Under
0 0
0 21
6 27
Construction/Permits Issued
(Since 6/30/2021)
Units Approved/Entitled
24 8
99 0
0 132
Remaining Allocation
656
671
702
757
1,249
4,034
Source: City of Temecula, 2021, SCAG, 2020
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-138 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
C. Sites for Housing Development
Housing element law requires an inventory of land suitable for residential development (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)). An important purpose of this inventory is to determine whether a jurisdiction has allocated sufficient land for the development of housing to meet the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need, including housing to accommodate the needs of all household income levels.
This section provides an analysis of the land available within the City for residential development. In addition to assessing the quantity of land available to accommodate the City's total housing needs, this section also considers the availability of sites to accommodate a variety of housing types suitable for households with a range of income levels and housing needs.
This Housing Element identifies vacant sites that would accommodate residential uses within Temecula. It is noted that Temecula also has underutilized sites (sites where a significant portion of the property is vacant and there is a potential for additional residential units) which may be suitable to accommodate future residential development; however, these sites are not necessary to accommodate the City's RHNA and are not included in this inventory.
A citywide parcel database, aerial photos, and General Plan GIS data were used to located parcels for this update. This update also considered the viability of sites identified in the prior planning period, many of which continue to be suitable sites for future development due to their proximity to transportation facilities, public services, goods, amenities, and activity centers. Parcel acreages by land use designation are based on assessor and GIS data.
The City has included Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development Capacity, and Program 2, Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period, as key programs to ensure that the Citv accommodates its remaining RHNA for the 6`h Cycle at all income levels for the duration of the planning period.
1. Housing Affordable to Lower -Income Households
The California Government Code states that if a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the population based criteria set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Temecula), HCD is obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdictions share of regional housing need for lower -income households. Per Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), sites designated with the City's
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-139
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) are consistent with the default density standard (30 units per acre) for metropolitan jurisdictions such as Temecula and therefore considered appropriate to accommodate housing for lower -income households; further, application of the AHO in and of itself requires that at least 20% of the units be deed- restricted/reserved for households earning no greater than 80% of the area median home (i.e., low, very low, and extremely low income households) and that affordable units must be developed concurrent with market rate units, thereby promoting economic integrating and affirmatively further fair housing. Therefore, the capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower -income RHNA based on State law. Of the 63 sites identified as meeting a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA, 32 of the sites are within the City's AHO, which permits the required density of 30 du/ac.
As previously described, the City has also adopted 15 Specific Plans to guide growth and development across the community. Four of these Specific Plans —Old Town, Uptown, Harveston and Altair —include vacant land and together lay the foundation for the development of thousands of new residential units in a variety of formats and densities and provide for densities at levels high enotighLonsistent with the default density for Temecula (more than 30 du/ac) to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. While these Specific Plans use a combination of typical development standards and form -based standards to regulate development, each Specific Plan was adopted to encourage new residential development in creative formats to promote development of a variety of residential types and various income levels.
Moreover, since these Specific Plans were adopted, projects have been proposed and approved in Specific Plan areas (i.e., Uptown and Old Town) with product types and densities consistent with providing housing affordable to lower -income households. Additionally, based on the City's history of producing and supporting the production of affordable housing, Temecula is confident that vacant parcels within Specific Plan areas can be developed at densities of at least 30 du/ac to help satisfy the City's remaining extremely, very low, and low income RHNA. These Specific Plans and their potential development capacities are described in more detail later in this chapter. Of the 63 sites identified as meeting a portion of the City's lower income RHNA, 45 of them are within Specific Plans which permit the required density of at least 30 du/ac.
All sites identified in Appendix A as meeting a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA allow for development of residential uses at a density of at least 30 Wac, consistent with State law. Sites that allow for densities--ft* lower than 30 du/ac are assumed to meet the City's moderate- and above -moderate income RHNA.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-140 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
2. Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA
The City of Temecula's 6th Cycle residential sites fall into three categories:
1. Accessory dwelling units
2. Residentially zoned vacant land exclusive of Specific Plan areas, and
3. Residentially zoned sites inside Specific Plans
As described throughout this section, the City has sufficient land appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout community to accommodate its RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Moreover, Temecula has a proven track record of supporting the development of affordable projects, working with affordable housing developers, promoting home types that are affordable to lower -income households including multifamily projects and mixed -use developments, and addressing needs of the community's vulnerable populations including seniors. These sites are illustrated on Figure H- 1, Housing Sites Inventory, and detailed in Appendix A.
Accessory Dwelling Units
As of January 2020, newly adopted State of California legislation pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) went into effect. The legislation changes specifically amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. In response to these legislative changes, the City of Temecula updated its zoning ordinance to be consistent with State law. The details of the City's Zoning Ordinance relevant to ADUs are included in the Constraints section of this Background Report.
The City of Temecula approved 3 ADUs in 2018 and no ADUs in 2019. However, once the City updated its ADU ordinance in 2020 and began advertising the opportunity to develop ADUs in Temecula, at least 18 ADUs were approved. Now that the City has promoted the production of ADUs as a viable option to add housing stock to the City's existing neighborhoods, prepared public education material to inform the public about the opportunity to develop ADUs, is moving forward with preparing streamlined guidance to support efficient review and approval of ADU applications, and confirmed that ADUs are explicitly allowed within a SPA (Temecula has 15 Specific Plans), it can be reasonably expected that the development of ADUs in Temecula will continue to be produced at the pace of production in 2020 and will likely accelerate. Moreover, the City has taken significant proactive steps to advertise the opportunity for residents to construct ADUs, including preparing a topic area fact sheet (available in English
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-141
and Spanish), hosting presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council, and answering the public's questions in -person at City Hall and over the phone. However, Tthe City has assumed production of ADUs at a rate of 4-8-6 units per year for the duration of the planning period (based on Llte of ADUs approved in 202 average
number of ADUs produced per year since 2018), resulting in the assumed production of 44448 ADUs. This is a modest assumption and production will likely outpace this target during the planning period.
Additionally, the income level of these ADUs has been assumed to be consistent with the findings of SCAG's ADU affordability study, and the income of these units are allocated consistent with SCAG's findings for Riverside/San Bernardino Counties.
Vacant Residential Sites (Outside of Specific Plans)
As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel - by -parcel analysis of vacant residential sites for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data obtained from the City's geographic information system (GIS). The vacant land inventory for the City of Temecula, including an estimated development capacity for the vacant parcels, can be found in Appendix A of the Housing Element. Table 634 summarizes the available housing unit capacity based on vacant residential sites located outside of approved specific plan areas. Residential capacity for each vacant parcel is based on the current zoning for each parcel. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75% of its maximum capacity (consistent with an3: applicable target densities established by the City's General Plan and Development Code, see the Land Use Controls section of this Background Report for further information), which allows for setbacks, landscaping, right- of-way dedications, and other nonresidential uses. See Figure H-1 for a map of these sites.
Since the last planning period, the City adopted its Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which allows for an increase in density in the High, Medium, and Low Medium Residential zoning designations if the development is affordable housing, and also applies to specific parcels within the Planned Development Overlay areas (PDO-5 and PDO-10), Professional Office zone, and Uptown Specific Plan. The affordable housing overlay provides for a minimum density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre and up to 30 dwelling units per acre, excluding any potential density bonus for qualified projects. Development capacity at parcels designated with the Affordable Housing Overlay will allow for densities consistent with default densities of state housing element law and will therefore be appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. Consistent with sites outside of the Affordable Housing Overlay, these parcels are also assumed to develop at 75% of their maximum capacity.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-142 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Several commercial zoning districts throughout the City of Temecula also permit residential uses. The City's vacant land use survey identified all such vacant parcels and the realistic residential development capacity for each parcel if developed with residential uses. Table H-61 also summarizes the residential development potential within currently vacant commercial parcels. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75% of its maximum capacity.
The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size (exclusive of those in specific plan areas) in Temecula totals 634 acres.
It should be noted that the City's inventory does include vacant sites that are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels. This is discussed later in this chapter. These vacant properties, identified in Table H-X, have the potential to yield 3-,303, 114 units, 44,P1, 558 of which can accommodate lower -income housing, 1,600 can accommodate moderate -income housing, and 46-3-356 can accommodate above moderate -income housing.
Table 634: Vacant Residential Sites (Exclusive of Specific Plans) General Plan
Zoning
Max
Acres
Realistic
Affordability
Density
Capacity
(units)*
Community Commercial
Community
20 du/ac
20 301
Moderate
Commercial"
High Residential
High
2&30 du/ac
4 -7-980
Ex Low/Very
Residential/
Low/Low
AHO
Highway Tourist Commercial
Highway Tourist
20 du/ac
7 440111
Moderate
Commercial —
Low Residential
Low Residential
2 du/ac
55 81
Above Mod
Low Medium Residential
Low Medium
6 du/ac
41 184
Above Mod
Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density
30 du/ac
11 256
Ex Low/Very
Residential/AHO
Low/Low
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density
12 du/ac
99 708
Moderate
Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood
12 du/ac
6 57
Moderate
Commercial"
Drefess'nnal Of a
Planned
8v2Flay-5/AHO
20 d- War,
7-
457
Ex Low/ erp
Professional Office
Professional
30 du/ac
4320
300450
Ex Low/Very
Office/AHO
Low/Low
Public Institutional
P--lanned
30 du/ac
30 675672
Ex Low/Very
^o.. R
Low/Low
9ve4ay-51AHO
Service Commercial
Service
20 du/ac
28 423
Moderate
Commercial —
Very Low Residential
Very Low
0.40 du/ac
324295
9991
Above Mod
Residential
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-143
Total 643617 3,43A3,414
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
* Dwelling unit calculation is based on 75% ofpotential maximum capacity. ** Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning districts. Senior housing constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed to be consistent with the development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density Residential zoning district. For the Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning districts, senior housing will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district.
Vacant Residential Sites within Specific Plans
The City conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial photos and site visits to estimate the remaining residential development capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific plans.
The City has 15 approved Specific Plans; nine have vacant land with residential development capacity remaining. Five of the nine Specific Plans with remaining residential capacity (Old Town, Wolf Creek, Harveston, Uptown, and Altair) allow for development at densities of at least 30 du/ac, which is appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. While the exact affordability levels for future development within these Specific Plan areas will be based on available funding for affordable development and other market conditions as the sites develop during the planning period, for those Specific Plans which allow for development of at least 30 du/ac, the City has assumed that some percentage of units will be affordable to lower income households, some percentage to moderate income households, and some percentage to above moderate income households. For those Specific Plans the allow for lower densities not suitable to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA, affordability levels are based on the market rate rents/sale prices of products with similar densities built and rented/sold elsewhere in the City.
The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size within approved Specific Plans in Temecula totals 784 acres. It should be noted that some of these sites are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels. This is discussed later in this chapter. These vacant properties, identified in Table 624, have the potential to yield 5-,77-35 7.35 units, 4-,247-1,216 of which can accommodate lower -income housing, `'z72,779 can accommodate moderate -income housing, and 4—,7-241,1740 can accommodate above moderate -income housing.
In determining realistic capacity, the City reviewed past development of projects in its Specific Plan areas. In Temecula, Specific Plan areas have historically developed to at least 95% of their total entitlement.
However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA, the City has taken a more conservative approach andlfta
CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN
HBK-144 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
assumed that Specific Plan areas will develop at 85% of their capacity.
Given that Specific Plans inherently include programs to develop sites effectively and efficiently at the densities and intensities identified within the Plan, and given the City's history of successful Specific Plan development at levels consistent with nearly the maximum allowable development levels, this is a reasonable expectation for the City's remaining vacant land in Specific Plan areas.
Recent examples that support the City's realistic capacity methodology include:
• Vine Creek, an entitled project with a density of 26.43 units per acre, in the Old Town Specific Plan area. Although this Specific Plan area adheres to a form -based code and does not identify minimum or maximum densities, the entitled density of this project (26.43 dwelling units per acre) is within the expected development range of 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre, as indicated in the Regulating Plan for the Specific Plan. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent non-residential due to its proximity near transit and civic institutions, parking reduction incentives for housing, development standards, including allowing 100% residential uses in mixed -use areas, and recent development trends (the City has seen multiple pre -applications for residential units in the last year). Additionally, the Vine Creek project
demonstrates that residential development at the expected development range is likely and feasible.
• Las Haciendas, an entitled project with a density of 39.08 dwelling units per acre, and Jefferson Buecking Project, at 39.9 dwelling units per acre in the Uptown Specific Plan area.
Although this Specific Plan area adheres to a form -based code and does not identify minimum or maximum densities, these two projects exceed the expected density of 30 dwelling units per acre. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent non-residential based on development trends affordable and market rate projects are moving forward in Uptown, and the number of inquiries from national
homebuilders to build condos and townhomes) and standards (e.g�,1.5 parking units per residential unit that provide reduced parking to incentivize housing).
• The Harveston Specific Plan area was originally permitted at 1,921 dwelling units, of which 1,9' 21 (100%) were built. As previously described, the residential overlay adopted in 2020 allows for the future development of up to 1,000 additional residential units. Three projects in this Specific Plan area are moving forward (Heirloom Farms, a 321-unit development
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-145
already entitled and under construction, Solana Winchester, a 350-unit development in Process of entitlement, and Prado, a 237-unit development in the Process of entitlement, totaling 908 units, or 90.8% of total expected unit capacity, with additional Projects likely to follow. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent nonresidential due to land already being_ purchased by residential developers as of Fall 2021.
Table 6 : Vacant Residential Land within Specific Plan Areas Specific Plan
General
Allowable
Acres
Realistic
Affordability
Plan Land
Density
Capacity
Use
(units)*
SP-2 - Rancho Highlands
Highway Tourist
20 du/ac
1 5
Above Mod
Commercial
SP-4 - Paloma Del Sol
Low Medium
6 du/ac
42 216
Above Mod
Residential
Specific Plan
30 du/ac
4 499107
Fix Lo ^eery
SP-5 - Old Town
'�' Mod/
Above Mod
SP-9 - Red Hawk
Medium
12 du/ac
7 68
Moderate
Residential
SP-11 - Roripaugh
Low
2-12 du/ac
333
4,9281, 220
Moderate/ Above
Residential,
Mod
Low Medium,
Medium
Residential,
Neighborhood
Commercial
SP-12 - Wolf Creek
Community
20-30 du/ac
20 439
Moderate
Commercial,
Neighborhood
Commercial
SP-13 - Harveston
Service
30 du/ac
80 846840
Ex LowNery
Commercial
Low/Low/Mod/
Above Mod
SP-14 - Uptown
Highway Tourist
30 du/ac
25 648636
Ex LowNery
Commercial,
Low/Low/Mod/
Industrial Park,
Above Mod
Service
Commercial
SP-15-Altair
Medium
30 du/ac
272
4-�1,504
Ex Low/Very
Residential,
Low/Low/Mod/
High
Above Mod
Residential,
Specific Plan
Total
784
5;�735, 335
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
* Dwelling unit calculation is based on 85% of potential maximum capacity
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-146 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Figure 2: Vacant Developable Land Use Zoning
IHV
Zoning Designations
BUSINESS PARK (BP)
- COMMUNITY COMM (CC)
CONSERVATION(OS-C)
- HIGH DENSITY RES (H)
- HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMM (HT)
O LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (L)
0 LOW DENSITY RES (L-1)
- LOW DENSITY RES (L-2)
O LOW MED DENSITY RES (LM)
0 MEDIUM DENSITY RES (M)
0 NEIGHBORHOOD COMM (NC)
A PLANNED DEV OVERLAY (PDO-5)
- PLANNED DEV OVERLAY (PDO-10)
- PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI)
- SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-2)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-4)
M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-5)
M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7)
M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-9)
M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-11)
M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-12)
M SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13)
- SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-14)
- SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-15)
SVERY LOW DENSITY RES (VL)
City
1i Centedine
L7
HOT SPRINGS
hi
0 0.5 1 Miles
I I I I I
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-148 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
3-.2. Large Sites Analysis
The City's site inventory (Appendix A) includes ten parcels that are over 10 acres in size that allow for a density of at least 30 du/ac and are found to be suitable sites to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA. Of these ten sites, four are between 10 and 11 acres (10.20, 10.23, 10.26, and 10.84 acres). The remaining six parcels range in size from 11.39 acres to 54.8 acres.
Seven of the ten sites are located within approved Specific Plans which include clear approval processes for subdividing parcels into developable lots. The City has a proven track record of developing Specific Plans, including the subdivision of large lots, as evidence by the development of approved Specific Plans including Uptown (where one affordable housing project was recently approved), Harveston (which is largely developed but was recently amended to allow for additional residential development), Old Town Specific Plan (where one affordable housing project was approved), Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (the location of the Arrive affordable housing project), and various other residential Specific Plans. The remaining three sites that are not located within a Specific Plan are all designated with the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, which specifies that residential development at these sites must include the applicable affordable housing component to develop as a residential project, and that the assumed density for these sites in 30 du/ac. T-vffe-Three of these sites are owned by the City of Temecula as shown in Table 65, and as the parcel owner, the City is in a unique position to ensure that the property will be developed as affordable housing, despite its size. The City also has the ability to subdivide the property into smaller lots, if that process is more likely to result in the production of affordable units. By October 2024, the City will solicit a Request for Proposals (REP, for the development of affordable housing project(s) on the City -owned site(s). Prior to disposing of any of the City -owned sites; the City shall comply with the Surplus Land Act and Surplus Land Act Guidelines issued by HCD, and consult with HCD regarding any questions. The City will evaluate whether to sell the site or ground lease them to one or more a1-,-affordable housing developers.
The largest lots are included in SP-15 (Altair), which is the City's newest Specific Plan. As development moves forward within the Altair project area, it is expected that the existing parcels will be subdivided in compliance with the Specific Plan and its land use pattern, and that this process will replicate similar successful efforts in other Specific Plan areas which have been fully or partially developed throughout Temecula. Additionally, the developer of Altair has expressed interest in promoting and building accessory dwelling units in concert with new construction, further demonstrating the City's ability to accommodate a portion of its RHNA through development of ADUs.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-149
Moreover, only sites identified with the City's Affordable Housing Overlay are anticipated to develop as 100% affordable projects (at 75% of maximum capacity). Larger sites located in Specific Plan areas are expected to provide a range of housing options and a variety of income levels; it is not assumed that large sites in Specific Plan areas will develop as exclusively affordable to lower income households. Rather, approximately 40% of the capacity is projected to be suitable to accommodate lower income households with the remainder serving the needs of moderate to above moderate income households.
The City has introduced a new program in the Housing Plan, Program 6, Large Sites. As part of this program, the City will routinel ve high priority to processing subdivision maps that include affordable housing units. Also, an expedited review process will be available for the subdivision of larger sites into buildable lots where the development application can be found consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and program environmental impact report(s).
The City will offer incentives for the development of affordable housing on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to:
• Streamlining and expediting the approval process for land division for projects that include affordable housing units, • Deferral of fees related to the subdivision for projects affordable to lower -income households, and
• Providing technical assistance to acquire funding,
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-150 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 653: Large Lot Inventory
Affordable
Lower
General
Total
Parcel
Owner
Size
Zoning
Housing
Income
Plan
Capacity
Overlay
RHNA
CITY OF
Public
909370050
TEMECULA
10.84 Institutional
PDO-10
Yes
244243
244243
Facilities
CITY OF
Public
909370049
TEMECULA
19.14 Institutional
PDO-10
Yes
434429
434429
Facilities
916400042
HARVESTON
10.21 Service
SP-13
No
4344
108
SAB
Commercial
916400060
HARVESTON
10.26 Service
SP-13
No
44 400110
SAB
Commercial
—
HUB 3
Medium
922210011
10.23 Residential (7-
SP-15
No
5051
426127
12 Du/Ac Max)
940320002
CITY OF
20.34 Specific Plan
SP-15
No
100
250
TEMECULA
Implementation
HUB 3
Medium
940320007
12.72 Residential (7-
SP-15
No
6263
456157
12 Du/Ac Max)
KAISERMAN
Medium
944290015
DONALD
11.40 Residential (7-
M
Yes
256
256
12 Du/Ac Max)
TEMECULA
Specific Plan
940320005
WEST
19.61 Implementation
SP-15
No
96 244240
VILLAGE
TEMECULA
Specific Plan
922210049
WEST
54.81 Implementation
SP-15
No
270269
67-5673
VILLAGE
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-151
3. Realistic Cal2acity
The City's realistic capaci , analysis considers the following capacity factors, as identified in housing element statute (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c,)(2)): land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities. Of the five factors only land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities are relevant when considering the capacity of sites in Temecula; infrastructure constraints and environmental constraints are not applicable. While some of the sites allow for 100 percent nonresidential uses, as described in this section, it is highly unlikely sites identified in Appendix A will develop as 100% nonresidential uses due to their financial value as a residential development site, their proximity to existing goods, services, and transit, implementation of the affordable housing overlay, and strong development interest to expand the community's housing stock. The City has not seen any applications or had preapplication discussions for mixed -use projects where residential uses represent anything less than 80% of the site's development potential. The City finds that it is not financially feasible or desirable for developers to redevelop any of the sites listed in the Housing Element inventory for 100% nonresidential uses.
Tables 66 and 67 summarizes how the various factors identified in housing element statute (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(2)) result in an adjusted site capacity of 75% of the maximum densities for vacant sites outside of Specific Plan areas and 85% of maximum densities for vacant sites inside of Specific Plan areas.
Table 66: Capacity Adjustment Factors — Outside of Specific Plans Capacity Factor
Adjustment
Reasoning
Land use controls and site
95%
For net acreage due to on -
improvements
site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the
95%
Adjustment based on past
site
development trends in
areas outside of Specific
Plans
Typical densities
85%
Based on assessment of
typical densities realized
for protects
proposed/developed over
the past 5 years
Infrastructure availability
No adjustment
Not applicable, no
constraint
Environmental constraints
No adjustment
Not applicable, no
constraint (already
accounted for as part of
prior General Plan land
use planning process)
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-152 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 67: Capacity Adjustment Factors — Inside of Specific Plans Capacity Factor
Adjustment
Reaaoning
Land use controls and site
95%
For net acreage due to on -
improvements
site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the
95%
Specific Plans set in place
site
firm entitlements including
number of units and the
City expects every Specific
Plan to develop in
accordance with its
approved land use map.
Typical densities
95%
Specific Plans set their
own densities and
intensities with are
confirmed as part of the
planning document and
the City has a high degree
of confidence that the
projects will be built
according to these
standards.
Infrastructure availability
No adjustment
Not applicable, no
constraint
Environmental constraints
No adjustment
Not applicable, no
constraint (already
accounted for as part of
prior Specific Plan land
use planning processes)
7. Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The City's site inventory demonstrates the availability of adequate sites to address the projected housing growth needs (see Appendix A).
Overall, the vacant site inventory yields an estimated development capacity of 9,203 units. Based on these numbers, along with development of ADUs and the credits identified earlier in this chapter, and as shown in Table 684, the City is able to meet its 2021-2029 regional housing need of 4,193 and provide a surplus of sites at all income levels. Additionally, given that the capacities identified for cant residential parcels outside of Specific Plan is based on a 75% yield from the maximum density and for vacant residential parcels inside of Specific Plans is based on 85% yield from the maximum density, it could be expected that products will actually develop with unit counts higher than those assumed in this inventory.
As is shown in Table 684, the City has adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA for all income levels. For lower income units (extremely low income, very low income, and low income), the City has a remaining allocation of 2,029 units and can accommodate 2-,7482,702 units via ADUs and on sites that allow densities of at least 30 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions for lower income sites
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-153
established by Government Code Section 65583.2(c) (3) (B) (iii) and that are further supported by the City's history of successful affordable projects. The City also has a surplus of sites for moderate and above moderate income units.
Table 684: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA Candidate
Extremely
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above
Total
Sites
Low income
income
income
income
Moderate
(0-30% AMI)
(30-50%
(51-80%
(81-120%
income
AMI)
AMI)
AMI)
(121%+
AMI)
Remaining 6th
Cycle RHNA
656
671
702
757
1,249
4,034
ADUs
228
444
5016
5016
4-1-4
14448
Vacant
Residential Land
Inventory
367364
440436
660658
1,600
363356
34303,414
(exclusive of
SPAs)
Vacant
Residential Land
342304
342311
624601
2-,7 9 72, 779
a,,7241, 440
5-,7735, 335
in Specific Plans
Total
+4520 (surplus)
+9280
+632-573
+3-,6803, 338
+849-851
+5 3435,162
(surplus)
(surplus)
(surplus)
(surplus)
(surplus)
C. Housing, Financial, and Services
Resources
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSCI funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that support infill and compact development and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Funds are available in the form of loans and/or grants in two kinds of project areas: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Project Areas and Integrated Connectivity (ICP) Project Areas.
There is an annual competitive funding cycle.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG� funds are awarded to the City of Temecula, an entitlement community, on a formula basis for housing, community development, and economic development activities. Activities eligible for CDBG funding include acquisition, rehabilitation, economic development and public services.
HOME Investment Partnership funds are granted by a formula basis from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include new construction, acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation. The City participates
administered HOME Program, which
projects in participating jurisdictions.
in the San Diego County -
administers HOME funds to
County -administered HOME
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-154 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
funds for first time homebuyer assistance are made available to residents or employees of the local jurisdictions participating in the HOME program. New development projects are typically allocated funding on a competitive basis.
Housing Choice Voucher Program formerly Section 8� provides monthly rental assistance payments to private landlords on behalf of low income families who have been determined eligible by the San Diego Housing Authority. The program's objective is to assist low income families by providing rental assistance so that families may lease safe, decent, and sanitary housing units in the private rental market.
The program is designed to allow families to move without the loss of housing assistance. Moves are permissible if the family notifies the Housing Authority ahead of time, terminates its existing lease within the lease provisions, and finds acceptable alternate housing.
Project Based Housing Voucher program is a component of the former Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funded through HUD.
The program's objective is to induce property owners to make standard housing available to low income families at rents within the program limits. In return, the Housing Authority or HUD enters a contract with the owner that guarantees a certain level of rents.
Section 811 /202 Program (Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Elderly — Non- profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of Very -Low income rental housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities.
Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction and rental assistance.
California Housing Finance Agency (Ca1HFA) Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and Preservation or new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for Low and Moderate income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Acquisition Finance Program that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of at -risk affordable housing developments and provide lowcost funding to preserve affordability.
Ca1HOME Program provides grants to local public agencies and non- profit developers to assist households in becoming homeowners.
CalHome funds may be used for predevelopment, development, acquisition, and rehabilitation costs as well as downpayment assistance.
While Ca1HOME funding has been limited to disaster assistance in recent years, this would be an appropriate program for the City to pursue to begin to develop a local portfolio of housing assistance programs and funds.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-155
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA� offers permanent financing for acquisition and rehabilitation to for -profit, non-profit, and public agency developers seeking to preserve "at -risk" housing units. In addition, CHFA offers low interest predevelopment loans to nonprofit sponsors through its acquisition/rehabilitation program.
Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP) provides funds to local government agencies and non-profit corporations for capital development activities and facility operation for emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe havens that provide shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. No current funding is offered for this program.
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program provides emergency shelter and related services to the County's homeless populations. Eligible activities include: the rehabilitation and conversion of buildings for use as emergency shelters; the provision of essential services to the homeless; operating support for emergency shelters; and homeless prevention/rapid rehousing activities.
Federal Home Loan Bank System facilitates Affordable Housing Programs (AHP), which subsidize the interest rates for affordable housing. The San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank District provides local service within California. Interest rate subsidies under the AHP can be used to finance the purchase, construction, and/or rehabilitation of rental housing. very low income households must occupy at least 20% of the units for the useful life of the housing or the mortgage term.
Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. The Department will also utilize from a portion of moneys collected in calendar year 2018 and deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to provide funding through grants to counties for capital and operating assistance. Funds will be announced through a Notice of Funding Availability.
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (!IQ) funds infrastructure improvements to facilitate new housing development with an affordable component in residential or mixed use infill projects and infill areas. If an affordable or special needs housing developer is interested in developing in the City's urban core, this program could be useful to fund infrastructure improvements.
Toe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program finances the new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of owner- and renter - occupied housing units for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower income households. No current funding is offered for this program.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-156 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Low income Housing Tax Credits. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) administers the federal and state Low income Housing Tax Credit Programs. Both programs were created to encourage private investment in affordable rental housing for households meeting certain income requirements. Under these programs, housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified projects. 20% of federal credits are reserved for rural areas, and 10% for non-profit sponsors. To compete for the credit, rental housing developments must reserve units at affordable rents to households at or below 46% of area median income. The assisted units must be reserved for the target population for 55 years. The federal tax credit provides a subsidy over ten years towards the cost of producing a unit.
Developers sell these tax benefits to investors for their present market value to provide up -front capital to build the units. Credits can be used to fund the hard and soft costs (excluding land costs) of the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing. Projects not receiving other federal subsidy receive a federal credit of 9% per year for ten years and a state credit of 30% over four years (high cost areas and qualified census tracts get increased federal credits). Projects with a federal subsidy receive a 4% federal credit each year for ten years and a 13% state credit over four years. The CTCAC also administers a Farmworker Housing Assistance Program and a Commercial
Revitalization Deduction Program.
Low income Housing Preservation and Residential Home Ownership Act IHPRHA) requires that all eligible HUD Section 236 and Section 221(d) projects "at -risk" of conversion to market -rate rental housing through the mortgage prepayment option be subject to LIHPRHA Incentives. The incentives to owners include HUD subsidies which guarantee owners an 8% annual return on equity. Owners must file a Plan of Action to obtain incentives or offer the project for sale to a) non-profit organizations, b) tenants, or c) public bodies for a 12 month period followed by an additional three-month sale to other purchasers.
Only then are owners eligible to prepay the subsidized mortgages.
Mobilehome Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program WPRROP) makes short- and long-term low interest rate loans for the preservation of affordable mobilehome parks for ownership or control by resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public agencies. MPRROP also makes long-term loans to individuals to ensure continued affordability. Funds are made available through a periodic, competitive process. MPRROP is currently accepting applications on an over-the-counter basis.
Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) provides low interest loans to developers of affordable rental and transitional housing projects. Funds may be used for new construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and rehabilitation, or conversion of non-residential structures.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-157
National Housing Trust Fund is a permanent federal program with dedicated sources of funding not subject to the annual appropriations.
The funds can be used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low income households. California is receiving approximately $10.1 Million for the program in 2019. Funds will be made available through a competitive process and will be announced through a Notice of Funding Availability.
Preservation Interim Repositioning Program (PIBZ is a short-term loan program designed to preserve housing at risk of conversion to market rates. Only non -profits, dedicated to the provision of affordable housing, may apply. Local matching funds, together with PIRP funds, may not exceed 20% of total costs. No current funding is offered for this program.
SB 2 Planning Grants Program provides one-time funding and technical assistance to all eligible local governments in California to adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. Eligible activities include updating a variety of planning documents and processes such as general plans and zoning ordinances, conducting environmental analyses, and process improvements that expedite local planning and permitting. The planning grants program is funded through the Building Homes and Jobs Act Trust Fund (SB 2, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017). The City is eligible to receive funds through this program and this program should be considered to develop an affordable housing program for the City.
California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC). is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for Low income families, seniors and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing.
Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of properties.
Supplement Security Income (SSI is a federal welfare program for persons 65 and over and for blind or disabled persons of any age. "Disabled" means that you have a physical or mental disability that is expected to keep you from working for 12 months or longer, or will result in death. Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people who are 65 and over, for some younger people with permanent disabilities, and for people with end -stage kidney disease. SSI may provide total monthly income or it may supplement a low income. In addition to cash payments, SSI recipients are automatically covered by Medi-Cal, the state health insurance plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-158 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
D. Administrative Resources
Agencies with administrative capacity to implement programs contained in the Housing Element include the City of Temecula and local and regional nonprofit private developers. The City of Temecula Planning Department takes the lead in implementing Housing Element programs and policies. The City also works closely with non-profit developers to expand affordable housing opportunities in Temecula.
Development Services Department
The Community Development Department manages the City's affordable housing programs, Building and Safety Division, code enforcement, land development, and planning (among other responsibilities). The department coordinates development activity within the City to ensure the planned orderly growth. The Planning Department administers the General Plan and zoning and
environmental regulations, and provides primary staff assistance to the Planning Commission.
Non -Profit Developments
The City collaborates with a number of affordable housing developers and service providers to accommodate the housing needs of Temecula residents. The following are housing developers and service providers active in the City; several are included in the State's list of entities with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at -risk projects.
The following are housing providers interested in developing and/or preserving affordable housing in the City:
• Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G
Indio, CA 92201
Telephone: (760) 347-3157
• Habitat for Humanity
41964 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92591
Telephone: (909) 693-0460
• Jamboree Housing Corporation
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 216
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 263-8676
• Affirmed Housing
13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 360
San Diego, CA 92128
Telephone: (858)679-2828
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-159
• The Olson Company
30200 Old Ranch Pkwy, #250
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Telephone: (562) 596-4770
• San Diego Community Housing Corporation
8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92123
Telephone: (858) 571-0444
• D'Alto Partners
41911 5th Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Telephone: (951)304-0633
• DR Horton
2280 Warlow Circle, Suite 100
Corona, CA 92880
Telephone: (951)272-9000
• Bridge Housing Corporation
9191 Towne Center Drive, Suite L101
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 535-0552
• Highland Partnerships
285 Bay Blvd.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Telephone: (619) 498-2900
• National Community Renaissance (National CORE)
9421 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Telephone: (909) 483-2444
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-160 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
E. Environmental Constraints
The majority of the land available for residential development is located adjacent to existing infrastructure facilities or within a specific plan area where infrastructure will be provided as part of the development process. As a result, infrastructure facilities will be able to serve all of the future residential development.
The sites inventory analysis reflects land use designations and densities established in the General Plan and Specific Plans. Thus, any environmental constraints that would lower the potential yield (e.g., steep slopes) have already been accounted for. Any additional constraints that would occur on a more detailed site review basis would be addressed as part of the individual project review process.
The City's capacity to meet its regional share and individual income categories are not constrained by any environmental conditions.
F. Energy Conservation and Climate Change
Energy -related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of housing. While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy -related expenses. Efficient energy use can be encouraged by changing customer behavior, rewarding use of energy -saving appliances, and employing building design and construction approaches that reduce electric power and natural gas usage. The primary sources of energy in Temecula are electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE) and natural gas from SoCalGas. SCE provides technical assistance and incentives for residents and businesses to increase energy efficiency through energy audits, appliance rebate programs, and smart energy metering. As part of the City's Sustainability Plan, Temecula's mission is to reduce energy use while encouraging clean energy generation.
The City has included Program 12, Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency, to support these topics.
New Development
The City encourages energy conservation in residential projects. New subdivision and parcel reviews are considered in terms of street layout and lot design. Residential structures must meet the requirements of Title 24 (CalGreen) relating to energy conservation features of the California Building Standards Code.
For example, production home builder, Woodside Homes has constructed hundreds of homes in Roripaugh Ranch (Sommers Bend)
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-161
which include solar as well as passive and active energy savings techniques.
Retrofit
There are a number of methods available to improve conditions of existing structures and to decrease their energy demand, all of which fall under the general label of "retrofit." Among the most common techniques for increasing building efficiency are: insulation of ceilings, heating -ventilating air conditioning ducts and hot water heaters; weather stripping and caulking; night setback thermostats; spark ignited pilot lights; low flow shower heads; window treatment to provide shade; and furnace efficiency modifications. The City of Temecula monitors such modifications on substantial rehabilitation projects pursuant to the California Building Standards Code.
Weatherization in existing dwellings can greatly cut down heating and cooling costs. Weatherization is generally done by performing or improving attic insulation, caulking, weather stripping and storm windows, furnace efficiency modifications, and certain mechanical measures to heating and cooling systems. The U.S. Department of Energy allocates money to states for disbursement to community - based organizations.
Other means of energy conservation in residential structures includes proper design and location of windows, window shades, orientation of the dwelling in relation to sun and wind direction, and roof overhang to let the winter sun in and block the summer sun out.
The City encourages maintenance and rehabilitation of housing to maximize energy efficiency. The City's residential rehabilitation programs provides funding assistance for lower income households to rehabilitate their home and provide weatherization and energy retrofit improvements.
G. Consistency with the General Plan
Government Code Section 65300.5 states: "In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency." Additionally, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(7) requires the identification of "means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals."
The Housing Element of a general plan sets out a city's overall long- range planning strategy for providing housing for all segments of the community. The California Government Code requires general plans to contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. The
CITY OF TEMECULA GLNERAL PLAN
HBK-162 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Housing Element is, therefore, affected by policies contained in other elements of a general plan. The housing element is most intricately related to the land use element. The Land Use Element establishes the framework for development of housing by laying out the land use designations for residential development and indicating the type and density permitted by a city.
Working within this framework, the City of Temecula's Housing Element identifies priority goals, objectives, and program actions for the 2021-2029 planning period that directly address the housing needs of Temecula's existing and future residents. The policies contained in other elements of the City's General Plan affect many aspects of life that residents enjoy such as the amount and variety of open space; the preservation of natural, historic and cultural resources; permitted noise levels in residential areas; and the safety of the residents in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City's other General Plan Elements and the policies and programs in this Element do not conflict with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan.
As the City moves forward with a General Plan Update and as portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained. The General Plan Update will address all requirements of State law related to the scope and content of a General Plan, including updated goals, policies, and programs to address complete streets, environmental justice, climate adaptation and resiliency, and air quality.
H. Relationship to Other City Plans and
Policies
The Housing Element identifies priority goals, objectives, policies, and action programs for the next eight years that directly address the housing needs of Temecula. The City's other plans and policies including its Municipal Code, Zoning Code, Master Plan, and Specific Plans must all remain consistent with the Housing Element. As revisions are considered to the City's Code and various plans, each revision will be reviewed to ensure that no conflicts with the Housing Element occur.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-163
0 I. Priority for Water and Sewer
Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an amended or adopted housing element, a local government is responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the Element to area water and sewer providers. Water and sewer providers must grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower -income households. As the responsible agency, the City of Temecula will supply a copy of the adopted housing element to the Temecula Public Works Department, as well as to all water and sewer providers serving the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-164 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
VI. AFFIRMATIVELY FLIRTHERING FAIR -
HOUSING (AFFH) ANALYSIS
All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics". These characteristics can include, but are not limited to, race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. b'
Unless
othefwise noted, the Figures affd Tables references in d4s-�� /Seer:...-, NTT\ „fee to tikes, F:,..., fes- and Tables ineludedparte f the- past go ffIfEfty515
>FEM=55>
> eiisalqi4i>
,
This
analysis of fair housing issues in Temecula relies on the 2017 Report, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer and Mapping tool, 2014- 2018 American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD AFFH Database, County of Riverside Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019-2024 (County Al), and additional local sources of information. the findings f
As a recipient of federal funds to administer housing and community development programs, the City of Temecula must affirmatively further fair housing. To accomplish this goal, the City of Temecula has
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-165
contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to provide fair housing services for Temecula residents at no cost.
Citizens can get legal support for Fair Housing issues regarding rent payments, termination notices, lease renewal increases, habitability claims, illegal evictions, and any discrimination claim.
A. Fair Housing Needs Assessment
The City of Temecula is located in the extreme southwest corner of the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in area in the continental United States. Because of its location in the corner of the region, one must be cautious to draw too many conclusions in comparing Temecula to the regional data supplied by HUD. The eity2�sCi 's 2017 Assessment and the analysis included in this Housing Element compares and contrasts the City with the regional data, but as one would expect, there are some substantial differences in the data profiles and the needs between the City and the region. The City is located in a cluster of cities in Temecula Valley in southwest Riverside County. The other cities include Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore. All have experienced tremendous growth in the past twenty years, yet they remain separate and some distance from the metropolitan areas to the north and south.
Through its growth, Temecula has remained an integrated and diverse City with racial and ethnic groups spread evenly throughout the City.
There are no HUD -identified racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the City. During the housing crisis of 2007- 2008, the City was hit with many foreclosures and, as such, that issue was the greatest concern in the previous Analysis of Impediments, completed in 2010. Now with the housing industry in recovery, the greatest need in the City is affordable housing, as many new homebuyers find themselves priced out of the market.
Like all cities in the State of California, Temecula is challenged by a lack of financial resources to address its affordable housing needs due to the dissolution of all the State's redevelopment agencies. This was the main source of hundreds of affordable housing units constructed in the City since the 1990s. Fair housing issues in Temecula appear to be individualized and not systemic, but preventing systematic issues requires continuous training and education of those persons employed in the housing industry, as well as educating the residents of their fair housing rights.
As included in its 2017 Assessment, the City had developed four fair housing goals to overcome the contributing factors identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing. These goals were prioritized based on feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Highest priority was given to those contributing
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-166 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
factors that limit or deny fair housing choice of access to opportunity.
The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority.
Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs;
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws
Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs;
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
Contributing Factor 213: Location and type of affordable housing
Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure
Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services
Goal4: Provide equal housing opportunities forprotected classes Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
Contributing Factor 413: Private discrimination
Based on the above goals and contributing factors, a number of actions were identified that can be taken over the next five years that will promote fair housing for its residents. These actions, outlined in the 2017 Assessment, have either already been completed (i.e., the adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay) and assessed as part of the 5' Cycle Progress, or included as a Program in this Housing Plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-167
B. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
In 2017, the City of Temecula prepared a comprehensive and robust assessment of fair housing. This Report is included as Appendix D to the Housing Element and was aFroved in March 2017. As Fart of this effort. the City undertook a detailed communityparticipation proram in .
assessed past goals and actions; conducted a fair housg analysis including a demoaaphic summary, identification of ;general issues related to segre4ation/integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areal overt(R/ECAPs . disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. Additionally; the Report included an analysis of publicly supported housing, disability and access, and fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity; and resource analysis. Finally. it included a series of fair housing goals and priorities, which have been integrated and updated within the HousinlZ Plan_ as appropriate, The City of Temecula contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to provide comprehensive Tair Housing services.
Quarterly reports are provided to the City, which evaluate potential issues related to Race, Color, Religion, Sex National Origin, Familial Status, Disability, Age, Marital Status, Ancestry, Source of Income, Sexual Orientation, Genetic Information, or Other Arbitrary factors.
Complaints also detail landlord tenant complaints, including ethnicity, income, and the specific case categories including, Evictions, Occupancy Standards, Repairs, Deposits, Entering/Harassment, Late Fees, Lead, Lease/Rental Terms, Mobile Homes, Mold, Rental Assistance, Homeless Assistance Referrals, Habitability, Notices, Section 8 Issues, Affordable Housing, and Foreclosures. Actions taken by the Fair Housing Council are also provided, including mediation, counseling, conciliation, education, DFEH/HUD/Attorney referrals.
Past Fair Housing Events included First Time Homebuyer Programs (March 14, 2022) Rent Control Law (March 18, 2020,, First Time Homebuyers April 4, 2020, May 2, 2020., Fair Housing in Covid (September 24, 2020, October 1, 2020, October 15, 2020, October 22, 2020, November 13, 2020, November 18, 2020), Fair Housing Roundtables (April 25, 2021), Popup Events, (May 5, 2021, May 12, 2021, May 13, 2021, May 15, 2021, May 19, 2021, May 20, 2021), Community Partners Meetings dune 8, 2021), -juneteenth dune 19, 2021), Help Center Outreach in Temecula dune 29, 2021).
The chart on the following page reflects the quarterly report provided to the City by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County of 01 2021-2022.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-168 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
City of Temecula 1st Quarter
Discrimination
Gander
Female
1 10106 —
fl
EihnicilylRaca
American fndiaWAlaskan881aak
4 American Ind iaWAlas kan & His pa nit
0 American IndiarVAlaskan & whiie
4 American InddanlAlaskan RativeMlack & H -&pan
0 Asian I
0 Asian & Hispanic
0 Asian & WhIte
0 Oatk Non Hisptnic
0 BladdAtrican American & His anic
0 BlacklAfelcan American & White
0 Chose not to respond
0 J
Hispanic
i
HISpanic Black
0 flir,panic Black & While
0 Nalive ArnericanlAlaskan Native
0 Native AmoricanlPackfic islander & His panic
0 Native HawalianiPacific Islander
0 Other frluitiple Racel His panic
0 Other Mult+ Ie RacelNon Hispanic
0 UnknowrdOfhel CtherMuit RaeelNon Hisp an
0 White Non riffs anic
0 Income
Very Low 0
Law
0 Modiffat0l
0 Above
1 e Of Caller
In•PI&,o Tenant i
Other 1 10
Landlor&Manager 10
Other Oaia
Senior
0 Female Head of Household 10
Disabled 10
Case Cete orles
Age
a
Ancesq
a
NrlAtraly
0 Color
0 Familial Status
0 Gendw
0 warktal Status
b
!de nta I 04ability
0 4atlonal Origin
0 } skcai igah 4 i!y
0 pace
1 Rell tan
0 Sex
�
Sexual Orientation
0 iourae of Jncoma
0 Type of Contact
relephone 11
7ifite
0 Acilon
'duragon
'.atittse]ed
1 7FEN1141,11)
0 INorne
0 Total Complaints
Val Persons
1 2
Office
0 0
Attkcn
Mediation
45 19
Counseled
64 25
Caneillated
26 12
Total Complaints
SS
Total Persons
135
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
HBK-169
The City hosted two public outreach workshops on October 27, 2021, with notices in English; Spanish, and Tagalog. The focus of these hearings included specific topics of AFFH and Fair Housing feedback as well as affordable housing. The City is also currently conducting a resident survey in conjunction with CDB(j) which discusses housing; AFFH, and other housing related priorities.
During the 2019-2020 report period, the City of Temecula took the following actions on its own or in cooperation with regional partners and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) to overcome impediments to fair housing choice identified in the 2017 Report and demonstrate and implement its outreach capacity to provide outreach and education to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and rights.
• Fair Housing Community Education
• Fair Housing Enforcement
• Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution
• Reasonable Accommodations
• Web -based Outreach
• Monitoring On -Line Advertising
• Monitoring Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
The City of Temecula complies with Fair Housing laws and regulations, as described in Table 69§.
The City has conducted outreach to its Race, Equity, and Diversity Commission to further promote fair housing policies and identify additional ol2portunities to support implementation of Fair Housing laws and regulations. This eb ffij fft',,..Sf ftij 3'
basis and is ineluded-as wtr-t of P
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-170 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
1 1
I
0 % 1
Miles
Sources: US census.
Map date: December 14, 2021.
D e. No Plau ,ug Gr up ■■.■■
`. O.R.II..Ig�., d n,.ir.- In.
----•-------- I
O � 432.47
V� o
.
0004
O O
I
.32.62
i
1 432.46
�.
64 432.65 •� •
00a
00 432.56
432.48
1..
432.52
i
I
I
-------------`----- RiverseidCounty
San Diego County
432.57
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
OCensus Tracts within
Temecula
Other Census Tracts
Figure 3: Census Tracts within Temecula
This t,aQe intentionally left blank.
Ej
■
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-172 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 695: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Laws
Description
Compliance
California Fair Employment and
The Fair Employment and Housing Act
Compliance is achieved through strict
Housing Act (FEHA)
(FEHA) applies to public and private
enforcement in hiring practices and
employers, labor organizations and
regular training of and by Human
employment agencies.
It is illegal for employers of 5 or more
Resources staff.
employees to discriminate against iob
applicants and employees because of a
protected category or retaliate against
them because they have asserted their
rights under the law.
The FEHA prohibits harassment based
on a protected category against an
employee, an applicant, an unpaid
intern or volunteer, or a contractor.
Harassment is prohibited in all
workplaces, even those with fewer than
five emplovees.
Government Code Section 65008
Covers actions of a city, county, city and
Compliance is achieved by uniform
county, or other local government
application of City's codes, regulations,
agency, and makes those actions null
policies and practices, including
and void if the action denies an
development standards, design
individual or group of individuals the
guidelines, application submittal
enjoyment of residence,
requirements, fees and approval
landownership, tenancy, or other land
findings.
use in the state because of membership
in a protected class, the method of
financing, and/or the intended
occupancy.
For example, a violation under
Government Code section 65008 may
occur if a jurisdiction applied more
scrutiny to reviewing and approving an
affordable development as compared to
market -rate developments, or
multifamily housing as compared to
single family homes.
Government Code Section 8899.50
Requires all public agencies to
Compliance is achieved through
administer programs and activities
consultations with community
relating to housing and community
stakeholders and support agencies as
development in a manner to
part of program evaluating and funding
affirmatively further fair housing and
decisions. The 6th Cycle Housing
avoid any action that is materially
Element Housing Plan describes how
inconsistent with its obligation to
each Program addresses fair housing
affirmatively further fair housing.
issues and contributing factors.
Government Code Section 11135 et
Requires full and equal access to all
Compliance is achieved through
seq.
programs and activities operated,
promotion/availability of activities and
administered, or funded with financial
programs to all persons of all
assistance from the state, regardless of
backgrounds to participate equally in
one's membership or perceived
community programs and activities.
membership in a protected class.
Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section
Density bonus law is intended to
Compliance is achieved by
65915)
support the construction of affordable
administration of Temecula Municipal
housing by offering developers the
Code Section 17.10.020(Q), Density
ability to construct additional housing
Bonus Law, which provides for
units above an agency's otherwise
compliance with Government Code
applicable density range, in exchange
Section 65915 et seq.
for offering to build or donate land for
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-173
affordable or senior units. Density
Bonus Law also provides for incentives
intended to help make the development
of affordable and senior housinq
economically feasible.
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code
Provides that a local agency shall not
Compliance is achieved through the
Section 65589.5)
disapprove a housing development
development review process with is
project, for very low, low-, or moderate-
completed consistent with the Housing
income households, or an emergency
Accountability Act. Additionally, the Citv
shelter, or condition approval in a
is in the process of preparing objective
manner that renders the housing
design standards to facilitate an
development project infeasible for
objective and eauitable review of
development for the use of very low,
applicable projects.
low-, or moderate -income households,
or an emergency shelter, including
through the use of design review
standards, unless it makes certain
written findings, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence in the
record.
No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section
Ensures development opportunities
The City's draft Housing Element
65863)
remain available throughout the
identifies a surplus of sites with a
planning period to accommodate a
capacity to accommodate the City's
jurisdiction's regional housing need
RHNA allocation. The City has also
assessment (RHNA) allocation,
identified additional sites for
especially for lower- and moderate-
accommodating any shortfall that may
income households.
occur with respect to anticipated
development density capacity, that may
be added to the site list if necessary.
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code
Provides that, in exercising its authority
Compliance is achieved through
Section 65913.1)
to zone for land uses and in revising its
implementation of the City's General
housing element, a city, county, or city
Plan and the implementation of
and county shall designate and zone
Housing Element Housing Plan which
sufficient vacant land for residential use
commits the City to maintain an
with appropriate standards, in relation
adequate capacity of sites at densities
to zoning for nonresidential use, and in
and intensities consistent with those
relation to growth projections of the
specified by site in Appendix A in order
general plan to meet housing needs for
to accommodate its RHNA for all
all income categories as identified in the
income levels throughout the planning
housing element of the general plan.
ep riod.
Excessive Subdivision Standards (Gov.
Provides that, in exercising its authority
Compliance is achieved through the
Code Section 65913.2)
to regulate subdivisions a city, county,
implementation of a fair and equitable
or city and county shall:
(a) Refrain from imposing criteria for
development review process which is
administrated consistent with the
design, as defined in Section 66418, or
Excessive Subdivision Standards Act.
improvements, as defined in Section
66419, for the purpose of rendering
infeasible the development of housing
for any and all economic segments of
the community. However, nothing in this
section shall be construed to enlarge or
diminish the authority of a city, county,
or city and county under other
provisions of law to permit a developer
to construct such housing.
(b) Consider the effect of ordinances
adopted and actions taken by it with
respect to the housing needs of the
region in which the local jurisdiction is
situated.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-174 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
(c) Refrain from imposing standards
and criteria for public improvements
including, but not limited to, streets,
sewers, fire stations, schools, or parks,
which exceed the standards and criteria
being applied by the city, county, or city
and county at that time to its publicly
financed improvements located in
similarly zoned districts within that city,
county, or city and county
Limits on Growth Controls (Gov. Code
Provides that, if a county or city.
The City's draft Housing Element and
Section 65302.8)
including a charter city, adopts or
the elements in the City's recently
amends a mandatory general plan
adopted General Plan do not include
element which operates to limit the
any provisions which further limits
number of housing units which may be
(relative to the current Housing Element
constructed on an annual basis, such
and prior General Plan) the
adoption or amendment shall contain
development of housing, except such
findings which justify reducing the
provisions as may be required by state
housing opportunities of the region. The
or federal laws.
findings shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the city's or county's
appropriate share of the regional need
for housing.
(b) A description of the specific housing
programs and activities being
undertaken by the local jurisdiction to
fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c)
of Section 65302.
(c) A description of how the public
health, safety, and welfare would be
promoted by such adoption or
amendment.
(d) The fiscal and environmental
resources available to the local
jurisdiction
-BC. Analysis of Available Federal, State, and
Local Data and Local Knowledge
This section presents an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in Temecula as included in the City's 2017 Assessment; these findings are suppleffientedin addition to with present day resources and local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more realistic picture of fair housing concerns in Temecula and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies and programs to affirmatively further fair housing.
The City's demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations are discussed in previous sections of this Background Report. Temecula is comprised of 21 Census Tracts, although several
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-175
are only partially located in Temecula. Figure 3 shows the tract boundaries.
Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Segregation is the social division of human beings based on any number of factors, including race, ethnicity, or nationality. Racial segregation is one of the most common forms of segregation and is generally illegal but can still exist through social norms even when there is no strong individual preference for it. Racial integration, or simply integration, includes desegregation (the process of ending systematic racial segregation). In addition to desegregation, integration includes goals such as leveling barriers to association, creating equal opportunity regardless of race, and the development of a culture that draws on diverse traditions rather than merely bringing a racial minority into the majority culture.
The racial and ethnic composition of a city is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Dissimilarity indices can be used to measure the evenness of distribution between two groups in an area. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) views the various levels of a dissimilarity index as follows:
• 55: High Segregation
This analysis of racial/ethnic segregation also includes racial/ethnic minority population trends, maps of minority concentrated areas over time, and an analysis of the City's sites inventory as it relates to minority (non-White) concentrated areas.
The indices for Temecula and Riverside County from 1990 to present are shown in Table 7046. Dissimilarity between non-White and White communities in Temecula and in Riverside County has
increased/worsened since 1990. In Temecula, dissimilarity between Black/White, Hispanic/White, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White communities has increased. Based on HUD's definition of the various levels of the index, segregation between non-White and White Temecula residents is considered low. Segregation in Temecula is lower than the County.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-176 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 70466: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index
1990
2000
2010
Current
Temecula
Non-White/White
1.27 10.17
15.87 18.06
Black/White
3.98 15.06
19.88 22.77
Hispanic/White
0.59 11.63
16.07 19.17
Asian or Pacific Islander/White
3.07 9.97
19.80 24.88
Riverside County
Non-White/White
32.92 38.90
38.95 41.29
Black/White
43.74 45.48
45.48 47.66
Hispanic/White
35.57 42.40
42.40 43.96
Asian or Pacific Islander/White
33.17 37.31
37.31 43.07
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing fAFFH) Database, 2020.
Tracking the diversity of cities and counties throughout California is crucial to understanding the shifting demographics of race and ethnicity in California and the United States. Esri's Diversity Index captures the racial and ethnic diversity of a geographic area in a single number, from 0 to 100. Scores less than 40 represent lower diversi , in the jurisdiction while scores of greater than 85 represent higher diversity. Additionally scores between 40-55 represent low diversity, 55-70 represent moderate diversity, and 70-85 represent high diversity_ As shown in Figure 4, most of Likewise,
fie segregation pattern based on flational or-igin. The top fi-ve population groups are spfead evenly throughout the City, show* the Gity's diversity and high integratioft.
the Citv has areas of high and moderate diversitv. There are several areas of low diversity in the City, one located in central Temecula east of the I-15 freeway and two located in east Temecula. The distribution of diversitv in Temecula is consist with the surrounding iurisdictions. as illustrated in Figure 5.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-177
Manned Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Patterns of integration and segregation are also considered for people with disabilities, familial status; and income groups. Relying primarily on data available from the US Census, it is possible to map and consider existing patterns which may indicate historical influences and future trends by census tract and census block groups.
Familial status refers to the Presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the marital status of the head of household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns.
According to the ACS 2-014-2018, 45.7% of households in Temecula have one or more people under 18 years old, and 13.9% of householders living alone. In comparison, 42.2% of households in Riverside County have one or more people under 18 years old and
17.8% of householders live alone. As determined in the Housing Needs Assessment, 20.5% of family households in Temecula are headed by single male or single female. There is a larger number of female householders with no husband present 15.5%), and 9% of these households are female -headed with children under 18. The City's share of households that are female -headed with children is greater than the Count's(6.7%), which would be consistent with the City's over higher number of households with children.
Single -parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Approximately 20.5% of family households in the City are single -parent households. Female -headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Approximately 9% of family households in Temecula are single, female -headed households with children. As shown in Figure 6, the percentage of children in female -headed households is higher in the western portion of the City than the eastern.
In comparison, countywide the percentage of children in female - headed households is distributed throughout the County, with a concentration in the northern portion of the County around the Citv of Banning, as illustrated in Figure 7.1n eeffipar4ng the City with the region f-r6ririzco=E-z Dei egr—ap ie Trends, - he pereentageof Blaeks
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-178 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
According to the 2014-2018 ACS. anbroximately 8.4% of Temecula residents experience one or more disabilities. As shown in Figure 8, most census tracts have a disabled population less than 10%. The census tracts that have a disabled population over 10% (no greater than
12.4% in the City are located generally in the eastern and northern portions of the City. Overall coup ide, there is a greater concentration of persons with one or more disabilities in eastern Riverside County, compared to western Riverside County, as illustrated in Figure 9. Temecula is consistent with the surrounding communities.
According to Table 4-4 in the Housing Needs Assessment, eight pemerrt10.3% of the City's population is seniors compared to
44.413.8% regiencoun -wide. The community's older residents, persons 65 vears of age or older. are somewhat concentrated in the eastern -central portion of the City, as shown in Figure 10. The population of senior residents in Temecula is slightly more concentrated than the surrounding communities, as illustrated in Figure 11. However, compared to the larger region, particularly eastern Riverside and San Diego counties, senior populations are much less concentrated in the U13LFifty six pefeent of the households afe families 0 fegionwide. kWhile all age groups
inereased in population, there was a slight deerease in the per-eentage of ehildren and an ifterease in these of ffliddle age. That eould furthe be seen in a decrease in the proportioft of families with children, even --- a it - -- - higher- than the ea - -- r - - - -off-' Identifying areas of different incomes is important to overcome patterns of segregation that may be present. The Housing Needs Assessment identified that 22.6% of Temecula households earn 80%
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-179
or less than the area median income and are considered lower income.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the median household income in Temecula is $90; 964, which is higher than $63,948 for the County.
Figures 12 and 13 show the median income in the City and the region by census block groups and how the median income in those groups compare to the median State income of $87,100. Approximately half of the census block groups in the City have a median income of less than $87,100, which is the HCD 2020 State Median Income. These census block groups are primarily along the transportation corridors of the I-15 freeway and Highway 79. There is one block group located in central Temecula with a median income of less than $55,000. All but two of the remaining block groups have median incomes of $125,000 or less. Two census block groups located in eastern Temecula have median incomes of greater than $125,000. Median income
concentrations in Temecula are similar to the surrounding communities, with lower median incomes located along major transportation corridors and areas on the outer edges of cities that have higher median income block groups. This pattern can be seen in the cities of Murrieta and Wildomar.
The Housing Choice Voucher (HM program assists extremely and very low-income households in Temecula with pang their monthly rent. Figure 14 shows HCVs as a percent of renter -occupied housing units by census tract. The highest percentage areas (5% - 15%) in the City are located in western Temecula.
The sites used to meet the City's 2021-2029 RHNA are generally dispersed, with sites in census block groups with median incomes that range from $30,000 to $125,000 (see Figure 12). ° eefd ffg t " -a' grown;dfamatieftlly ift the City aver the past ewenty yeaf s. Emeept Native Americans, the population of A racial and ethnic groups has from 0 0
from 2.4 0 0
28,000
0 0 0
pefeentagewise from 0 in 2000 to 3.88-04 in 2010, even though their population inereftsed. Whi4e -Native A.- isti"e only 7; of the population, they wefe the only ethnie grE)ttp to show -s deerease in population between 2000 and 2010. Through the tretmendotts growth in poptAations, Table 3 demonstrates that the >well below the 14UD threshold of>
ffieaning there is ffiini
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-180 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
1 1
I I
1/
I -;
M-1 ;, I
;
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-181
rj
This page intentionally left blank.
um
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-182 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
�q nOO 0 00
I
:)08 00�; 8 0I o
0 I
0 O 0
0 0 o rg 0 �
000 0
0 0 0 �.
0 TEMECULA j�,,•f
o C50) (a
$ 00
1-1 i
0 0
®00 CD 0 0 ••
.per 0 (56q5(0 00 +
0 00 COo O
�� r.��
VH, AKE
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
_ Income Levels
Diversity Index (2018)
- Higher Diversity
70-85
55-70
40-55
Lower Diversity
De Novo Plau .g G-p
d n,■■.■■
,.ir���....tal m.
Figure 4: Diversity Index by Census Block
Thi page intentionally left blank.
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-184 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
riimE
ss SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
COUNTY
COU N TY�
1 W55 14
0 2% 5
Miles�
Source: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources,
California Department of Housing and
Community Development,
"RaceDemographics_ BlockGrp_2018. "
Map date: December14, 2021.
D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np
A I.. dTT- Pi,,,.i.g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir -- gin" ■■.■■
(sz) 4
®--------------------------
—j
RIVERSIDE COUNT
74 ® 79
Legend
City of Temecula
----------------- L_� Riverside County
L_ Surrounding County
Diversity Index (2018)
79 Higher Diversity
D I E G O COUNTY
- 70-85
- 55-70
76 IF 40-55
Lower Diversity
No Data
Figure 5: Diversity Index by Census Block - Regional
This t,aQe intentionally left blank
■
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-186 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
------ --s'
MURRIETA
0 Y. 1
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"Family5ta tus_Tract_ 2015_19. "
Map date: December 14, 2021.
® LAKE SKINNER
79 ,r..• t (
0 Of 0 IF
0 0 ®• • !
00� 0
i
.� �'• 00 0p0 0
0 0 'b® 0
0 TEMECULA ���,.•�
0 CPO
---� j00C& 00 �
�oQpR,$ Cj)'2S a i o
.Q-0 5 0 6$R8� p0 r
'VP9 b O 4�..ir••
00 aj 0 O
I I •
• I
Riverside County '
San Diego County-------------------------1
L—
VAIL LAKE
Legend
_! City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income •
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Children in
Female -Headed Household
in which No Spouse or
Partner Present is Present
80%
D e. Noco Plxening Group
A L.,,d 1F,. Pi,,,.i-g.O g�.,.a� d❑i,drFf.m ■■■■■ Figure 6: Female -Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
0 0
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-188 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
/ -7- 1
L O S A N G E L E S /
COUNTY
72 �`' ` I � 60 ■ 83 ��
L♦
r ♦
r
I
i I ♦
R
66 �JIZRR-L
Ii
\\\ ORANGE COUNTY `♦` �_
\ 55 J*
A \ 133 © 4 ,
C L
i
0 ♦
\
0 2% 5
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department fHousing and Community Development,
"FamilyStatus_Tract _2015_19."
Map date: December14, 2021. 78
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
De,o`o Plxa"`n, GP-- Figure 7: Female -Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present - Regional A 1..,�.111,. PI.��.�i�R, Il..lg�., �1 Pi�.ir"��i�...�.tal Fln" ■■■■■
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
0 Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-190 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
3' LAKE SKINNER
79 MURRIETA
.Q0 o . o I
�jj,, t (
is oh, on
O IF
0 ��
0 00 ; o
i
00 0p0 0
60 TEMECULA
.�, o (90
9 �
:00
`?01, Qt
o
.p� t o (58 Oo r -
0 � W0 0
r
I �
I Riverside County
I
San Diego County-------------------------1
L —
15 Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"Disab ilityPop ula tion_Tract_ 2015_ 19. "
Map date: December 14, 2021.
VAIL LAKE
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Population with a
Disability
40%
De,o`o Plxe"`n, "'' E-I ■■■ Figure 8: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract A 1..,�.111,. PI.��..i-K, II..Ig�.,..i��I Pi�.ir���i�...�.tal Fln�
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-192 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
W� 330
/ 18
► ■a LIM
/ ■ rd 10 ra 59
oa�,r / SA N B
LOS A N G E L E S 66 yW1� ��� r1 ss -
COUNTY / I P ■ �:.� 'r "
�.tw Ns
so
600
rrJ 91 �}
L
r
1 �'; zz ♦♦� RIVERS IDE COU NT
61 \ ORANGE COUNTY
�� 74
Cl L
IL i
0 \►
♦
(A),
s
o z% s 2 \\\
-16
Miles \
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department fHousing and Community Development, \
'DisabilityPopulation_Tract _2015_19." \
Map date: December 14, 2021. \ 78
De,o`oPlae "-G1--iF Figure 9: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - Regional A 1..,�.111,. Pl.��.�i�R, nP.I���, rl Pi�.�r"��i�...�.tal Fin" ■■■■■
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-194 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
o v=
Miles
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau's America
Community Survey (ACS) 2015-20",
estimates, Table(s) 801001.
Map date: December 14, 2021.
Dv No Plxu ug Gr ,up ■■.■■
'b
O•
i
o
- 0 .� 0
O O
`•.
0 ® • •
00 P °; 0 1
000 O �
0 TEMECULA `�� �•,
00 CPO
600C& •�
00 $ 0 i
a • qR QD O,•
000wo 0 �g
i �•
o O I
1 �•\O % •�, .� �O' •.
...._..----------------------------
1 Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income •
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Population At or
Over Age 65
_ 30%
No Data
Figure 10: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-196 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
i
L O S AN G E L E S
!-
COUNTYr'�
164 i
A
� c
330
47 U SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
----------�I
R IV E R S I D E C O U NTY
�74J
`7 J
►, � _
7 � 10k*k 371
MEOWS
Legend
/
/ t
LI
`
City of Temecula
L _ Riverside County
``
♦f.
----------------— — —
L _ Surrounding County
0 `
T+"
Percent of Population At or
Over Age 65
- 30%
Community Survey (ACS/2015-2019
5-yearestimates, rotrle(s/ 801001. v-r, '` No Data
Map date: December14, 2021. '
Pi- P'xa"`n, --F Figure 11: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract - Regional al.,,�,111,. PI.��.�i�R, Il..lg�., �1 Pi�.ir���i�...�.ta Fln� I�I•I•I•■
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
0 Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-198 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
i
ic
1 O 0 U t
O p O (0 C
O00 O
60 p 00 O
O
TEMECULA
O ,q t
pp0' 9 00 t
��ppn
275a p O
oo � � 8 0 �'.
g p 00
., �•
�o 0 9$ 0 i
•�•�•�• 00 I
_ .I �.._.._..j
I
County
---- ..........................
County
Ago
i.
VAIL LAKE
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Median Income by Block
---� Group
L _
$125,000
87.100 is the HCD State Median Income
`i
D e. Noco Plxu ,ng Group
A I.. dTT— Pi.,,.•i•g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir-- Fines M■■■■
Figure 12: Median Household Income by Block Group
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-200 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
It
11''`' �■ '!! r i1 lit ' ss
L O S A N G E I� L_/ COUNTY'
i � so rat
83 72 1 �,
r
39 57 14
e! 90 ^ — —
�■ 71
1 — 91 a
s �
61 0
0 2•i 5 2
Miles�
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"Medianincome_ BlockGrp_2015_19."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np
A 1.. dTT- Pi,,,.i.g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir .- gin" ■■■■■
* '$ (2�
� a %7 T.y t SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
r ■
-- :r---- ■ `� -----------------^—`s---------
-------i -- ----- -----� _
r y
Md
r ,r
1243
RIVERSIDE COUNTY . 4V:
`74J
1 ® A 79) "
U
--------------------------
JporSAN DIEGO COUNTY
\\\ 76
\\ VJ
\ r
\ r
l
Legend
City of Temecula
L9 Riverside County
L� Surrounding County
Median Income by Block
Group
$125,000
No Data
\A 78 _ - �" '87,f00 is the HCDState Median Income
Figure 13: Median Household Income by Block Group - Regional
This t,aQe intentionally left blank
I
■
■
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-202 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
PIK
WILDOMAR
LAKE SKINNER
MURRIETA
EPA
i I 4
�O 0 0 is Oh, To
• O IF
°O O00 1
O � o �°
TEMECULA
.�.'` . ®� CPO
°10 o O
qB CD O 04,
.
NQ 9 O
O 00 CC) p O
I j '
I I
Riverside County
San Diego County-----------------------�
1 Sources: A FFHData and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Comm unify Development,
'. WousimiCholceVoucher_ Tract"
Map date: December14, 2021.
E
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Housing Choice Vouchers
as a Percent of Renter
Occupied Housing Units
_ 60a/ - 100a/ _
30a/ - 60a/
15a/ - 30a/
5a/ - 15e/
0-5e/
No Data
De.No Plxu 'ng Gr p
A T—d II,. Pi,,,.i-g,—g,., d P,,.;.�,,,,..�...,� L ■■■ m. Figure 14 : Housing Choice Vouchers
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-204 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
(R/ECAP)
To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RLECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract -based definition of RLECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: RLECAPs must have a non -white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a RIECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City. Further analysis using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments R/ECAP GIS mapping tool confirms that all census tracts within Temecula have a R/ECAP value of 0, indicating that the census tracts within the City do not meet the defined parameters for a racially or ethnically concentrated area of poverty as defined by HUD.
Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate that from 2010 to 2018, the City of Temecula has overall increased in diversity, and has had several census tracts increase the percentage of non -white population. Several census tracts located along 1-15 freeway increased the non -white population from 41-60% to 61-80%, and includes multiple potential housing sites.
The most dramatic increase was the southwestern portion of the City, which increased from 21-40% to 61-80%. However, there are very few potential housing sites in that area of the City. As seen in Figures 17 and 18, this change from 2010 to 2018 is consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions, including the cities of Murrieta and Wildomar.
In western Riverside County, R/ECAPs have been identified in unincorporated Riverside County north of Lake Elsinore, and the cities of Hemet, Moreno Valley and Riverside. The County Al found that a majority of the population in these R/ECAPS are Hispanic residents (72.3%). Figures 17 and 18 show that central western Riverside County has significantly increased in racial concentration from 2010 to 2018.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-205
Racially/Concentrated Areas of Affluence
According to the Housing and Community Development AFFH Guidance Memo, "segregation is a continuum, with polarity between race, poverty, and affluence, which can be a direct product of the same policies and practices". Therefore, both sides of the continuum must be examined. While HCD does not have a standard definition for Racially/Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs., looking at the percentage of the White population and median household income can provide a good indicator for areas of affluence.
In addition to R/ECAPs utilized b HUD, scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the RCAAs metric to more fully tell the story of segregation in the United States'.
RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national the median household income in 2016). Table 7147- looks at the median household incomes of white residents in Temecula as well as the County as a whole. While there are two census block groups with a median household income of $125,000 or more in the City (see Figure 12), there are no block groups in the City that have a population that is 80 percent or more white. As such, there are no RCAAs located in Temecula.
The City of Temecula incorporated in 1989, as a master -planned community, the founders of Temecula set forth a vision where single- family and multifamily uses could coexist in a cohesive diverse community. Allowing for different development opportunities to serve the needs of different household sizes and incomes was an important factor in Temecula's early planning efforts. In the late 80s, early/late 90's and late 2000s. ftna ear'-- 90% Temecula was an affordable housing option when costs were rising in Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties. The City has not identified any local past policies, practices, or investments since the City's incorporation that would contribute to racially/concentrated areas of poverty or affluence. The City has always prided itself on providing attainable housing options in a region where housing costs continue to rise.
Table 7167: Median Household Incomes
Median Household Incomes
Temecula
Riverside County
White households
$91,725
$66,754
All households
$90,964
$63,948
% of white population
75%
65.5%
3 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. 2019. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. Cityscape: A journal of Policy Development and Research, Volume 21(1) [pages 99-124]. Available at:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscl2e/vol2lnuml /ch4.pdf
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-206 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
-- --3' LAKE SKINNER
79 MURRIETA
coo of
��jj..,, v
YOS 00� is Oh, , 0
O
O
00 0 0 '
00 000 O
O 0 (b® 0
TEMECULA ;�7
` o ®e (:Po
7 0
00 '\oP1:�
$ � 0 i
�Oo 0 � m 0
'•.
00 ac) 0 0
.`� O t4w4t 0
..—'
I
I
San Diego County--------------
0 Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"ReceDemographics_ SlockGrp_2010."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
VAIL LAKE
Legend
jCity of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
— — — — — - 1 I Percent of Total Non -White
L— Population
_ 81 - 100%
_ 61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
D e. No .■■■■ Plxu 'ug Gr up
A Lnd II,. Pi---. g�., dn,.;.",,,,,.�...,�i. Figure 15: Racial Demographics 2010
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-208 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
MURRIETA
"i
k, -
0 Y= 1
LMiles
Soure,:AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
artment of Housingand Community Deelopment,
ceDemographir,s_ BlockGrp_2018. "
Moa021.
D e. Novo Plae,ng G—p
AI..,,d TTPi.,,,.i�.g, Il..ig�., A n,.irnal Pin" LL 000 -w
VAIL LAKE
Legend
City of Temecula
•� _ _� Other Incorporated Area
pp j --
�'.` •— County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
`p- Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
--------"I Percent of Total Non -White
�— Population
_ 81 - 100%
— 61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40°%
0 - 20%
Figure 16: Racial Demographics 2018
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
El
0 Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-210 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
"2 1
r Rw —
� 10
OPS ,4NGELES �F j
, �0 U N T Y zr
1sIV
60 ■ 83 .. .. �I
72 ��
39 57
142 \
90 --
71 330
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
s2
--- — ----� m -j----------------------------
1 � i
22 RIVEIRDIE COU N T Y
4 \\\ ■ ■ 1% • 41 1 ® 79
\\ ® O APR A N � C O U N T Y ���`
� I �
i _Q `•`
0 \I
\\ S
0 2% s \\
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California `
Department fHousing and Community Development, \
"RoceDemogrophics_BlockGrp_2010." \ lox
l ..
Map date: December 14, 2021.Aff
\ 78
1 43
371
M1-------------------
ti
NTY
Legend
City of Temecula
L _ Riverside County
L_ Surrounding County
Percent of Total Non -White
Population
= 81-100°/
_ 61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
D, N.co Plxuniug Gro np
AT,,,d, .i.g.R,dn,. m.■■■■■
Figure
7: Racial Demographics 2010 - Regional
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-213
za7
N BERNARDINO COUNTY
--- --------I I
i
\� 41
N T Y
74/
1�
\`
c,
L
IL
I
O C O U N T Y 7s
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department fHousing and Community Development,
"RaceDemographics_ BlockGrp_2018. "
Map date: December 14, 2021.
Legend
City of Temecula
LRiverside County
Surrounding County
Percent of Total Non -White
Population
- 81 - 100%
_ 61 - 80%
- 41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
D e. No Plxu ug Gr np ■■■■■ co n� o
A T,,,d, .i.g.�..,R,,.,,,dn,. i,,"Figure 18: Racial De m o g r a p I c s 2018 - Regiona
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-215
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
HUD developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident's access to keyopportunity assets in the City. Table 7268 provides the index scores ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exbosure to Bove in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high - performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system duality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market
engagement index provides a summary description of the
relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based on the level of employ, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force bartici�ation and human La
ptal in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three -person single -parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core -Based Statistical Area (CBSA))The higher the transit trios index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize publictransit.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-216 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following descriVtion: a three -Verson single-12arent family income at 50% of the median income for renters for the
region/CBSA. The higher the index, the loaner the cost of traLoortation in that neighborhood.
• jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to embloyment obtortunities-for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes 12otential exposure to harmful toxins at a
neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental qualiiy of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block grout.
01212ortunity indicators were obtained for Temecula from the HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing GIS tool. Table 7268 identifies the opportunity indicators by race and ethnicity for the total population of Temecula and Riverside County.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-217
Table 7268: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
Population
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transport.
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environ-
mental
Health
Index
Index
Cost Index
Temecula
Total Population
White
77.09 68.11
51.86 43.35
34.97 47.19
42.26 Black
73.35 68.27
49.24 43.18
37.57 50.70
42.02 Hispanic
71.54 66.04
49.09 46.06
38.56 54.21
41.00 Asian or Pacific
76.66 69.97
49.79 42.76
36.53 46.91
42.94 Islander
Native
American
76.34 69.63
50.94 43.92
33.70 42.56
44.83 Population below federal poverty line
White
71.44 66.63
49.45 47.49
39.32 53.81
41.48 Black
66.61 65.92
48.93 44.32
44.20 54.80
40.01 Hispanic
68.62 67.03
50.04 49.97
41.96 53.88
40.50 Asian or Pacific
57.08 64.40
43.25 55.32
46.87 66.14
39.17 Islander
Native
American
77.90 76.30
49.22 35.88
30.42 27.59
47.35 Riverside County
Total Population
White
50.83 46.43
33.94 48.57
42.13 45.92
48.02 Black
41.38 35.44
26.46 53.65
45.13 45.67
38.89 Hispanic
36.39 33.26
24.37 55.76
46.31 46.90
37.84 Asian or Pacific
58.83 51.51
42.31 55.92
42.65 53.56
35.12 Islander
Native
American
39.48 35.90
24.58 47.70
43.26 43.36
49.90 Population below federal poverty line
White
37.75 37.30
25.07 48.70
45.70 43.28
51.53 Black
26.43 25.68
16.85 53.16
48.28 41.83
42.21 Hispanic
24.29 26.74
16.85 57.51
49.70 45.50
39.29 Asian or Pacific
41.94 35.76
29.56 58.72
49.53 57.38
34.87 Islander
Native
American
29.25 30.43
19.72 50.03
46.34 44.62
44.78 Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing fAFFH) Database. 2020.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-218 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Regional Opportunity Index
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, N.A. partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help understand social and economic opportunity in California's communities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI integrates a variety of data topics, including education, economic development, housing, mobility, health/environment, and civic life, and "maps" areas of potential investment by identifying specific areas of urgent need and opportunity. The ROI relies on many of the same data sources analyzed in the Housing Element, including the American Community Survey (ACS), the Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data, the California Department of Education, the California Department of Public Health, among others (data points are from 2014).
There are two ROI "maps"; the "people" ROI illustrates the relative measure of the people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life) while the "place" ROI illustrates the relative measure of a place's assets in those same categories. The tool analyzes different specific indicators for each of the six data topics, as summarized in Table 65-73
Table 46573469: Overview of ROI Data Point Indicators
People -Based Data Points
Place -Based Data Points
Education
Elementary School Truancy
High School Discipline rate
• English Proficiency
Teacher Experience
• Math Proficiency
UC/CSU Eligible
• College Educated Adults
High School Graduation Rate
Economic Development
Minimum Basic Income
Bank Accessibility
• Employment Rate
Job Quality
• Job Growth
• Job Availability
Housing
Housing Cost Burden
Housing Affordability
• Homeownership
Housing Adequacy
Mobility
Internet Access
N/A
• Commute Time
• Vehicle Availability
Health/Environment
Years of Life Lost
Air Quality
• Births to Teens
Health Care Availability
• Infant Health
Access to Supermarket
• Prenatal Care
Civic Life
English Speakers
Neighborhood Stability
• Voting Rates
US Citizenship
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-219
As shown in Figures 193 through 22 ,
Temecula has a range of opportunity levels throughout the community with slight differences between the relative measure of people -based assets versus placed -based assets, with place -based opportunities scoring slightly better than people -based opportunities. This pattern is similar to the surrounding cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. In general, most census tracts are shown to have average (yellow) to high (green) levels of opportunity, which indicates positive access to opportunities across the six data topics. However, in terms of people's assets, there are three census tracts which indicate lower levels of opportunity (shown in orange), and in terms of the place's assets, there is one census tract (which also includes areas outside of the City boundary) which indicates a lower level of opportunity (shown in orange). The higher and lower levels of opportunity for these three census tracts, by indicator, are summarized in Table 66-74 .
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-220 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR 14W 79
+ URRIETA
............... oi
4 8
0 °
0. o Qa
o e o o !
i
° 0 ° eg 0
i pO °
i �00 0 0 0" 0
° TEMECULA
0 CPO
pOc�q 00
•` og 0 8
b 0 .��.•
00 CO 6 0
�o o 96$ o i
0 00
I I '
Riverside County
L--------- ..........................
San Diego County
M07 io
Miles
Sauwces: UCavis Center far Regions hang,/
Ploc,wo,ks 2021 (Original data sq&df om:
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Regional Opportunity
- Highest Opportunity
Lowest Opportunity
°". ln� .irF P''°"`n, `�" A 1...,d TT- PI.�,..i.K, n..Ig�I Pi��..tal ■■NE■ Figure 19: People -Based Opportunities by Census Tract �.,..i����..
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
0 0
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-222 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
J
F,
O _4�"`E C
A
C�
O
0 0 2'/ 5
Miles�
Sources: UC Davis Centerf r Regional Change/
Placeworks2021 (Original data sourcedfom:
https.Ilinteract.regionalchange.ucdavis.eduulroildata.htmi).
Map date: December14, 2021.
D e. No ���i�..on in
Plxu ,ug Gr np
A 1..,,dTT1 PI.`, i.g, Il..ig�., A n,.irs ■■■■■
R I V
C
371
'— —--------------------
SAN D I EGO COU NTY 7s
76 -
�� 76
_ Lowest Opportunity
o t F
�W, 41111, No Data
78 Figure 20: People -Based Opportunities by Census Tract - Regional Legend
City of Temecula
L _ Riverside County
Surrounding County
Regional Opportunity
= Highest Opportunity
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
El
0 Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-224 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
j .O • o II
+�•'a % �'�08 O(sO Oopq
IP O Qi-
O O
O O p
OO ° O
°p0 O �
TEMECULA °
o Q�
8 00� 00
°° CAB b ° °
° 00 CO o �9
�o CS
I
I- .............
..-..-..-..-
Miles
Sources: UC Davis Centerf r Regional
Placeworks2021 (Originaldatosourc
https.Ilin teract.regionakhange. ucdol
Map date: Decenrber14, 2021.
D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np
A I..,,d TT- PI.`,.i•g, Il..ig�., A n,.ir.on m. C[ ■■■
Figure 21: Place -Based Opportunities by Census Tract
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-226 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
pX r
WUO
66Pq
Y "LIM. Im
}�
16 f
60 ILL
83 —
72 39 57 142 \\ ` — �W
9010
\
s
r
ll■
'•R.
_ a I I
E C
1 `
55 — 73
A 133
O�
Sources: UC Davis Centerf r Regional Change/
Placeworks2021 (Original data sourcedfom:
https.Ilinteract.regionalchange.ucdavis.eduulroildata.htmi).
Map date: December14, 2021.
D e. No ���i�..on in
Plxu ,ug Gr np
A 1..,,dTT,. PI.`, i.g, Il.,ig�., A n,.irs ■■■■■
330
f
7 DINO COUNTY
t r
IdIIIIM
Sk
� 371
Legend
WE I M, City of Temecula
---------------------------
\` is ��tiitr .f. �..(i� •y r k L _ Riverside County
Surrounding County
\\\ ' i( Regional Opportunity f
��
S A N D I E G O C O U N T Y Highest Opportunity ,
\ S 1•�, 76 ••S
jlr Lowest Opportunity
�\ No Data
MffW
\\ 78
Figure 22: Place -Based Opportunities by Census Tract - Regional
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-228 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Description
Regional Opportunity Index: People, 2014
me R1Ito„It, mdex(ROO: P-pie �s a
,eiarwe meas�,e of veovies ages ��
me e�o�omv. no�s��e. mon�r�tvma�svortano�,
neanve�uno�me�t aid ��um me.
n
i .
rme,d
Regional Opportunity Index: People
❑ Some data not available
Lowest Opportunity
El
®
N
Highest Opportunity
r
IN1e a r„ ° m' UC DAV IS
2 4 8
LnNe—f—.eaw,od CENTER ii REGIONAL CHANGE
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-229
Regional Opportunity Index: Place, 2014
Description
me R (RoO: Pi— �: a
�eiarwe meas��e of a� area s agev �� ea��auo�.
me e�o�omv. no�s��e. mon�r�rvma�svortano�,
neanv----t. aid me.
14 Lme,a
Regional Opportunity Index: Place
❑ Some data not available
Lowest Opportunity -
El
Highest Opportunity
caie:a7W—u mi UC DAVIS
2 4 8
ttPs:u �a«.e�a ak tee. s.eawod CENTER ii REGIONAL CHANGE
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-230 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 66740: People -Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low and Lowest Opportunity Census Tracts, Temecula
Census Tract
Opportunity
Average or Higher
Lower Opportunities
Level
Opportunities
06065043216
Low
Health/Environment
Civic Life
Opportunity
Mobility/Transportation
Housing
• Economy
• Education
06065043266
Low
Health/Environment
Civic Life
Opportunity
Mobility/Transportation
Housing
• Economy
• Education
06065043220
Low
Health/Environment
Civic Life
Opportunity
Mobility/Transportation
Housing
• Economy
• Education
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, 2021 (using 2014 data points) Table 7567: Place -Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low Opportunity Census Tract, Temecula Census Tract
Opportunity
Average or Higher
Lower Opportunities
(Place)
Level
Opportunities
06065043254
Low
Civic Life
Health/Environment
Opportunity
Housing
• Economy
• Education
06065043252
Lowest
Civic Life
Health/Environment
ormortunitv
Housing
Economy
• Education
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, 2020 (using 2014 data points) The results of this analysis indicate that for those census tracts with lower -levels of people -based opportunities, the most significant issues revolve around civic life (lower levels of English speakers and voting rates), housing (lower levels of homeownership and higher cost burdens), the economy (households making the minimum basic income and low employment rates), and education (math proficiency).
When considering place -based opportunities, which the City arguably has more control over, the City of Temecula fares very well, and only one census tract has a low level of place -based opportunity as described above. For both census tracts with lower levels of opportunity (which are both located along the City's boundary) there appears to be limited access to supermarkets, and, to a lesser extent, health care.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-231
2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map
Additionally, the Department of Housing and Community
Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence -based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer ielow-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
According to the Task Force's methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the "Highest Resource" designation and the next 20 percent to the "High Resource" designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as "Highest" or "High" resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision -makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests glow -income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live —but might, if given the choice. The remaining tracts are then evenly divided into "Low Resources" and "Moderate Resource". Table 761 identifies resource levels by census tract and the corresponding_ scores for economic education, and environmental indicator scores. As shown in Figure 523, the majority of Temecula is classified as the "high" or "highest" resource designation, one census tract (east of I-15 and Old Town) is identified as "moderate".
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-232 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 764: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract
Census Tract
060650-
Resource Level
Economic
Score
Education
Score
Environmental
Score
512.00
High
95 64
34 432.54
Highest
70 91
65 432.52
Highest
89 94
93 496.00
High
73 80
47 505.00
Highest
71 87
55 432.16
High
64 55
55 432.66
High
53 43
85 432.20
Moderate
54 42
73 432.22
High
62 64
65 432.50
Highest
80 94
74 432.17
Highest
75 83
82 432.18
Highest
79 83
94 432.67
Highest
78 81
93 432.62
High
74 72
85 432.64
Highest
81 88
91 432.65
Highest
80 93
86 432.46
Highest
84 89
88 432.56
Highest
64 94
82 432.57
Highest
48 89
75 432.44
Highest
95 88
53 432.47
Highest
90 90
33 432.48
Highest
83 93
85 Source: 2021 TCACHCD Opportunity Map, https://belonging.berkeley.edul2021-tcac-opportunity-maw The three census tracts that had low neonle-based onoortunities (Table 7A also scored lower than the rest of the City on opportunity resource levels (Table 764-). The three census tracts are located in central Temecula, east of the I-15 freeway. Table 772 shows a more detailed look at the three lower resource census tracts.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-233
Table 772: Lower Resource Census Tract
Census Tract
Census Tract
Census Tract
Census Tract
432.16
432.66
432.20
Race/Ethnicity
White
55.2%
28.4%
45.7%
Black
4.5%
7.3%
4.7%
Asian
6.0%
9.8%
8.2%
Hispanic
31.2%
44.0%
38.9%
• of Population in Poverty
9.1 %
15.0%
18.2%
• of Population that is Disabled
7.6%
7.8%
11.7%
• of Households in Renter-
66.9%
72.2%
72.7%
Occupied Housing Units
Overcrowding
8.2%
4.6%
12.9%
Overpayment
Renters
53.9%
53.9%
49.1 %
Owners
7.9%
0.0%
16.8%
Source: Cali%rnia Department oiHousing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resources.
As shown in Fi--ure 24. the Citv of Temecula has a higher onnortuni index than most of Riverside County. There are other areas of high opportunity index in the San -Jacinto/Palm Desert area and the areas surrounding Corona, with areas of lower opportunity index located around the cities of Hemet, Banning, Perris, Moreno Valley and eastern Riverside County. Many of the areas of low opportunity index in Riverside County are also areas with a Hispanic majority population.
Education
As shown in Table 764- above. the overall education opportunity scores in Temecula range from 42 to 94. Generally, eastern and southern census tracts in the City have more positive education outcomes. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) local profile of Temecula shows that the K-12 public school enrollment in the City increased by 66.2% between 2000 and 2018. With approximately 29,121 students enrolled in 2018, Temecula's student population comprised 6.8% of the County's total.
The Citv of Temecula is served by the Temecula Vallev Unified School District. According to the California Department of Education's California School Dashboard, the District has approximately 27,992 students. The ethnic/racial make-up is: 33.7% Hispanic, 42.5% White,
4.3% Asian, 3.4% African American, 4.9% Filipino, 0.3% Pacific Islander, and 10.2% two or more races. A total of 28.9% of the District's students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. 5.7% are English learners and 14% are students with disabilities. The District has a graduation rate of 91.9%.
The City has one Title 1 school(Temecula Elementary School' in the northern end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 400Lof
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-234 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
the children participate in a free or reduced lunch nroaam. The school is located in one of the City's CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title 1 Middle Schools or High Schools in the City.
The school district has a nolicv that parents can transfer their children from school to school subject to availability. Parents would be responsible for providing transi2ortation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their Place of residence.
Economic
As shown in Table 7647above. the overall economic scores in Temecula range from 48 to 95. Generally, central Temecula's economic scores are slightly lower than eastern and western Temecula. Figure 25 shows the job proximity index for the City. The areas surrounding the I-15 freeway have a higher job proximity index than eastern Temecula.
The SCAG local profile of Temecula list 56,995 total jobs in Temecula in 2017, which was an increase of 18% from 2007. The profile also stated that the mean travel time was 34.9 minutes compared to 33.1 minutes for the County.
Environmental
As shown in Table 764- above, the overall environmental scores in Temecula range from 33 to 94. The census tracts in closest proximity to the I-15 freeway have lower scores than other areas of the City.
Transportation
As shown in Table 7268, the transit index score ranges from 35.88 to
55.32 and the low transportation cost index score ranges from 30.42 to
46.87. Scores for Riverside County are slightly higher, with the transit index score ranging from 47.70 to 58.72 and the low transportation cost index score ranging from 42.13 to 49.70 for the County. All Transit, an online resource for transit connectivity, access and frequency, explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, sl2ecifically looking at the economy, equity, health transit duality and mobility network. According to All Transit, the City of Temecula has a score of 2.0 out of 10, with a score of 10 being high connectivity, access to jobs and frequency of service. This is consistent with other jurisdictions in the area, including the cities of Murrieta (2.6) , and Wildomar (1.9). It is slightly lower than the Riverside County score of 3.3.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-235
Other Access to Opportunity Indicators
As part of its 2017 Assessment, the City also evaluated any disparities in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status.
The City does not have jurisdiction over the local schools. They are administered by independent public school districts, such as the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Table 12 in the 2017 Assessment, —Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity, provides an index regarding how well fourth graders of the various racial and ethnic groups are doing on their State exams in comparison with national indices. Higher scores indicate higher proficiencies in the schools.
According to Table 12, the school proficiency index is essentially the same for all races and ethnic groups in the City. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest, Hispanics scored 79.00, Blacks at 80.36, Native Americans at 80.86, Asians at 81.58 and Whites at 82.20. In comparison, the region scored between 40.97 for Hispanics on the low end and 58.09 for Whites on the high end.
:_ _ r.__ _�____� i____i_ _._ ___ ri__ a_ _I
The City also previously evaluated any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups. The Jobs Proximity Index in Table 12-Opportunity Indicators provides an index for the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by race/ethnicity. The Labor Market Index also in Table 12 provides a measure of unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The higher scores represent greater the access to employment opportunities, and are better prepared to enter the labor market with higher incomes.
According to the Map 10 in the 2017 Assessment series for job Proximities, persons in the lower -income areas live substantially closer to employment opportunities than their counterparts in the higher - income areas, often located farther away from the Interstate. Again, CiTY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-236 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
there was little difference between racial and ethnic groups or national origin according to Map 10 and Table 12 for Job Proximity.
The Labor Market Index for the various races and ethnicities range from 46.38 for Native Americans to 49.79 for Whites. These scores, which are based on a scale from 1 to 100, would be in the average range based on HUD's perspective nationwide. There was no difference in the Labor Market Index when considering- the City as a whole and those below the poverty line. In fact, all races except Asians who were below the poverty line had slightly higher scores than those above the poverty level. They ranged between 44.15 for Asians and 51.31 for Blacks with Whites at 48.79.
When compared with the region, the City residents scored much higher. The region ranged from 24.20 for Hispanics to 43.02 for Asians and unlike the City, there was a substantial difference for those below the poverty line. They ranged from 16.42 for Hispanics to 30.51 for Asians. Whites were at 25.55. Although some classes are available locally, the lack of a community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency.
However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula, including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas in the region have notably higher ratings such as in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west.
The Low Poverty Index rates family poverty by household (based on the federal poverty line) and provides an index regarding the access to poverty by census tract. The higher the scores, the less likely a neighborhood is exposed to poverty. There was little difference between the various ethnic and racial groups. Indices ranged from
65.42 for Hispanics to 71.23 for Whites, which indicates that all racial and ethnic groups have low exposure to poverty in Temecula. Except for Asians, there was little difference between those below the poverty line. They ranged for 54.98 for Blacks to 67.95 for Native Americans.
The only anomaly was for Asians at 46.21 who were more exposed to poverty than their counterparts. This could be reflective of recent Filipino immigrants which now constitute over 3% of the City's population and 40% are limited English speaking according to Table 1.
Though a small minority group, there are a number living in a low income area. Again, there was a substantial difference between the City residents and those within the region. In the region, the range was between 37.51 for Hispanics to 60.42 for Asians. For those below the poverty line, there was even a larger difference. They ranged from 23.78
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-237
for Hispanics to 42.30 for Asians. City residents have less exposure to poverty than the region as a whole.
According to Map 14 in the 2017 Assessment, -Demographics and Poverty, there were three adjoining census tracts in north Temecula that had low scores indicating a higher exposure to poverty. Three of the census tracts are CDBG eligible lower -income areas, but one of the adjoining areas is not, yet affected by its exposure to poverty. Another adjoining area is an eligible CDBG area but did not indicate a high exposure to poverty. The area has a number of market -rate and subsidized apartment complexes in the vicinity of the Temecula Elementary School, which may be affecting this index score. The corridor also contains many of the City's commercial shopping centers.
Summary of Access to Opportunity
The vast majority of Temecula residents enjoy a consistent level of access to opportunities.
Analysis of the HUD -provided maps and data did not reveal any overarching patterns of poor access to opportunity and did not reveal adverse community factors. However, Census Tract 432.16 along the Margarita Corridor, is identified on Map 14 in the 2017 Assessment as having high exposure to poverty. The City will continue to tetsupport low income census tracts with Capital Improvements (over $300,000) in ADA implements approved in 2020, alone. The City also utilizes residential rehab programs through Habitat for Humanity, as described in Program 22. Through implementation of Program 28, a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel, the Citv Will continue to reinforce its CDBG programs to focus on these areas.
Two of the three block groups are in CDBG-eligible areas and the third is not. Yet the HUD data indicates that the third block group also has a high exposure to poverty. The only Title 1 School in the district is located in this neighborhood. The area is characterized by commercial retail and uses and the presences of a mix of multifamily and single €asingle-family housing. Two of the multi -family complexes in one of the block groups are subsidized, the 40-unit Oak Tree Apartments on Lyndie Lane and the 55 55-unit Rancho California Apartments off of Margarita Road. There are a number of subsidized units west of I-state-15, which is a CDBG eligible area, but that area does not have a high exposure factor. This could be partly because the City has focused its CDBG and local funds in addressing this area.
The City does not show any patterns of segregation, nor does it have any R/ECAPS.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD - provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to
CITY OF I EMLCULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-238 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
The City is involved in a number of efforts aimed at improving air quality of the entire region including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Clean Cities Coalition, which aims to reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels. The City also participates in WRCOG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program.
The TUMF program makes improvements to the regional
transportation system and provides transportation demand management through funds from new development.
IN
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-239
This page intentionally de t blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-240 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
LDD
1 MURRI
I
4o O o
Vo
:)08 °°g 8 °, 2
0 ° °
° 0 0
°° 000 ° �
0 0 Om 0 •�
° TEMECULA �,,.•y
0 lz( •..,
R pOOD& N
1 I
� I
Riverside County
t--------- .......................... -
San Diego County
0 v= 1
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"TCAC_ OpportunityAreas_Tract _2021."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
owl-
D Plae eg Gr np
d n,■■■■■
`. O.R.II..Ig,., •.ir�„i,..- In"
g 00
0 2i 0 i
O o•• .�
6$8b,,° oo r
0 000 0:) O 99
�..
O O I
O
Legend
jCity of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Opportunity Areas
- Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource (Rapidly
Changing)
- Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation and Poverty
Missing or Insufficient Data
Figure 23: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-242 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
;n�
or
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
66 i
r I 90 \
,1 \
i7
A
0 2% 5
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department fHousing and Community Development,
"TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract _ 2021."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
H
18 330Wr
247
38 259
- 66 SAN BE RNARDI NO COUNTY
62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------I---------------.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Legend
City of Temecula
L _ Riverside County
Surrounding County
Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource
High Resource
79 Moderate Resource (Rapidly
Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation and Poverty
Missing or Insufficient Data
.l g n, G' F ■■■■■ Figure 24: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas - Regional A 1..,�.111,. PI. `. OAR. II..Ig�., ,.I IL�.ir"��i�..o.tal In"
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-244 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
C-D. Disproportionate Housing Need
HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for housing for different groups in the community. A disproportionately _�
greater burden exists when the members of a particular group experience a housingproblem at a greater rate (90 percent or morel than the groom as a whole.
,
(wkieh are The four HUD -designated housing problems
include when a 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities-, 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3) household is overcrowded, and 4) household is cost burdened. Households are considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of the above. Table 738 summarizes the demographics of households with disproportionate housing needs in the City and County. As shown in Table 738, Temecula has a lower percentage of residents experiencing housing Vroblems compared to the region. For both the City and the region as a whole, non-White households are more likely to experience at least one of the housing problems than White households.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-245
Table 783: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs Disproportionate
Housing Needs
(Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario,
CA) Region
Households
experiencing any of 4
housing problems
# with
problems
#
households
% with
problems
# with
problems
#
households
% with
problems
Race/Ethnicity
White
7,555
20,520
36.82%
223,865
602,650
37.15%
Black
725
1,495
48.49%
55,330
100,005
55.33%
Hispanic
3,545
6,910
51.30%
277,845
509,940
54.49%
Asian or Pacific Islander
1,160
3,025
38.35%
35,970
81,445
44.16%
Native American
90 159
56.60%
2,665
5,119
52.06%
Other, Non -Hispanic
349
829
42.10%
12,245
25,460
48.10%
Total
13,435
32,950
40.77%
607,925
1,324,635
45.89%
Household Type and Size
Family households, <5
7,570
20,900
36.22%
291,945
736,650
39.63%
ep ople
Family households. 5+
2,525
5,555
45.45%
149,095
251,595
59.26%
ep ople
Non -family households
3,335
6,495
51.35%
166,885
336,390
49.61 %
Households
experiencing any of 4
# with
severe
problems
#
households
% with
severe
problems
# with
severe
problems
#
households
% with
severe
problems
Severe Housing
Problems
Race/Ethnicity
White
3,400
20,520
16.57%
112,650
602,650
18.69%
Black
345
1,495
23.08%
33,280
100,005
33.28%
Hispanic
1,885
6,910
27.28%
175,300
509,940
34.38%
Asian or Pacific Islander
610
3,025
20.17%
19,645
81,445
24.12%
Native American
65 159
40.88%
1,660
5,119
32.43%
Other, Non -Hispanic
175
829
21.11%
6,885
25,460
27.04%
Total
6.480
32.950
19.670/6
349,430
1.324.635
26.38%
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing fAFFH) Database. 2020.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-246 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Future Growth Need
The City's future growth need is based on the RHNA production of 1,356 very -low and 801 ,elow-income units within the 2021- 2029 planning period. As discussed throughout this Background Report, both existing and proposed affordable units are well dispersed throughout the community and do not present a geographic barrier to obtaining affordable housing. Appendix A of this Housing Element shows the City's ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City's ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.
Existing Need
As described earlier in this Background Report, the City has a strong history of providing housing for lower -income households in Temecula. Temecula has 759 deed -restricted units, representing approximately 2% of the City's housing stock. The City is proud of meeting the needs of its existing residents but continues to identify and implement meaningful housing programs to expand opportunities for lower -income households throughout Temecula, including by continuing to implement its recently adopted Affordable Housing Overlay and Specific Plans, many of which allow for develop of housing projects at densities of at least 30 du/ac.
Based on the data in the Table 11 in the 2017 Assessment. there are a limited number of Project Based, ection 8 units for families in the City. children. Additional affordable housing units for families continue to be a high demand in the City.
Through its 2017 Assessment. the City identified the availability of affordable units in a range of sizes as a contributing factor of disproportionate housing needs.
Cost Burden
A household is considered cost burdened if the household nays more than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For home owners, housing costs include mortgage paw, taxes, insurance, and utilities. As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, as with most communities. the location of the home is one of the biggest factors with regard to price.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-247
inn
As shown in Table 29 of the Housing Needs
Assessment, 37% of total households in the City of Temecula have a cost burden of j2aying over than 30% for housing. For renter households, a total of 49.9% Fay over 30% of their income for housing_ As shown in Figure 25, these renters on more concentrated in west Temecula, where there are overall a greater concentration of renters versus home owners, compared to east Temecula. This follows the Countyide pattern where overFayment is concentrated in more urban centers, as illustrated in Figure 26. For home owner households, there is a concentration of oveWayment in census tracts 432.20, 432.16, and 432.1, located in central Temecula, east of the I-15 freeway, as illustrated in Figure 27. Countyide, there is an increased concentration of overpayment for homeowners located just outside of City centers see Figure 28).
Overcrowding
Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 persons per room. Table 20 in the Housing Needs Assessment summarizes overcrowding data for Temecula and shows that 2% of owner households are considered overcrowded and 4.7% of renter households. Generally, overcrowding is not an issue in the City.
However, as shown in Figure 29, census tract 432.20 has a higher percentage of overcrowding compared to the rest of the City (12.85%).
As shown in Figure 30, Temecula and the surrounding jurisdictions have a much lower concentration of overcrowding than other jurisdictions in western Riverside County.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-248 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
I
I I
Riverside County '
t---- ---I.._.._.._.._.._.--•--
San Diego County
0 Y 1
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, Cnllfar—
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"Jobs)'t—imitylndex_Block(irp_2014_ 17"
00 0 I
(0� 0
I�
I
e
00 r i•':L
D
t
i'
0 O I
--------------
L —
F] L
VH, AKE
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
LCounty Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Jobs Proximity Index
> 80 (Closest Proximity)
60 - 80
40 - 60
20 - 40
0 - 20 (Furthest Proximity)
°". .—g n, G'up
--F ■■ME■ Figure 25: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group AI..��.I lIa. PI.�,..i.R, Il..lg�., •�1 Pi�.ir���i�...�.•al Fln.
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-250 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
LAKE SKINNER
..._.._.._.._.._..
CCD W0 O O ii
0 O '
O- �I
I
> o j
0O0 O ♦
O �� o ••♦•
TEMECULA ��,.•�
®° ab(a
® ••♦
)O
i
O,.
�0o r �z
0o O-- �•.
6 O
l
♦ RiversideCounty --
San Diego County -----------------------1
L —
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
L_ County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Renter
Households for whom Gross
Rent (Contract Rent Plus
Tenant -Paid Utilities) is 30%
or More of Household
Income
80%
De Novo Plau .g G—up
d n,■■.■■
,.ir���....tal m.
Figure 26: Cost -Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-252 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
i
/ 18 /
,row 66 /
66 IV
PP
16 60
• � # r 83 ■I t
1 �
90 \ Olt
16 \71.
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"Overpayment Tract 2015-19."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
330
47 38 ..._.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
IV F
-------------!---
R I V E R S D E
C O U N T Y
74 C79
�a a
■
I
371
------I-------------------
SAN DIEGO COUNTY 79
Legend
City of Temecula
L _ Riverside County
L_ Surrounding County
Percent of Renter
Households for whom Gross
Rent (Contract Rent Plus
Tenant -Paid Utilities) is 30%
or More of Household
Income
80%
D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np
A 1..,,dTT,. PI.`, i.g, Il.,ig�., A n,.ir .o gin" ■■■■■ Figure 27: Cost -Burdened Renters by Census Tract - Regional
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
0 Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-254 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
MURRIETA
• o O • O
- 0
oh!
. O IF
i
0 ®• •
i
°0 0 1
i o 00 0 •�
!o° ° 0 o o 0a 0
! �
TEMECULA
O !� i
91 O00
.,po �° ° 0•� Legend
o z
O p o o r ��. —
�� O 4�--� �••---i City of Temecula
OO Q oo �O O 79 •� _ _ _ _� Other Incorporated Area
�CS n County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
�• '�__.. Site Suitable for All Income
\\\���\ •�••�••/•f•�•• �� 0 00 �•_ • Levels
\�� •�'•'• 1 '\O' Site Suitable for
\��� ,.�••�• '� '�`' `�, �•� O Moderate/Above Moderate
1 %0._ Income Levels
---- i Percent of Oner
w
Households with Mortgages
Riverside Count whose Monthly Owner Costs
7 are 30 % or More of
I-------y—.--.._.._.._.._.--•--•--.._--------- Household Income San Diego County ---------------
L _ < 20%
© 20 - 40%
— 40 - 60%
u1 ® 60 - 80%
Miles -
, 80%
Sources: A FFH Do to and Mapping Resources, California
Deportment of Housing and Comm unityDevelopment, NO Data "Overpayment Tract 2015-19."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
Pl.e ", G' F L` ■■■ Figure 28: Cost -Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract A I..,�.I lla. P1. `.�.R.Il..lg�., •.I IL�.ir���i�..o.tal Ins
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-256 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
330
18 • 10 259
Ln i ss
38 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
ANG L S --
' foil.LOS COU
II
a
r I 83 I {-------
----- )
I
A
�\
C,
0 2% 5
Miles�
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"Overpayment Tract 2015-19."
Map date: December 14, 2021.
D e. No Plxu ,ug Gr np
A I..,,d 11,. PI.`, i.g, Il.,ig�., A n,.ir .o gin" ■■■■■ O
0 2
ii
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
J)
(7
Legend
371 City of Temecula
L _ Riverside County
i L _ Surrounding County
Percent of Renter
-___________________ Households for whom Gross
Rent (Contract Rent Plus
Tenant -Paid Utilities) is 30%
or More of Household
Income
79 S A EGO COUNTY 80%
No Data
Figure 29: Cost -Burdened Owners by Census Tract - Regional
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
0 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-258 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
--- --3' LAKE SKINNER
79 MURRIETA
tb
'S oh To
®• • •
% 00
0 0 0
i o 00 0
i� o o 'b® 0
i �
TEMECULA ;�7
` o ®e C
00 '\0P1P4 0
�00 0 � � 0
'•.
9 0 .�- r•'
00 CC)0 0 79 •i
.`• O t4w4t 0
.o •_
���\\\\\ •'••'••�,'• p..I' �,. 0 00
I I '
I Riverside County
I
San Diego County-------------------------1
L —
0��
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"OvercrowdedHouseholds_ Tract"and"OvercrowdedHouseholds_Severe _Tract." Map date: December 14, 2021.
VAIL LAKE
Legend
jCity of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income •
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percentage of Households that
are Overcrowded
20%
Dr ■■■■■ Noco Plxuning Group
,,.,..d,,.. --.-x.D..,R,..,,,dn,- r,.," Figure 30: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-260 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Substandard Housing
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the City's housing stock is relatively new with only 7.2% of dwelling units in Temecula having been constructed Prior to 1980. As such, while structural deterioration and maintenance Problems may exist, only a small Portion is likely to require rehabilitation. The City will continue to implement its Residential Improvement Program using CDBG funds to he1P lower -income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing. In comparison, the housing stock in Riverside County is older than the City's. The County Al found that as of 2017, 32.3% of housing was at least 38 years old, with the ority of the housing being developed from 1960 to 2009.
OEM -
RA
._
"IN=1""Im"
r
MORRIS"
- -
----- -- - -
-- - ---------
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-261
DE. Displacement Risk
As previously discussed, there are two deed -restricted affordable projects representing 180 units which can be considered as high risk as converting to market -rate units within the planning period. The City is actively engaged with the property owners of these projects (Rancho Creek Apartments and Rancho West Apartments) to evaluate preservation options. The City also has a number of units which are affordable to lower -income families but are not deed -restricted. As described in Section V of this Background Report, the City plans to accommodate the vast majority of its 2021-2029 RHNA on vacant parcels already zoned for residential development, with a focus on new development in the City's Specific Plan areas (Harveston, Altair, Uptown, and Old Town), which have good access to transit, amenities, and programmed infrastructure improvements. Given that new development is expected to occur on vacant parcels, there is not a significant displacement risk associated with the City's current affordable housing stock. The City has included Program 17 in the Housing Plan to assist in the preservation of at -risk housing units.
There are four census tracts in the City that according to the HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Map, are considered "Sensitive Communities" where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in housing costs. Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as share of very low-income residents is above 20% in 2017 and the tract meets one other criteria related to renters, diversity, and housing burden. As shown in Figure 31, this includes census tracts 512.00, 496.00, 432.16, and 432.20, located in north -central Temecula along the I-15 freeway corridor. There are potential housing sites located in all four census tracts, that would potentially displace existing residents due to redevelopment.
The City recognizes that even though it has identified sufficient vacant land to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels, there is still the potential for economic displacement because of new development and investment. This "knock -on" effect can occur at any time, and it can be challenging for the City to predict market changes and development patterns which have the potential to impact rental rates and sales prices for housing units available in the marketplace. To date, the City has no evidence that new development (affordable or market -rate) has resulted in economic displacement. However, the City appreciates the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-262 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
possibility that economic displacement might occur in the future and has developed Program 24-27 to study and address potential issues related to displacement.
The City has also considered the risk of displacement specifically for protected classes, including persons with disabilities, female -headed households, seniors, and nonwhite residents (as discussed previously throughout Section 3 of this Background Report). The highest levels of persons with disabilities, seniors, and female -headed households are not located in areas where no residential development is planned, and the risk of displacement to these groups (like to the City's lower -income residents) is low. However, some future housing sites are located in areas with high levels of Hispanic and non-Wwhite residents, and these groups appear to be more vulnerable to potential future displacement.
As discussed above, Program 24-27 has been included in the City's Housing Plan to study and address issues related to future displacement, and the City remains committed to maintaining its existing affordable housing stock, which includes deed -restricted affordable units throughout the City, including in the census tracts with high levels of Hispanic and nonwhite residents.
To the extent that future development occurs in areas where there is existing housing, all housing must be replaced according to SB 330's replacement housing provisions (Government Code Section 66300).
SB 330 also provides relocation payments to existing lew4Reennelow- income tenants. The State has also adopted just cause eviction provisions and statewide rent control to protect tenants from displacement.
The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement. Programs 2-2-25, 27, and 284, among others, detail efforts the City will take to engage these communities during the planning period.
Research has shown that low-income renter populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and that housing tenure is a telling determinant of social vulnerability to disasters.
Renters bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage, and their adaptive capacity to cope and recover from the impacts of environmental hazards may be reduced due to systemic inequities and limited resources. As discussed in the Housing Constraints section under Environmental Constraints; Temecula is impacted by various environmental hazards that include active fault traces, liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted regulations that limit development within areas of high risk and/or require design standards that can withstand natural hazards. The City has a1121ied a
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-263
Flood Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of structures within the district. Liquefaction and other seismic -related issues are addressed by the State Universal Building Code BC). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas encroach at the City's western and southern boundaries, encompassing or partially encompassing several large vacant developable parcels including the Altair Specific Plan. As included in the Altair Specific Plan, the project's Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and new development.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-264 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
O � 18 330
O 38 247
59 �
66 r ss SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
y 164 — — — — — ` 62
l
39 57
r
� k1E
RIVERCOUNTY
61 \\\ ' �`®
ORANGE COUNTY ss %
�-� 74
/
I
\ �— ------ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
0 \/
\\ 79
© SAN DIEGO COUNTY
\
0 2% s \
NEEZ30K--3 2 \
MilesSour—\ 76
Deparmento Dataand Mappingumityces,Califrnt, \`` J
Department and Community Development, \
"OvercrowdedHouseholds_ Tract, " and "OvercrowdedHouseholds_Severe _Tract. "
Map date: December 14, 2021. 78
Legend
City of Temecula
L— Riverside County
L— j Surrounding County
Percentage of Households that
are Overcrowded
20%
Percentage of Households
that are Severely
Overcrowded
>0 - 20%
® >20%
Plxa"`n, GP-- ■■■■■ Figure 31: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract - Regional A 1..,�.111,. PI.��.�i�R, II..Ig�.,..i��I Pi�.ir���i�...�.tal Fln�
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
la
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-266 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
E. Assessment of Contributing Factors to
Fair Housing Issues in Temecula
In its 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing, the City identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues in Temecula:
• Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations (Disproportionate Housing Needs)
• High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the community and the region (Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy)
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations (Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and
Resources)
The analysis above regarding other fair housing issues within Temecula yielded the following results:
• The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups that score higher than 60 on the dissimilarity index, indicating that while there are racial and ethnic groups with higher levels of segregation than others within Temecula, none meet the
standard set to identify segregated groups.
• The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPS) as identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within Temecula with a non- white population of 50%pereent=or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the
metropolitan/micropolitan area.
• The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Temecula have average- to high - levels of access to opportunity throughout the majority of the City, with three census tracts showing lower people -based access to opportunity and two census tracts showing lower place -based access to opportunity. Based on the data used to identify opportunity access, the City has varying degrees of ability to influence the trajectory of the indicator (for example, low rates of US citizenship result in a lower opportunity assessment for place -based civic life). The City accommodates a significant portion of its RHNA in areas planned for a mix of uses located in proximity to each other, where new residential
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-267
development can be supported by easy access to goods and services (like supermarkets and financial institutions), and the introduction of new residential development into areas where these challenges exist can expand opportunities for existing residents.
• Analysis of the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps show that most census tracts in Temecula are classified with either the "High Resource", or "Highest Resource" designation, and the remaining one tract is classified as "Moderate Resource". This indicates that the most census tracts designated as "High Resource" or "Highest Resource" are within the top forty percent in the region in terms of areas that lower -income residents may thrive if given the opportunity to live there. • The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community through the designation of sites to meet the very low and low ineo
RHNA need of all income levels (Section 5 of the Background Report) and Programs 1 and 2 address the City's ability to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation and outline the mechanism to ensure continued compliance for the duration of the planning period. Existing deed -restricted affordable units are located throughout the community and new accessory dwelling unit production throughout the City will result in new development affordable to a variety of income levels. The City plans to accommodate its very low and low income RHNA need in key planned growth areas located near transit facilities and adjacent to major infrastructure projects, to ensure adequate access to goods, facilities and jobs, while jobs and housing to be located closer together, thereby reducing vehicle miles travels, improve air quality, and create a more equitable jobs -housing balance.
The relationship between existing affordable units and
comprehensively planned growth on vacant parcels in and outside of Specific Plan areas allows the City to minimize displacement and improve access to opportunities for existing and future residents.
• There are 4-80-256 existing affordable units at -risk of converting to market -rate within the planning period. Program 4-7---20 addresses monitoring and working with partners, as feasible, to preserve at -risk units within the City over the planning period.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-268 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
WILDOMAR
-- --3' LAKE SKINNER
79 MURRIETA
1 00 .0�1
� . 0 0 IF
O 0 0 !
0 0 o re 0
i
00 0p0 0
•'� 0 GO 0 'b® 0 •'`'�
TEMECULA
° ®e C
00 0
CD 0
,N) 0 6BRo0 0o r z
00 6 0 79
•�, , ..� i' .�..J
I I '
I
I Riverside County L — — -- — — — — — �........................... — — — — — — — — — — — SanDiegoCounty -----------------------�
L _
Zk
Miles
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources California
Department of Housing and Community Development,
"YensitiveComm unities_ UCB_ Urban DisplacementProject," PlaceWorks 2021, UCBerkeley Urban Displacement Project. 2021.
D e. Novo Plae ng G-p L� ���
A,.. d11,. Pi--i-g,,l..ig�., ,A n,.ir���i�...�nal m.
VAIL LAKE
Legend
_! City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
O Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Sensitive Communities
- Vulnerable
Other
Figure 32: Displacement Risk
This 1,aQe intentionally left blank
Im
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-270 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
F. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Section 5), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing. However, special attention is paid to those sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City's lower -income RHNA to ensure that the City is thinking carefully about how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness.
Segregation/ Integration
Both existing affordable units and proposed vefy low and low incom-e RHNA candidate sites, including very low and low-income sites, are well dispersed throughout the eity-ELty-and do not disproportionately impact areas with larger concentrations of the Hispanic population, although as described previously, the City has no historic patterns of segregation or isolation and there are no trends to indicate that a pattern may emerge in the future (see Figures 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16).
The City of Temecula is proud to have adopted an Affordable Housing Overlay to promote the development of affordable housing options throughout the community. In addition, the City is proactively taking steps to plan for, promote, and streamline development of accessory dwelling units as part of the solution to the City's housing needs.
Together, the City's plan to accommodate its lower income RHNA at AHO sites and through ADUs will further strengthen the City's reputation as being a well -integrated community without patterns of isolation or segregation.
R/ECAPs
The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and the identification of sites to accommodate the City's RHNA is not expected to alter this finding.
Access to Opportunity
No sites identified to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA and only two sites identified to accommodate the City's moderate and above moderate income RHNA are located in areas with low levels of place -based opportunity (representing approximately 230 units) —and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-271
only a limited number of sites (representing 500 units,), all within the City's Affordable Housing Overlay, are located in areas with lower levels of people -based opportunity (see Figures 19 and 21). The concerns in these limited areas include high housing cost burdens, low levels of homeownership, and low voting rates. The introduction of new affordable housing options in this area, facilitated through the City's new Affordable Housing Overlay, will help to create more housing affordable to households at lower -income levels, introduce new residents to an area which can contribute to higher levels of civic engagement, and expand opportunities for people to live and work in the same area. Additionally, the Specific Plan areas identified to accommodate a portion of the City's lower income RHNA (specifically Harveston, Altair, Uptown, and Old Town) are located in areas with relatively high opportunity and resources. By locating new affordable housing in these areas, the City continues to promote an integration of economic backgrounds and household incomes and ensure that all Temecula residents have access to high levels of opportunity, regardless of income or other characteristics.
Displacement Risk
The City plans to accommodate its RHNA for all income levels at vacant sites throughout the City. Past residential development projects have not caused displacement to existing Temecula residents, and there is no expectation that the City's program to accommodate its RHNA at vacant sites throughout the City would create displacement risk for current or future lower income residents. However, there are four census tracts that have been designated as "Sensitive Communities" that are at risk for displacement (see Figure 32).—Most of the new development anticipated in "Sensitive Communities" will be part of Specific Plans, particularly Altair and Harveston. As master planned projects, these developer�ments are required to plan for comprehensive development in accordance with the City's vision for the area. The City envisions that housing affordable to lower -income households will be part of both developments and does not find that development in "sensitive communities" has a high probability of resulting in displacement. so iFrl a cue ea-trten-,--+The City Chas
included Program 2 -27 to study the risk if displacement to residents as a result of new residential development at vacant sites in and outside of Specific Plan areas.
Site Analysis Findings
The City of Temecula has a history of developing affordable housing projects throughout the community, at vacant and infill sites. To accommodate the City's RHNA, the City has undertaken a robust inventory of available vacant residential sites inside and outside of Specific Plan areas, many of which are identified as part of the City's Affordable
CITY OF TEMECULA GLNLRAL PLAN
HBK-272 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Housing Overlay. tThe City's vefy low and RHNA needs at all income levels are largely accommodated in its Specific Plan areas 15,753 units, of which 1,851 units are accommodated at densities and intensities consistent with providing housing affordable for lower income households). These Specific Plan areas, -_� do not represent extremely concentrated racial or ethnic populations, nonetheless, the City has included programs to encourage additional development of lower - income units throughout the community through its accessory dwelling unit program and through its Affordable Housing Overlay. For these reasons, the City finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA need do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity, poverty, or other characteristics. Moreover, the sites contribute to affirmatively further fair housing by helping to stimulate investing in areas where additional people- and place -based opportunity is desired, and where new residential and/or mixed -use development can help to improve some of the opportunity level characteristics discussed earlier in this section.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-273
G. Analysis of Contributing Factors and Fair
Housing Priorities and Goals
The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory. Based on the analysis ineluded in 4tis Baekground Report, has developed of speeifie pragfaffis to adds these
The following are contributing factors that have been identified on the fair housing issues jresented in the 2017 Assessment and the analysis in this document that affect fair housing choice in Temecula.; sSpecifically Table 794 lists the fair housing issues and contributing factors that exist in the City of Temecula and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the table relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.
Table 794: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issue
Contributing
Priority
Meaningful Action
Factors
Disparities in Access to
High demand for
Highes
0 Program 1
Opportunity
affordable housing,
0 Program 2
due to the high
housing costs in the
Program 4
community and the
0 Program 5
region
0 Program 7
Land use and zoning
0 Program 8
laws
0 Program 9
• Lack of resources for
0 Program 10
fair housing agencies
and organizations
Program 14
• Private discrimination
0Program 15
Availability o
0Program 17
affordable units in a
0 Program 18
range of sizes
0 Program 25
• Location and type o
0 Program 28
affordable housing
Disproportionate Housing
High demand for
affordable housing,
High
0 Program 1
0 Program 2
Needs, Including
Displacement Risks
due to the high
housing costs in the
• Program 4
community and the
0 Program 5
region
Program 7
CITY OF TLMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-274 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
• Availability o
0 Program 8
affordable units in a
0 Program 9
range of sizes
• Program 10
• Location and type of
Program 11
affordable housing
• Land use and zoning
• Program 14
laws
0 Program 17
• Increased demand of
0 Program 18
affordable housing
0 Program 23
with supportive
• Program 25
services to serve
special needs
populations
Disparities in Access to
0 Increased demand of
High
0 Program 10
affordable housing
with supportive
Opportunity for Persons with
0 Program 25
Disabilities
services to serve
special needs
populations
• Inaccessible
sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, or other
infrastructure
• Inaccessible
government facilities
or services
Outreach
0 Lack of resources for
Medium
0 Program 25
fair housing agencies
and organizations
Fair Housing Enforcement
• Lack of resources for
Medium
0 Program 22
and Outreach Capacity
fair housing agencies
and organizations
The City has identified the following top three contributing factors and prioritized them in order of importance.
1. Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations. The City of Temecula is home to residents with special needs who need additional opportunities for safe and affordable housing. This includes persons with developmental disabilities. Program 910 Special Needs Housing Construction, has been included in the City's Housing Plan to address this contributing factor. Program
28. a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel. has also been eextedadded to bring together developers of special needs housing, providers of supportive services, and other housing advocates to ensure that this issue can be adequate addressed during the planning period.
2. High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the community and the region. Temecula is located in an area easily accessible to San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles counties. Due to its proximity to a variety of jobs centers, Temecula is a desirable and relatively affordable place to reside, and this pressure has increased demand for
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-275
affordable housing options within the City. The City has included numerous programs in its Housing Plan to increase the supply of affordable housing, including Programs 1 and 2 to ensure that the City provides sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the planning period, Program 4 which addresses the replacement of affordable units, and Program 5 which promotes ADUs as an option to expand the City's affordable housing stock. Throughout the Housing Plan, the City is also committed to engaging the development community biennially to discuss a host of factors, including nongovernmental constraints such as high land and construction costs (see new Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernmental Constraints).
Through this effort, the City will seek input on how it can help to reduce nongovernmental constraints to the extent feasible, such as accelerated Permit processes, land assemblage, making eCity- owned sites available for development of affordable housing, and other programs within the City's control. Moreover, given the high costs of housing it is critical to maintain the City's supply of affordable housing. The City has included Program 20 to preserve existing at -risk units, so that the City's existing affordable housing stock can be maintained in light of the high cost of construction of new/replacement units.
Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations.
Like agencies throughout the region, Temecula has limited resources available to implement a variety of fair housing plans and programs. Other agencies with which the City regularly partners, including the Riverside County Consortium and Fair Housing Program of Riverside County, also face limited resources. The City has included Program 22, Equal Housing Opportunity, to do its part in promoting fair housing agencies and organizations and working with partner agencies to affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula. The City has created Program 28 to create a new Fair Housing Task Force to bring together the City Council Finance Subcommittee, fair housing service providers, community roups, nonprofits, and/or other advisory groups to ensure that community interests are well -represented. The City will work diligently to specifically engage panelists focused on the issues of lower -income communities and communities with special needs, including persons with disabilities and persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The assistance panel will meet in conjunction with the City's CDBG annual program review (this is composed of nonprofits, stakeholders, and agencies) which are conducted near the end of each calendar year (near the APR timeframe).
To affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula, the City is committed to implementing its Affordable Housing Overlay, promoting affordable accessory dwelling units, and providing sites
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-276 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
suitable for affordable housing in areas near transit, which are not unduly racially or ethnically concentrated, and where new residential development affordable to very -low and low income households can help to expand people- and place -based opportunities. The City of Temecula has a long history of supporting affordable housing development and as described previously in this Background Report.
Moving forward, the City remains committed to providing a diversity of housing options for all income levels, and is committed to encouraging their development throughout the community to help overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The vast majority of the City's Housing Programs designed to address fair housing are required to be implemented on an ongoing basis, with annual progress reports and programs evaluations to ensure they are achieving the City's objectives. The following list summarizes those programs identified in this Housing Element which affirmatively further fair housing and implement the City's 2017 Fair Housing Assessment:
• Program 5, to promote ADUs including ADUs affordable to lower -income households
• Program 67, to ensure that the City's density bonus ordinance continues to be in compliance with state law
• Program -8, to promote land assemblage and affordable housing development
• Program 89, to address the special needs of the City's extremely low income households
• Program +314, to expedite processing of affordable housing projects
• Program 4-617, to accommodate specialized housing types and update the City's policies and procedures regarding low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing, employee housing, and farmworker housing
• Program 4-720, to monitor and preserve at -risk housing • Program 2-225, to promote equal housing opportunities • Program 2326, to continue offering housing referral services Program -427, to study and address economic displacement risks
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBK-277
• Program 28, to create a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel
To the extent that these programs represent ongoing work efforts, these programs are evaluated for effectiveness within Section 2 of this Background Report. The City has already undertaken a series of proactive amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to address new requirements related to density bonus law and accessory dwelling units, and the City will continue to partner with local and regional stakeholders to affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBK-278 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A:
SITE INVENTORY
C EN ER -A L PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Site Inventory Forms must be submitted to
HCD for a housing element or amendment
adopted on or after January 1, 2021. The
following form is to be used for satisfying
this requirement. To submit the form,
complete the Excel spreadsheet and submit
to HCD at [email protected].
Please send the Excel workbook, not a
scanned or PDF copy of the tables.
General Information
Jurisidiction Name
TEMECULA
Housing Element Cycle
6th
Contact Information
First Name
Brandon
Last Name
Rabidou
Title
ior Management An,
Email
Ion.rabidou TemeculaCj
Phone
(951) 506-5142
Mailing Address
Street Address 141000 Main Street
C
TEMECULA
Zip Code 1 92590
Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
Table-
VL
-.
Very Low Density Residential (VL). The very I(
L-1
Low Density Residential (L-1 and L-2). The log
LM
Low Medium Density Residential (LM). The k
M
Medium Density Residential (M). The mediur
H
High Density Residential (H). The high densit,
HT
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). The highv
SC
Service Commercial (SC). The service comme
PO
Professional Office (PO). The professional off
NC
Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The neighb(
CC
Community Commercial (CC). The communit
PDO-5
http://www.gcode.us/codes/temecuIa/view .
PDO-10
The Temecula Education Center (TEC) plannE
SP-2 Specific Plan 2, Rancho Highlands. Residential, of SP-4 Specific Plan 4, Paloma Del Sol. Residential, comr SP-5 Specific Plan 5, Old Town. Residential, mixed -use SP-9 Specific Plan 9, Redhawk. Residential, commerciz
SP-11 Specific Plan 11, Roripaugh Ranch. Residential, cc SP-12 Specific Plan 12, Wolf Creek. Residential, comme
SP-13 Specific Plan 13, Harveston. Residential, public/ir SP-14 Specific Plan 14, Uptown. Residential, open span
SP-15 Specific Plan 15, Altair. Medium Residential, High
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B:
GLOSSARY
C EN ER -A L PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
APPENDIX B:
HOUSING ELEMENT
GLOSSARY
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Acre: A unit of land measure equal to 43,560 square feet.
Acreage, Net: The portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned public or private road rights -of -way.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): As required by California Assembly Bill 686, the City of Temecula has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing by 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.
Affordability Covenant: A property title agreement which places resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit.
Affordable Housing: Under state and federal statutes, housing which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income.
Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, insurance, homeowner association fees, and other related costs.
Area Median Income (AMI): The AMI is determined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is the midpoint income for the area —half of all wage earners have salaries higher than the median, and half of all wage earners have salaries lower than the median. Each year, HUD sets area median incomes for the Riverside area. The AMI is then used to establish income limits for certain housing programs.
Annexation: The incorporation of land area into the jurisdiction of an existing city with a resulting change in the boundaries of that city.
Assisted Housing: Housing that has been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs.
At -Risk Housing: Multi -family rental housing that is at risk of losing its status as housing affordable for low and moderate income tenants due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements.
California Department of Housing and Community
Development — HCD: The State Department responsible for administering State -sponsored housing programs and for reviewing housing elements to determine compliance with state housing law.
Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by HUD. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development activities, including public facilities and economic development.
Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are owned individually, but the structure, common areas and facilities are owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis.
Congregate Care: Apartment housing, usually for senior citizens, or for the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5 that is arranged in a group setting that includes independent living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and recreational facilities (see Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.34.0103).
Congregate Living Health Facility: A facility with a
noninstitutional, home -like environment that provides inpatient care, including the following basic services: medical supervision, twenty- four hour skilled nursing and supportive care, pharmacy, dietary, social recreational, and at least one type of service specified in the Health and Safety Code. The primary need of congregate living health facility residents shall be for availability of skilled nursing care on a recurring, intermittent, extended or continuous basis. This care is generally less intense than that provided in general acute care hospitals but more intense than that provided in skilled nursing facilities (see Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.34.010.13).
Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density usually is expressed "per acre," e.g., a development with 100 units located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre.
Density Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in
exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing units at the same site or at another location. H
Development Impact Fees (DIF): A fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for a jurisdiction's costs of providing services to new development.
Development Right: The right granted to a land owner or other authorized party to improve a property. Such right is usually expressed in terms of a use and intensity allowed under existing zoning regulation. For example, a development right may specify the maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted per acre of land.
Dwelling, Multi -family: A building containing two or more dwelling units for the use of individual households; an apartment or condominium building is an example of this dwelling unit type.
Dwelling, Single-family Attached: A one -family dwelling attached to one or more other one -family dwellings by a common vertical wall.
Row houses and town homes are examples of this dwelling unit type.
Dwelling, Single-family Detached: A dwelling, not attached to any other dwelling, which is designed for and occupied by not more than one family and surrounded by open space or yards.
Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided within the unit for the exclusive use of a household.
Efficiency Unit Housing: Any residential building containing five or more individual secure rooms intended or designed to be used or which are used rented or hired out to be occupied for sleeping purposes by residents as their primary residence.
Elderly Household: As defined by HUD, elderly households are one- or two- member (family or non -family) households in which the head or spouse is age 62 or older.
Element: A division or chapter of the General Plan.
Emergency Shelter: An emergency shelter is a facility that provides shelter to homeless families and/or homeless individuals on a limited short-term basis.
Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are freely set rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for available standard units in a county or Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA). Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8 Rental Program and many other HUD programs and are published annually by HUD.
First -Time Home Buyer (FTHB): Defined by HUD as an
individual or family who has not owned a home during the three-year period preceding the HUD -assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions may adopt local definitions for first-time home buyer programs which differ from non -federally funded programs.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area; usually expressed as a numerical value (e.g., a building having 10,000 square feet of gross floor area located on a lot of 5,000 square feet in area has a floor area ratio of 2.0).
Group Home: The City of Temecula's Zoning Code defines a group home as any residential care facility for six or fewer persons which is licensed by the state (Temecula Municipal Code Section
17.344.810.13).
General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding long-term development. California law requires the preparation of seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional elements are permitted, such as Economic Development, Urban Design and similar local concerns.
Group Quarters: A facility which houses groups of unrelated persons not living in households (US Census definition). Examples of group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single - room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated individuals are housed.
Growth Management: Techniques used by a government to regulate the rate, amount, location and type of development.
HCD: The State Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act requires larger lending institutions making home mortgage loans to publicly disclose the location and disposition of home purchase, refinance and improvement loans. Institutions subject to HMDA must also disclose the gender, race, and income of loan applicants.
Homeless: Unsheltered homeless are families and individuals whose primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (e.g., the street, sidewalks, cars, vacant and abandoned buildings). Sheltered homeless are families and persons whose primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter (e.g., emergency, transitional, battered women, and homeless youth shelters; and commercial hotels or motels used to house the homeless).
Household: The US Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is considered a household. Household does not include individuals living in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or other group quarters.
Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. A household is usually described as very low income, low income, moderate income, and upper income based upon household size, and income, relative to the regional median income.
Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which:
(1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends more than 30% of income on housing cost.
Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales or rent prices to more affordable levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy is "project" or "unit" based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs the subsidy is linked to the family and assistance provided to any number of families accepted by willing private landlords. This type of subsidy is said to be "tenant based."
Housing Unit: A room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate toilet and kitchen facilities.
HUD: See US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Income Category: Four categories are used to classify a household according to income based on the median income for the county.
Under state housing statutes, these categories are defined as follows:
Very Low (0-50% of County median); Low (50-80% of County H
O
u
s
N
G
median); Moderate (80-120% of County median); and Upper (over 120% of County median).
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure
Large Household: A household with 5 or more members.
Low Income Home Energy Act Program (LIHEAP): LIHEAP
helps pay the winter heating bills or summer cooling bills of low- income and elderly people.
Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of
manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing.
Market Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any subsidy. The price for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location.
Median Income: The annual income for each household size within a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes below the median.
Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent foundation.
Mobile Home Park Assistance Program (MPAP): To preserve affordable housing opportunities found within mobile home parks, HCD provides financial and technical assistance to low income mobile home park residents through MPAP. MPAP provides loans of up to 50% of the purchase price plus the conversion costs of the mobile home park so that low income residents, or organizations formed by low income residents can own and/or operate the mobile home park.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC): Administered by Riverside County, and authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1984, the MCC provides assistance to first-time homebuyers for the purchase of owner -occupied single-family homes, townhomes, and condominiums. An MCC reduces the amount of federal income taxes otherwise due but not to exceed the amount of federal taxes owed for
the year after other credits and deductions have been taken. (Unused tax credits can be carried forward three years, until used.) I -1 Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB): A state, county or city program providing financing for the development of housing through the sale of tax-exempt bonds.
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP):
The Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was established in March of 2004. The plan encompasses 1.2 million acres in the western Riverside County and is designated to protect 146 species.
Overcrowding: As defined by the US Census, a household with greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households with greater than 1.5 persons per room.
Office of Planning and Research (OPR): The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides legislative and policy research support for the Governor's office. OPR also assists the Governor and the Administration in land -use planning and manages the Office of the Small Business Advocate.
Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on data published by the US Census Bureau. Severe overpayment, or cost burden, exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income.
Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and permitted to be used, or built upon.
Poverty: The income cutoffs used by the Census Bureau to determine the poverty status of families and unrelated individuals included a set of 48 thresholds. The poverty thresholds are revised annually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The average threshold for a family of four persons in 1989 was $12,674. Poverty thresholds were applied on a national basis and were not adjusted for regional, state, or local variations in the cost of living.
Project -Based Rental Assistance: Rental assistance provided for a project, not for a specific tenant. A tenant receiving project -based rental assistance gives up the right to that assistance upon moving from the project.
Public Housing: A project -based low -rent housing program operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low- income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area in which they want to live.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): The RHNA is
based on State of California projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region's future housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) region. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county.
Rehabilitation: The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use.
Section 8 Rental Voucher/Certificate Program: A tenant -based rental assistance program that subsidizes a family's rent in a privately owned house or apartment. The program is administered by local public housing authorities. Assistance payments are based on 30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of 50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate in the program.
Service Needs: The particular services required by special populations, typically including needs such as transportation, personal care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal emergency response, and other services preventing premature institutionalization and assisting individuals to continue living independently.
Small Household: Pursuant to HUD definition, a small household consists of two to four non -elderly persons.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): The Southern California Association of Governments is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which encompasses six counties:
Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the RHNA.
Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes, these special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large families, female -headed households, farm workers and the homeless.
A jurisdiction may also choose to consider additional special needs groups in the Housing Element, such as students, military households, other groups present in their community.
Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing: Any residential
building containing five or more individual secure rooms intended or H designed to be used, or which are used, rented, or hired out, to be occupied for sleeping purposes by residents as their primary residence.
Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.). I
Substandard Housing: Housing which does not meet the minimum N standards contained in the State Housing Code (i.e., does not provide shelter, endangers the health, safety or well-being of occupants). G Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of substandard housing.
Substandard, Suitable for Rehabilitation: Substandard units which are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered economically warranted.
Substandard, Needs Replacement: Substandard units which are structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is considered infeasible, such as instances where the majority of a unit has been damaged by fire.
Supportive Housing: A facility that provides housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined by Section 50675.14 of the California Health and Safety Code, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist tenants in retaining housing, improving their health status, maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents.
Some examples are case management, medical or psychological counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training.
Tenant -Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not for the project.
Transitional Housing: A residential facility that provides rental housing accommodations and support services for persons and families, but restricts occupancy to no more than 24 months. Support services may include meals, counseling, and other services.
Uniform Building Code (UBC): First enacted by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) in 1927, the UBC provides standards for building codes. Revised editions of this code are published approximately every 3 years.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include CDBG, HOME and Section 8, among others.
Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG): WRCOG
consists of representatives from all 14 cities and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, which have seats on the WRCOG Executive Committee, the group that sets policy for the organization. Together, as a joint powers agency, they take up regional matters, from air quality to solid waste and from transportation to the environment.
Zoning: A land use regulatory measure enacted by local government.
Zoning district regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards vary from district to district, but must be uniform within the same district. Each city and county adopts a zoning ordinance specifying these regulations.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C:
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Public
Engagement
Summary
City of Temecula Housing
Element Update
September 2021
In partnership with De Novo Planning Group
Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................3-3 General Education and Advertisements....................................................................33 ProjectWebsite........................................................................................................44 CommunitySurvey...................................................................................................44 Survey Respondent Demographics........................................................................5-5 Survey Responses Executive Summary..................................................................5-5 Complete Responses.........................................................................................154-5 Virtual Community Meeting.................................................................................1646 Public Review of Draft Housing Element...............................................................1646 Public Comments: Open House.........................................................................184-7 Public Comment: Ortiz......................................................................................1949 Public Comment: LaMont..................................................................................204-9 Public Comment: McGlaston.............................................................................212-A FeedbackInfluence...............................................................................................2224 Figures
Figure 1: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula?................................................66 Figure 2: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?...................................99 Figure 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home?...........................................................................9.9 Figure 4: How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in? .............................................................................................................................11-14 Figure 5: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs?.............................................................................................12-14 Figure 6: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? .......... 1343 City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 2
Introduction
The City of Temecula is updating its Housing Element as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycle (Cycle 6). Temecula is dedicated to meeting the future housing needs of its residents. The Housing Element Update process is a unique opportunity to connect with residents of Temecula and learn more about residents' values, priorities, concerns, and ideas.
The City's public engagement program connected to the Housing Element Update began in early 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the process, the City supported bilingual (English and Spanish) public engagement by sending direct advertisements, posting to social media, hosting surveys, facilitating workshops, and sharing summaries of feedback to validate what we heard. The City also circulated the Public Review Draft Housing Element for thirty days to seek community input on the draft goals, policies, and programs.
The following activities have been conducted in support of the Housing Element Update and are summarized in this document; copies of key advertisements and presentations are included at the end of this document and are also available on the project website at https://temeculaca.gov/432/Housing- FIPmPnt
• General Education and Advertisements
• Project Webpage
• Community Survey (available in English and Spanish)
• Virtual Workshop
• Public Review of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element
General Education and Advertisements
The City of Temecula planned and implemented a robust general education campaign to advertise the Housing Element Update and seek input on housing priorities and included specific efforts to engage underrepresented communities and lower income households. As part of this work effort, the City utilized the following tools:
• Newsletter sent to every resident including an article about the Housing Element Update • Social media posts using the hashtag #Housethis?
• Economic Development email blast
• Email to community stakeholders
• Channel 3 spot
• Temecula Chamber Mixer presentation
• Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors advertisements • Flyers at laundromats/coffee shops to reach traditionally underrepresented residents • Emails to affordable housing property management (to share with residents with lower household incomes)
• Focused in -person outreach to persons experiencing homelessness and seniors City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 3
In total over 55,000 emails were sent and dozens of social media posts were shared advertising the Housing Element Update. The #Housethis? campaign resulted in 77,068 media impressions and 849 social media clicks.
Project Website
The project website includes the following information:
• Project overview
• Regional Housing Needs Allocation discussion
• Description of what's included in the Housing Element • Timeline
• Upcoming events and meetings
• Email sign-up
• Copies of all presentations and videos of presentations • Housing Survey (and results)
• Draft Housing Element
• Common questions and answers
• Links to more information/supporting documents
Community Survey
The City of Temecula is updating its Housing Element as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycle (Cycle 6). Temecula is dedicated to meeting the future housing needs of its residents. The Housing Element Update process is a unique opportunity to connect with residents of Temecula and learn more about residents' values, priorities, concerns, and ideas.
As part of the community outreach, a bilingual (English and Spanish) survey was conducted. The survey was available on the City's website from March 26 through September 30, 2020 and hard copies were also available around the community, including at the Senior Center to reach the community's elderly population. Advertisements were also placed in area laundromats to target households of different incomes. The City included a Housing Element article in 33,000 newsletters that were sent to each residence, had over 52,341 social media impressions, and sent over 10,000 emails to engage the public.
Over 860 responses (provided online and in hard copy) were collected —a notable accomplishment given recent COVID-19-related public engagement challenges and a testament to Temecula's focus on outreach and community engagement. The survey was 16 questions long.
The surveyfocuses on housing -related issues such as maintenance, affordability, home types, and living conditions in Temecula as well as demographic questions. This report is a summary of the responses City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 4
received and the general themes that emerged. Appendix A includes a copy of the survey questions; specific questions are referenced throughout this report as relevant.
Survey Respondent Demographics
The survey contained 7 questions related to demographics. One of those questions included an opportunity for users to sign-up for more information about the Housing Element update process. The other 6 questions highlighted the following about the respondents:
• Most respondents (42%) both lived and worked within the City. In total, approximately 86% of respondents live in Temecula, with only 13% working in the City but living elsewhere.' • Of those individuals who live in Temecula, approximately 58% have lived here for 10+ years.
The next highest response (16%) was 5-10 years.Z
• Most of the respondents own their home (71%), with 25% of respondents renting.' • Most of the respondents (81%) live in single-family homes, with the next highest category being multi -family homes (12%).4
• Of the respondents surveyed, the most common types of households include couples with children younger than 18 (33%), couples (25%), single -person households (11%), multi - generational households (10%) and single -parents household with children younger than 18 (6%). There was considerable range in household types including 6% (or 41 respondents), who were an unlisted household type including couples with adult children living with them, which could be a temporary phenomenon associated with the impacts of COVID-19 on housing patterns for young adults.5
• The respondents represented a valid cross-section of the community's age profile; respondents were primarily 40-55 years old (36%), followed by 56-74 years old (30%), and 24-39 years old (26%).
Survey Responses Executive Summary
The survey responses reveal information about housing in Temecula. The results are grouped into 5 topical categories: values and priorities; housing affordability; housing maintenance; housing fit; and general feedback. In addition to looking at the survey results as a whole, this report also considers survey responses by demographic groups including how age, homeownership status, and household type influenced responses.
' Question 1: Do you live and/or work in the City of Temecula? Z Question 2: How long have you lived in the City of Temecula? 3 Question 6: Do you currently own or rent your home?
a Question 8: Select the type of housing that best describes your current home. s Question 9: Which of the following best describes your household type? e Question 11: What age range most accurately describes you? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 5
VALUES AND PRIORITIES
When respondents were asked, "Why have you chosen to live in Temecula,"' the most common answers were:
• Safety of neighborhood (61%)
• Affordability (52%)
• Quality of local school system (49%)
• Local recreational amenities and scenery (38%)
• Proximity to shopping and services, including Old Town Temecula (33%) • Proximity to family and/or friends (32%)
Figure 1: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula?
Proximity t 2g,g0%
job/wor
Quality o� 25.21
housing stoc
Loca� 37 54°/
recreational.
Proximity t 31.95%
family and/o..
Affordability 51.55%
Quality o 49.43%
local school.
Safety o
61.17%
neighborhoo
City service 26.36%
and program
Proximity t 33.24%
shopping and..
Other (pleas 12.75%
specify
r,p- 1ro.; -n,-. Sro(: 40o::. Scot; sr4; ?ro:; 8^.:. _ , trc, When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur:
Respondents who own their own home vs. rent are far more likely to cite affordability as a factor (60%) than those who rent (33%). Similarly, quality of the housing stock is viewed more favorably by those ' Question 5: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September _ I Page 6
who own (29%) than those who rent (17%), which may reflect the "pride of ownership" that comes with being able to maintain a property you own.
There are also differences between respondents of different ages. Proximity to family and friends was far more important to those 75 years and older (42%) who may be less likely/able to travel long distances, than to those 23 years old or younger (29%) who are more mobile. However, quality of the local school system and safety of the neighborhood were far more important to those 23 years old and younger (71% for both indicators) who may be thinking about their own educational experiences or planning for the education of a child, than those 75 years old and older (9% and 33% respectively).
There are also differences when it relates to household type. Couples with children under 18 ranked quality of school system (76%) and safety of neighborhood (76%) as their highest concern, while these issues were less important for single person households. Affordability was seen as a key issue across the board; it was ranked as the first or second highest issue in every household type except for young adults living with parents (where it fell to third).
When respondents were asked, "How important are the following concerns to you and your family?"$ the following issues were identified as the most likely to be "very important":
• Ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula (57%) • Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing stock in older neighborhoods (49%) • Establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities (48%)
• Ensure that the housing market in Temecula provides a diverse range of housing types, including single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, duplex/triplex and condominiums to meet the varied needs of local residents (48%)
• Fair/Equitable Housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures (48%)
• Establish programs to help at -risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (47%)
When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur:
When it comes to comparisons of answers by age of respondents, there were some nuanced trends.
Ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula was ranked highest by those 23 years old and younger (86%) and least important to those 75 years and older (39%); these trends represent the importance of affordability for young adults looking to move into their own home for the first time, versus the established housing choices of the community's older generation. Those aged 23 years old and younger felt extremely strongly (100%) about integrating affordable housing e Question 12: How important are the following concerns to you and your family? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 7
throughout the community to create mixed -income neighborhoods while only 28% of those 75 years and older felt that it was very important. Those 23 years old and younger also ranked "fair/equitable housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures" (86%) and "provide shelters and transitional housing for the homeless, along with services to help move people into permanent housing" as very important (71%).
There were also differences in what mattered the most to homeowners versus those who rent. The issue of "ensuring that the housing market in Temecula provides a diverse range of housing types, including single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, duplex/triplex and condominiums to meet the varied needs of local residents," was far more important to those who rent (70%) than to those who own their own home (38%). Similarly, renters ranked the issue of, "integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed -income neighborhoods," far higher (63%) than homeowners (25%). Likewise, renters placed higher value (61%) on the issue of "establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities," than did homeowners (42%).
When it comes to household types, young adults living with parents and multi -generational households ranked "ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula," as much higher (74% and 71% respectively) that do single person households (36%). Multi -generational households also ranked "establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities," much higher (58%) than did couples with children under 18. However, for single parents with children under 18, the issue of "integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed -income neighborhoods," ranks much higher (58%) than single person households (32%).
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
When respondents were asked, "If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?"' the answers pointed to issues of affordability. The top 3 responses included:
• 1 cannot find a home within my price range in Temecula (55%) • 1 do not currently have the financial resources for an appropriate down payment (52%) • 1 do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment (33%)
• Potential answers related to housing stock diversity or housing quality were not heavily selected, indicating that if people were able to overcome the financial obstacles, the housing choices available in Temecula are generally desirable.
9 Question 7: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 8
Figure 2: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?
No homes 55."%
within price..
No homes th-M 12.98%
..it
my need
Do not have 51.58%
down paymen
Do not have 32 98%
enough for...
No homes tha� 7.02%
fit quality.
do not wis= 17.54%
to own or re..
10'i11-�0'1911- Ir b�1011 i� Z7�j� b�Ih l�iZ :Z�in1EZ�iYiHZ�iZ? When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur:
When it comes to differences between respondents of different age groups, Millennials (age 24-39) had the highest financial barriers: 71% say there are no homes within their desired price range; 64% do not have a down payment; and 46% do not have enough for a mortgage payment.
When it comes to household type, couples with children under 18 had the most significant financial constraints, with 75% responding that there were no homes within their price range, and 55% reporting that did not have enough for a down payment.
HOUSING MAINTENANCE
When respondents were asked, "Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making to your home?"10 the top responses included:
• Painting (42%)
• Solar (28%)
• HVAC (22%)
Figure 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home?
" Question 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making to your home? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 9
Room addition
dditio 11.21%
Roofing - 12.52%
HVAC 22.42%
Painting 41.92%
Solar 27.66%
Accessory 8.73%
Dwelling Unit
Does not appl 33.92%
Other (please 14 99°/
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
While a large proportion of respondents indicated 1 or more improvements, over a third stated that this question does not apply, meaning that they are not considering any upgrades or expansions at this time. Not surprisingly, this question applied more to homeowners than renters. However, while 80% of renters responded, "Does not apply," the other 20% indicated that there were minor improvements including painting (10%) that occupants have considered making.
When it comes to comparing respondents based on age, respondents age 40-55 had the longest list of upgrades and expansions they were considering including room additions (15%), roofing (12%), and accessory dwelling units (11%).
Respondents were also allowed to provide specific feedback regarding other (non -listed) types of improvements they were interested in pursuing. The most popular write-in responses include:
• New windows
• New flooring
• Pool construction
• Upgraded landscaping
• Kitchen renovation
• Patio cover installation
• Garage improvements
When asked, "How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in?" respondents stated that their home:
• Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (i.e., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) (46%) • Excellent condition (33%)
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 10
• Needs 1 or more modest rehabilitation improvements (i.e., new roof, new wood siding, etc.) (13%)
• Needs 1 or more major upgrades (i.e., new foundation, new plumbing, new electrical, etc.) (5%) Figure 4: How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in? Excellent 33.24°0
condition
Shows signs o 46 420,6
deferred...
Needs modes 12.61%
rehabilitati..
Needs major 5.01%
upgrades (i....
other(pleas 272%
specify
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Homeowners were more likely than renters to rate the physical condition of their residence as excellent (40% as opposed to 16%).
Single parents with children under 18 (17%), young adults living with parents (17%), and single persons living with roommates (20%) were the 2 household groups least likely to rate their housing condition as excellent.
Respondents ages 75 and older were the age group most likely to rate their housing quality as excellent.
HOUSING FIT
When asked, "How satisfied are you with your current housing situation?"77 the top responses were:
• 1 am very satisfied (48%)
• 1 am somewhat satisfied (35%)
• 1 am somewhat dissatisfied (10%)
• 1 am dissatisfied (6%)
There were significant differences in responses, however, between homeowners and renters. 61% of homeowners were "very satisfied" as opposed to only 15% of renters. " Question 10: How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 11
Single parents with children under the age of 18 showed the highest levels of dissatisfaction with a 20% stating, "I am very dissatisfied," and 17% stating, "I am very satisfied." Only 14% of respondents age 23 and younger were very satisfied with their housing situation, as opposed to 61% of those 75 years old and older.
When asked, "Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs?1112 respondents answered:
• Yes (65%)
• No (35%)
Figure 5: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs?
les CA. 8440
No 35.16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Wk 1 c",
However, the breakdown along homeownerships lines were different with 77% of homeowners answering "Yes", as opposed to 40% of renters.
The contrast was even more stark along household type comparisons. 63% of single parents with children under age 18 answered, "no" with the next lowest score being single persons living with roommates (56%).
Those on the opposite end of the scale for age, had nearly opposite reactions. For those age 23 and younger, 71% said that Temecula did not meet their housing needs as opposed to 81% of those 75 years old and older who stated that it did meet their housing needs.
When asked, "What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula?"13 respondents answered:
• Single family detached (49%)
12 Question 13: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs? 13 Question 14: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 12
• Senior Housing (34%)
• Condominiums (multifamily ownership homes) (24%)
• Other (24%)
• Duplex/Attached Housing (20%)
Figure 6: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? Single Family 49.10 %
(Detached)
Duplex/Attache 20.33%
Housin
CondominiumsJkl24.40%
(multifamily..
Apartments 13.40%
(multifamily..
Senior Housin 33.73%
Accessory 10.39%
Dwelling Unit
Housingfo 1265%
people with..
Other (pleas 23.95%
specify
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The household group most interested in more single-family homes are adult head of households (non - parents) with children under age 18 (75%) and the least interested in more single-family housing are single persons with roommates (22%).
When it comes to age comparisons, Millennials are most interested in more single-family homes (61%) as opposed to seniors 75 years old and older (27%).
A significant percentage of the respondents indicated that "other" (non -listed) types of housing options are needed in Temecula. Respondents provided a range of specific answers, many of which were already identified as an answer choice (i.e., senior housing, housing for persons with disabilities).
Moreover, many respondents used this opportunity to indicate that they did not support new development of any type, generally due to concerns related to traffic, safety, and access to public facilities and infrastructure. Of those "other" types of housing identified in the individual responses, which were not already listed as a possible answer, the responses generally included:
• Housing options affordable to people with lower incomes • Multigenerational homes
• Permanent supportive housing
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 13
• Mixed use development
• Housing options specific to the needs of single parents • Single -story homes
GENERALFEEDBACK
At the conclusion of the survey, respondents could provide general feedback on topics not addressed in earlier questions. As expected, general feedback received was varied in tone and content. Written responses were divided but fell into 2 general categories.
Group A: Those who feel that Temecula is unaffordable and housing prices are too high across the board. These individuals suggested building more affordable housing of all types (from single family homes to multi -family housing) as well as taking care of seniors and the homeless.
Some sample responses include:
"The cost of rent here does not match the income that many of us have forcing many to struggle, have roommates, constantly move etc. More affordable housing that matches the jobs available that only want to pay $17 or less would help out a great deal so people can afford to live without roommates and without struggling to pay everything." "Just want affordable housing for all income types. It would reduce homelessness and bring diversity to the city."
Group B: Those who moved to Temecula for its affordability and safety, and feel that it has changed in a negative way over the years. These individuals are worried about continued impacts on congestion and lack of infrastructure. They want the City to focus on improving current conditions and adding more infrastructure (such as improved roadway conditions) instead of building additional housing.
Some sample responses include:
"It is disappointing to see zonings changed and other adjustments that are aimed to please the person(s) financially benefitting rather than thinking about the value in the original zoning as well as congestion and overloading the market."
"Too much growth without infrastructure to support. Roads/traffic too heavy and maintenance not adequate to support the additional homes being built." "Temecula is overcrowded. Way too many apartments and condos. The city council was going the right direction with making it more of a destination or tourist town but now they want to ruin the natural beauty with more housing. There are areas north of Menifee that can take more housing and where new infrastructure can be built. Temecula is maxed out." City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 14
Other issues that were raised include:
• Making the process of building an accessory dwelling unit easier • Increasing the number and availability of bike and walking trails • Keeping water usage for landscaping low
• Preserving open space and views of the mountains
• Focusing on Temecula as a tourist destination
• Address issues of housing discrimination and diversity Complete Responses
A copy of the complete Community Survey along with responses is provided under separate cover and can be accessed via the project website at https://temeculaca.gov/432/Housing-Element .
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 15
■
Virtual Community Meeting
The City hosted a Virtual Community Meeting on the Housing Element in September, 2020. The intent of the Community Meeting was to provide another avenue/opportunity for the public to learn about the Housing Element, provide input, and ask questions. The Community Meeting included a live presentation in English and Spanish via Zoom. Given that this meeting was held at the end of the two - month window to participate in the Community Survey, and covered the same topics as what was available on the Project Website, the Community Meeting did not have a large attendance (fewer than a dozen participants), which can be interpreted to mean that individual interested in the Housing Element may have already participated in the online survey and did not necessarily feel the need to attend a meeting which occurred at a set time and place. A copy of this presentation was also made available on the project website.
Public Review of Draft Housing Element
The Public Review Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was made available to the public on August 17, 2021. That same evening, the City of Temecula hosted an in -person Open House to educate the community about the Housing Element Update and present the draft goals, policies, and programs contained therein. The material was also posted to the project website and a press release was posted to the City's website and advertised at public hearings and to individuals registered for project notifications. The City is also advertising the Public Review Draft and providing direction on how individuals can provide public comment via its social media challenges and direct letters to stakeholder engaged in housing services in and around Temecula.
Interested parties are invited to submit public comments using a fillable comment card at the Open House, provide written comments via mail to City Hall, or email comments to the City's Housing Element Project Manager.
The City received two written comments at the Open House and three subsequent public comments (sent to the Housing Element Project Manager via email) on the draft Housing Element. These comments are included in this section and responses to these comments are included at the end of this Report.
The Public Draft Housing Element was also presented to the City of Temecula Planning Commission on September 15, 2021 and City Council on October 12, 2021. At this -these meetings, the City received additional comments via public testimony. Responses to these comments are included at the end of this Report.
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 16
Fair Housina Outreach
The City hosted two additional public outreach workshops on October 27, 2021, with notices in English, Spanish, and Tagalog. The focus of these hearings included specific topics of AFFH and Fair Housing feedback as well as affordable housing. The City is also currently conducting a resident survey (in conjunction with CDBG) which discusses housing, AFFH, and other housing related priorities.
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 17
Public Comments: Open House
V'0 "e S
2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update Public Comment Card "'l \ F e"e-Zvw -s: B(j .PP cemn.e.z . l f
Comment: Wa,td love +a sew snore. r,\iw.-L Sr- o11.4 A7Us Inlo,(A Ukt- 6 se, more SCIAJDr �0—Si��
i,.�-"wk4, T-e mec" l& (s l bGs cr Mt„d: -5maJ I I b4- A-e-\X l- b WV I F ilia! It l v'-Ae-f ai- 32-30 0,1 " T f ej l . 6, - OCGa. �d+�� Gornme2i0 l P"< "A,� off:,._ _ JeAt:�U -) I-./ —d
�r Ic ' ,\n) .i Wo V-ldL I ove- 6 see, "isf ir-A c4)MMi,,n �,.� n� S I r.
Wol Crew Te,= L �i met 61 ;�o�h.ui� i .aN �ecl.o�nrt� �o n'•� °� Name:
Phone:
S+Dres� res&45
Email: b ri,,e, 19.8
Address: a,-P-s
o,,,,n . 'D ;sass
wl 0--A.
2021-2029 Draft Housing Element Update Public Comment Card Comment:
1n av �,1� o o,n 5 LdS��o A, �yr, dZ v0 2,S
c.\\'c,\v,v- ra�jz'o- a�
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Address:
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C - September 2021 1 Page 18
Public Comment: Ortiz
From: Rynicia Ortiz
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:22 PM
To: Brandon Rabidou
Subject: Housing element
Hello, I am currently a resident of south Temecula. I am strongly against the new housing plan. My family and I moved to Temecula because of the safe area and the family friendly environment. I believe having very low income housing will drastically change the dynamics of the city. Most of the housing being built will be for those of very low income levels. This will bring crime to the area and change the entire environment of the city.
Temecula is a rare area in Southern California, where there are many families, a strong sense of community, low crime, and maintained very well. I do not want to see this city change.
Please reconsider this housing plan. I have spoken to many friends in Temecula regarding this and we all agree this would be a disaster for the city.
Thank you for your time.
Rynicia Ortiz
Sent from my iPhone
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 19
Public Comment: LaMont
Good morning,
In preparation for today's discussion, my concerns are as follows; I recognize the City has met the state required boxes for the Housing Element; however, a series of checked boxes simply is not enough. It will make state -inflicted headaches go away, but it won't resolve the housing crisis. And I've heard council members publicly comment about ineffective California policies enough to know that you know this. So please. Let's make solutions the goal, not strictly compliance with a state mandate.
During this meeting, please highlight the tangible steps the city will make toward solutions to the housing crisis and how it will specifically address the local workforce, often referred to as the missing middle. I'd like to emphasize the words "tangible" and "specific." Meaning, every staff member here knows I've dedicated an obscene amount of personal time advocating for the local workforce and attainable home ownership. I'd venture to say I've dedicated more hours to this cause than any person, paid or unpaid, since Temecula's inception.
None of this advocacy has centered on trigger words or divisive rhetoric. Typical activists pounce on the opportunity to turn a well -intended statement by city officials into accusations of "corruption" "white supremacy" or any number of click bait words that attack rather than resolve. Moreover, I've never expected the City to wave a magic wand and fix a complicated and longstanding issue. My point here is that I've done my due diligence, put in my time, and worked to create real solutions. I've been honest, reasonable, and direct. I expect the same from you tonight. Please spare me flowery terms and vague statements. Please share with us, your constituents, the City's plan to provide attainable home ownership for its local workforce. We request the City specifically respond to the following points and whether it will adopt any of these action items:
A) policy of inclusion
B) eliminate the segregation of the affordable housing overlay zone C) Land trusts
D) provide incentives to local businesses to help contribute to employee housing E) Down zone (up zoning costs the city money, down zoning would not) F) Pilot programs designed to incorporate specific employees into "mixed use" housing. As to meet the true intentions of mixed use by supplying the housing to the employees who work below.
I would have ccd Amanda Tropiano in this thread however I do not have her email information. Please feel free to forward.
Looking forward to speaking in detail later today.
Thank you,
Laurel LaMont
Director of Upward Community
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 20
Public Comment: McGlaston
Hi Brandon,
I hope this message finds you well. This is my initial suggestion on the housing element work you're doing, in particular on getting the word out to more people.
My husband and (at the time) infant daughter sold our house in SD and moved to Temecula about 2.5 years ago. We bought in the Redhawk area and have loved being here since we moved. I've noticed a lot of similar family dynamics and recent moves to Temecula for the same reasons that brought us here (more affordable, more family friendly, clean and beautiful communities with wide streets and many parks, etc.).
To get to the point, I think you all need to have some sort of ambassador program to share this info with people (and perhaps specifically target the women/moms) of the area. I learned about this via text from one of my neighbor friends who is a stay at home mom and I can see this spreading quickly if it got passed around similarly.
That's all I have for now, but I'll likely be at the meeting next week. Thanks for the work you're doing!!
Kindly,
Rachael
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September 2021 1 Page 21
■
Feedback Influence
The feedback received from the public during preparation of the Housing Element and on the Public Draft Housing Element directly influenced the goals, policies, and programs included in the Housing Plan. Table 1 below summarize how public input is reflected in the Housing Plan.
General Input
Applicable Reference
Goal
Policy
Program
Other
Received
There should be more
• Goal 2
• Policy 2.1
• Program 10
affordable housing
• Goal 3
• Policy 2.2
• Program 12
choices for people
• Policy 3.1
who want to own a
home in Temecula
• Policy 3.2
Existing homes are in
• Goal 4
• Policy 4.2
• Program 18
•
good condition by
• Program 19
need general
maintenance
A variety of home
• Goal 1
• Policy 1.2
• Program 1
types are needed in
• Goal 2
• Policy 1.3
• Program 5
Temecula
• Policy 1.6
• Program 6
• Policy 2.1
• Program 7
• Program 8
• Program 9
Temecula should not
Existing General Plan and
have any more
Zoning designations allow
housing/traffic
for development. No new
sites are identified in the
Housing Element.
Work with regional
• Goal 2
• Policy 2.8
•
partners to address
affordable housing
issues
Work with local
• Goal 2
• Policy 2.9
•
employers to address
affordable housing
issues
Adequate parking
• The City's Zoning
near new future
Ordinance requires
housing sites should
minimum parking
be considered
standards for all new
development
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN I Housing Element Appendix C — September December 2021 1 Page 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX D:
2017 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
City of Temecula
Assessment of Fair Housing
Prepared by
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Approved March 2017
The Heart of Sou#h ern California
Wine Country
• � 1
This page intentionally left blank.
Cover Sheet
1. Submission date: October 4, 2016
2. Submitter name: City of Temecula
3. Type of submission (e.g., single program participant, joint submission): Single program participant
4. Type of program participant(s) (e.g., consolidated plan participant, PHA): Consolidated Plan
5. For PHAs, Jurisdiction in which the program participant is located: N/A
6. Submitter members (if applicable): N/A
7. Sole or lead submitter contact information:
a. Name: Lynn Kelly -Lehner
b. Title: Principal Management Analyst
c. Department: Community Development Department
d. Street address: 41000 Main Street
e. City: Temecula
f. State: CA
g. Zip code: 92590
8. Period covered by this assessment: July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2022
9. Initial, amended, or renewal AFH: Initial
10. To the best of its knowledge and belief, the statements and information contained herein are true, accurate, and complete and the program participant has developed this AFH in compliance with the requirements of 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150-5.180 or comparable replacement regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
11. The program participant will take meaningful actions to further the goals identified in its AFH conducted in accordance with the requirements in §§ 5.150 through 5.180 and 24 C.F.R. §§
91.225(a)(1), 91.325(a)(1), 91.425(a)(1), 570.487(b)(1), 570.601, 903.7(o), and 903.15(d), as applicable.
All Joint and Regional Participants are bound by the certification, except that some of the analysis, goals or priorities included in the AFH may only apply to an individual program participant as expressly stated in the AFH.
Aaron Adams
City Manager
12. Departmental acceptance or non -acceptance:
Date
U.S Department of Housing & Urban Development/Date
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 1 II. Community Participation Process.......................................................................................................... 4 III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions.................................................................................................. 9 IV. Fair Housing Analysis......................................................................................................................... 14 A. Demographic Summary
B. General Issues
i. Segregation/Integration
ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs
C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
D. Disability and Access Analysis
E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities........................................................................................................ 42 Appendices
A. HUD -Provided Maps
B. HUD -Provided Tables
C. City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Resident Surveys (English/Spanish) D. City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Stakeholder Survey E. Stakeholder Consultation List
F. General Plan Land Use Map
G. CDBG-Eligible Area Map
H. Public Transportation Maps (Employers, Public Facilities, Publicly Assisted Housing) I. List of Public Services funded with CDBG and General Fund J. List of Units Funded with Redevelopment Agency Funds i
K. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
L. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Fair Housing Initiatives Program Testing Results (2010-2015)
M. Survey Results
N. Eagle Soar Program
O. Public Hearing Notices
P. Summary of Public Comments at Public Hearings and Community Meetings Q. City Resolution Approving Assessment of Fair Housing ii
I. Executive Summary
1. Summarize the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and goals. Also include an overview of the process and analysis used to reach the goals.
The City of Temecula is located in the extreme southwest corner of the Riverside -San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in area in the continental United States. Temecula is 45 miles from Riverside, the County Seat, and nearly 70 miles from the City of San Bernardino, the County Seat of San Bernardino County. At 60 miles away, Temecula is closer to the City of San Diego than to San Bernardino. It is 172 miles from Blythe in Riverside County and 240 miles from Needles in San Bernardino County. Because of its location in the corner of the region, one must be cautious to draw too many conclusions in comparing Temecula to the regional data supplied by HUD. This Assessment compares and contrasts the City with the regional data, but as one would expect, there are some substantial differences in the data profiles and the needs between the City and the region. Many of these differences are evident and detailed in the HUD -supplied maps and charts included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
The City is located in a cluster of cities in Temecula Valley in southwest Riverside County. The other cities include Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore. All have experienced tremendous growth in the past twenty years, yet they remain separate and some distance from the metropolitan areas to the north and south.
Through its growth, Temecula has remained an integrated and diverse City with racial and ethnic groups spread evenly throughout the City. There are no HUD -identified racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the City. During the housing crisis of 2007-2008, the City was hit with many foreclosures and, as such, that issue was the greatest concern in the previous Analysis of Impediments, completed in 2010. Now with the housing industry in recovery, the greatest need in the City is affordable housing, as many new homebuyers find themselves priced out of the market.
Like all cities in the State of California, Temecula is challenged by a lack of financial resources to address its affordable housing needs due to the dissolution of all the State's redevelopment agencies. This was the main source of hundreds of affordable housing units constructed in the City since the 1990s.
Fair housing issues in Temecula appear to be individualized and not systemic, but preventing systematic issues requires continuous training and education of those persons employed in the housing industry, as well as educating the residents of their fair housing rights.
The City has developed four fair housing goals to overcome the contributing factors identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing. These goals have been prioritized based on feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Highest priority is given to those contributing factors that limit or deny fair housing choice of access to opportunity. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority.
Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws
Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Contributing Factor 213: Location and type of affordable housing Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Contributing Factor 413: Private discrimination
Based on the above goals and contributing factors, a number of actions were identified that can be taken over the next five years that will promote fair housing for its residents. These action items will be discussed at the end of this report, but a summary of these actions items is provided below.
• Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program by Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower income households. The City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require:
• minimum densities of 20 units per acre
• 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses • multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit
Enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer to allocate $12.4 million in remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to create or rehabilitate an estimated 100 affordable housing units, subject to market forces. The selection process includes priority consideration for proposals that incorporate housing units for persons with disabilities. Based on a preliminary review of the siting for these proposals, none are located in the three Census Tracts identified as having relatively high exposure to poverty.
Interviews with developers expected by July 2017; Selection of developer to occur by December 2017; Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by June 2018; Entitlements to be secured by June 2019. Construction to begin by June 2020. Estimates are subject to financing, property negotiations, market demand, and economic forces.
All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households as well as households that include persons with disabilities. Units advertised to contain specific accessibility features shall be prioritized for occupancy by persons identifying themselves as disabled. At least 50 units will benefit the aforementioned protected classes identified as having disproportionate housing needs. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair 2 Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable or practical. (Completion date subject to completion of affordable housing construction and commencement of sale or leasing. Expected June 2021)
• Require marketing materials for any new City of Temecula -assisted affordable housing project to be made available in Spanish. (July 1, 2017) • Translate City Affordable Housing Brochure in Spanish to promote meaningful access to affordable housing. (July 1, 2017)
• Continue the partnership with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program to provide funding to at least 30 low income home owners to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing. • Complete construction of Phase III of Madera Vista (formerly Summerhouse), which includes 30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8 units are very low income. (Entitlements are complete; Building permits to be issued by September 2017; Construction to be completed by September 2019) • Complete substantial rehabilitation of Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex. 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (One manager's unit.) (Rehab has begun. Expected completion date — March 2018.) • Adopt an ADA Transition Plan to evaluate public facilities to ensure equal access for persons with disabilities. The assessment will include 38 city parks, three trail systems, four tennisibasketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. (Adopt Plan by December 31, 2018)
• Include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle. (Consolidated Plan adopted by May 15, 2017. Allocation adopted annually by June 30.)
• In the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, allocate $150,000 for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. (Plan adopted by May 15, 2017; Construction completed by December 31, 2018)
• Construct accessibility upgrades at Pala Park, located in Census Tract 432.50, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive and provide access to those with special needs. (Construction completed by January 2019). • Complete the construction of a new playground at Sam Hicks Park, located in Census Tract 512.00, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. (Construction completed by December 31, 2017).
Annually provide approximately 12% of CDBG public service funds to a fair housing provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair housing laws — particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents. (Annually by June 30) Increase public awareness of accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting representatives of the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community that graduated from the City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. (Annually by June 30)
The City will distribute and replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at five City facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center. (Monthly, by the 30' day of each month)
The City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents with disabilities. (June 2022)
4 II. Community Participation Process
1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage and broaden meaningful community participation in the AFH process, including the types of outreach activities and dates of public hearings or meetings. Identify media outlets used and include a description of efforts made to reach the public, including those representing populations that are typically underrepresented in the planning process such as persons who reside in areas identified as R/ECAPs, persons who are limited English proficient (LEP), and persons with disabilities. Briefly explain how these communications were designed to reach the broadest audience possible. For PHAs, identify your meetings with the Resident Advisory Board.
The City planned a robust community outreach program in the development of the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). To reach the largest number of people and a wide variety of interests, the City conducted two surveys, one directed primarily at residents and the second toward the stakeholders. The City believed that a separate stakeholder survey was necessary, because many of the stakeholders did not reside in the City and many of the housing quality questions in the resident survey might not be relevant. At the same time, the City sought more in-depth responses from the stakeholders about the needs of the community and as well as to obtain data supporting their responses.
The resident survey was available on the City webpage and advertised in the San Diego Union Tribune newspaper, a media of general circulation in Temecula. The City engaged with City staff that interacts with the public, including Senior Center staff and the Public Works, Community Development, City Manager's office and Community Services departments. The survey was also distributed at the front counter and permit center at City Hall. To further reach the public, paper copies of the survey were given to various focus groups including:
• Temecula Pantry
• Regional Homeless Alliance
• Churches whose congregation mostly served minority populations In the process, the City doubled the number of stakeholders from its previous consolidated planning process as part of its outreach efforts to ensure a broader citizen participation process to fully assess the City's fair housing issues and community development needs. In many cases, the City followed up with individual phone calls to achieve clarification and a greater understanding of needs that they identified. The City notified over 150 stakeholders by email of the City's Assessment of Fair Housing preparation process and solicited their insight and input. On June 20, 2016, stakeholders were asked to complete a fair housing and community development needs assessment survey. A copy of the survey completed by residents is included in this report as Appendix C in English and Spanish, with a copy of the survey completed by stakeholders included in Appendix D and a full list of stakeholders consulted in Appendix E.
The City conducted two public hearings. A public hearing before the City Council was convened on June 28, 2016 to obtain the views of the community on affirmatively furthering fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs prior to drafting this AFH.
No public comments were received during this hearing. A second public hearing before the City Council was convened September 27, 2016 to obtain comments on the draft Assessment of Fair Housing. No comments were received.
The City conducted three community workshops. The first two community meetings were held on June 29, 2016. The first was conducted at 4:00 p.m. to accommodate those who preferred to come during working hours, followed by another after hours at 6:00 p.m. for those who could not attend during the day A third community meeting was conducted on Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The community meetings were interactive workshops with questions and answers on various needs of the City including: fair housing, community facilities and infrastructure, affordable housing and economic development.
A concerted effort was made to reach out to organizations that represented persons with disabilities, both through the community meetings and during the City's consultation stage of its citizen participation process. During the outreach, the City talked with pastors of three ethnocentric churches and provided surveys to them for their members.
The City does not have any Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).
2. Provide a list of organizations consulted during the community participation process.
The City expanded its mailing list of stakeholders to over 150 persons and agencies. (See Appendix E for a list of the persons contacted.)
3. How successful were the efforts at eliciting meaningful community participation? If there was low participation, provide the reasons.
Public hearings before the City Council were convened on June 28, 2016 and September 27, 2016 to obtain the views of the community on AFH-related data and affirmatively furthering fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs. No public comments were received during this hearing. Low community participation is attributed to that fact that community feedback was overwhelmingly positive during the public outreach process and the community was generally satisfied with the fair housing efforts in the City. This would consistent with previous community outreach surveys that indicated a 96% satisfaction rating with the City.
A total of 91 persons responded to our surveys, 45 responses from residents and 46 responses from stakeholders.
While the response rate was lower than expected, the City received valuable feedback from the surveys received.
Another recent City -sponsored survey for local municipal issues was undertaken separately, and just prior to the launch of the Assessment of Fair Housing Survey. In response to outreach and marketing efforts for the resident survey, a number of residents indicated to staff that they had already taken the survey when in fact they did not realize the Assessment of Fair Housing survey was a separate survey on different topics. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities also conducted a workshop during this same period. Despite significant promotional efforts, they also faced low response issues.
The City conducted a random telephone survey for a Community Opinion Study in 2014 and was able to secure the participation of 400 respondents. This survey found that 96 percent of Temecula residents felt that they had a good or excellent quality of life in the City. Less than one percent had a poor opinion of the City. There was no difference between the responses from renters and homeowners. The greatest response was that they liked the small town feeling and 0 community involvement of its residents. Traffic congestion was cited as the greatest problem.
Over 90 percent of respondents were satisfied with City services, facilities and programs. Only four percent said that the Temecula schools were poor. When compared to a similar study in 2000, there was no significant difference in opinion of the respondents, despite the fact that the City had grown substantially during that period.
At the June 29, 2016 community meetings, eight residents and stakeholders participated in a discussion of fair housing issues and community needs. The attendance at these meetings was lower than expected due to local traffic challenges associated with a Cal -Trans freeway closure at Rancho California Boulevard and the I-15 near City Hall. At the July 30, 2016 community meeting, five residents and stakeholders participated in the discussion.
For future planning efforts, the City wishes to improve stakeholder and resident feedback. The next AFH will be due 195 days prior to the start of the program year instead of 270 days prior to the start of the program year. This will allow the City to schedule its community participation process to coincide with a time of the year when many residents and stakeholders are not on summer vacations.
4. Summarize all comments obtained in the community participation process. Include a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why.
On June 3, 2016, the City consultant met with the pastors of Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula and they agreed to work with the City in obtaining input from their 300 member Spanish-speaking congregation. In talking with the pastor, they considered traffic congestion to the greatest problem that the City currently has. To reach the African American and Filipino communities, the City consultant contacted Nu -Way International Christian Ministries, which serves a mostly Black congregation and the Love of Christ Fellowship, which serves a mostly Filipino congregation. The City also connected with Rancho Community Church and St.
Catherine Catholic Church which have ministries to minority groups.
June 29, 2016: At the two community meetings on June 29, 2016, participants had the following comments. There was a discussion for the need of accessible sidewalks and the group was excited about the improvements being made with CDBG funds to Old Town. According to the participants, there is a need for another senior center and felt that an intergenerational facility would be important to the residents. This could address the great need for more programs for the teens. Participants pointed out that since most of the Pujol neighborhood needs have been met, the area of greatest need for community facilities and programs is the Margarita corridor, where Eagle Soar, a new community facility, was recently completed to serve the area.
There was considerable discussion about the need for support services for families with special needs children. Currently, many of those services are only available in Riverside, which is forty minutes away. They believed that the homelessness need is great in the City. Affordable housing is the greatest need in the City with home prices climbing again. With the demand for housing, it is hard for those who cannot provide all cash in a purchase. This is especially important issue for the increasing senior population who will need care facilities in the future. Job training for local employers is needed.
There is an issue with the school district not having the resources to fully fund special education programs. There was a discussion about historic preservation with respect to the Vail Ranch project. The City should look at whether there are any ADA issues at private facilities that could 7 be addressed with CDBG funds. There is a high demand for first time home buyer assistance, especially for off -base military personnel and veterans.
A complete summary of the comments is provided in Appendix P.
July 30, 2016: At the community meeting on July 30, 2016, the participants had the following comments. They noted that the City has made great strides in addressing the needs of the Pujol community. There is still a need to include an additional bridge on Via Montezuma over the creek from Jefferson to Diaz Road to provide greater access to that side of the community. There was talk about the need for additional centers for teens.
There was a discussion about the increased demand for mental health facilities especially for the young people. The expansion of programs for the special needs community seemed to be a recurring theme at the community meetings for the City. There was a discussion for the increased in demand for services for homeless persons and for an additional homeless shelter in the region, and it was suggested that the City consider a zoning change to allow for "tiny houses" for the homeless. Affordable housing is a major problem in the City, so much so that many of the local workforce is priced out of the market. This is exasperated by the fact that the FHA mortgage limits are artificially too low to assist many new homebuyers in Temecula's housing market.
Participants in the meeting indicated that any racial/ethnic segregation was likely more of a function of minorities, and particularly immigrants, choosing to locate near family and friends for support. With housing prices increasing beyond many families' income, there are increased instances of multi -generational households. To address this issue, there are several private housing projects, adjacent to Temecula, in unincorporated Riverside County, that provide a large number of bedrooms to multi -generational families. This is believed to especially benefit immigrant families with their assimilation process, who are accustomed to this familial situation.
There was discussion about the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood. It is the only Title 1 School in the City and participants thought that the area may be experiencing some problems.
A complete summary of the comments is provided in Appendix P.
Survey Results:
Two surveys were conducted with two purposes in mind. The first was to address fair housing issues and the second was to initiate the five-year consolidated planning process. Some of the consolidated planning process applied to the fair housing assessment and the results are summarized below. (See Appendix M for a summary of the survey results and comments.) While the survey responses were less than anticipated, the results reflected a good cross section of the community.
Respondents included residents, various public services sectors, homeless providers, youth and senior services, agencies serving the disabled, AIDS groups, health care, mental health, service providers for the developmentally disabled, real estate and banking industries, affordable housing industry, apartment association, law enforcement, regional government and City officials. The survey revealed that if there is discrimination occurring in the community, most people, whether residents or stakeholders, are unaware that it is occurring.
Consultations:
In conducting this assessment, the City consulted with a number of stakeholders including meetings on June 3, 2016 with various church groups; June 29, 2016 with Habitat for Humanity; August 3, 2016 with the Southwest Riverside Association of Realtors and Temecula Valley Unified School District; August 5, 2016 with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County; August 11, 2016 with the Southwest Riverside County Homeless Alliance, Riverside County Continuum of Care, Wells Fargo Bank, and Inland Regional Center; and on August 12, 2016 with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department and on August 15, 2016 with the Riverside County Economic Development Agency and Housing Authority of Riverside County.
0 III. Assessment of Past Goals, Actions and Strategies
1. Indicate what fair housing goals were selected by program participant(s) in recent Analyses of Impediments, Assessments of Fair Housing, or other relevant planning documents:
a. Discuss what progress has been made toward their achievement:
The Analysis of Impediments identified the following impediments and observations:
Observation No 1 — Lack of affordable housing could become a future barrier to housing choice.
• Action Item No. 1-1 Continue to diversify housing stock. The City should make a concerted effort to increase the number of affordable rentals located east of 1-15.
Progress Made: The City continues to support the development affordable housing.
The City issued a request for proposal(s) out for the remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds ($12.4 million), which could include more than one site, some of which are located east of 1-15. The request for proposals closed in May 2016. The City received twenty proposals from interested developers. The proposals are currently being reviewed by City staff.
Action Item No. 1-2. Address the basic needs of low income households. The City should also use CDBG and other HUD funds it may receive to preserving the safety net for its lowest income households who have difficulty finding affordable rentals and are likely cost burdened and/or at risk of homelessness. This could include supporting homeless shelters, food pantries, emergency assistance programs and social services operations.
Progress Made: Since the adoption of the City's previous Analysis of Impediments, the City has focused its CDBG public services funds on addressing its homeless needs as well as those at -risk of becoming homeless by providing assistance to the Inclement Weather Shelter Program, clothing for low income school children, domestic violence services, child care services and assistance to three organizations that provide food services to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. The City also provides discretionary General Fund moneys to a number of organizations, which are listed in Appendix 1. The City also participates in the Continuum of Care as well as a Southwest Riverside County Regional Homeless Alliance that includes four cities in the region.
In addition, the City is providing a home repair and maintenance grant program to low income households administered by Habitat for Humanity. The City has also funded a solar energy installation program for low income homeowners through GRID.
The City amended its ordinances to efficiency units housing structures in 2013. The City now allows the use of Section 8 vouchers for those with second units on their property.
10 The City supported retaining the affordability of the Rancho California apartments at the TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) hearing which were at - risk of being converted to market rate rents.
Observation No. 2 — Steering may be a fair housing impediment.
Action Item 2. Conduct fair housing outreach and education with Temecula's real estate professionals.
Progress Made: The City has annually provided CDBG funding to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County for fair housing education, training and enforcement program for low income households. The City also provides fair housing information on its City website and includes referrals to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County for residents and nonprofits.
Impediment No. 3 —Zoning regulations could be improved to facilitate affordable housing development.
• Action Item 3. The City should clarify the definition of family so that it does not exclude unrelated parties living in group home settings and add congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants to some residential zones.
Progress Made: On April 23, 2013, the City adopted Ordinance 13-03 which defined certain housing -related terms, designated zoning districts for residential care facilities, transitional, supportive and efficiency unit housing and established development standards for efficiency unit housing. Included in that ordinance was a change in the definition of family.
The City is intending to bring to the City Council an ordinance in 2017 that would establish an Affordable Housing Overlay that will identify sites throughout the City where transitional and supportive housing is allowed by right, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing and establish a density bonus program. This will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets established by the Southern California Association of Governments.
Staff is continuing to encourage opportunities for senior and affordable housing projects throughout the City.
In the update of the City's Housing Element, the City committed to taking the following actions to address fair housing:
o Provide incentives for affordable housing development o Increase housing options through better definition of both transitional and supportive housing
o Provide homebuyer assistance
o Subdivide larger sites for development of housing for low-income households.
Like all cities in California, the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies has had a major adverse impact in the ability of the City to aggressively accomplish some of 11 its affordable housing goals. As a result, the City's homebuyer program has been put on hold as well as its land assemblage programs.
The City has $12.4 million in Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. The City recently issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeking innovative projects that address one or more of the following housing needs: special needs, veterans, seniors, housing first, transitional and supportive housing. Reductions in HUD funding for housing has further limited the City to address these needs.
Observation No. 4 — High loan denials in low income area.
Action Item No. 4. Invest in low income neighborhoods. The City should invest in community projects in its low income areas. Such investments will mitigate neighborhood deterioration, which is particularly important given the high rates of loan denials in the areas east of 1-15. In addition, public improvements in low- income areas ensure that the amenities offered in these areas are comparable to amenities in higher income areas. Inequality of neighborhood amenities can become a fair housing concern if lower quality neighborhoods predominantly occupied by members of protected classes.
Progress Made: The City has focused its CDBG capital funding in CDBG eligible census tracts, including the Pujol neighborhood and Old Town. The City has upgraded Temecula Community Center and parks and is providing sidewalk improvements in those areas. Mixed -income housing developments are transforming this area into a vibrant place to live and work, while maintaining its diversity.
Five years ago, the City was coping with a high foreclosure rate as a result of the housing bust of 2007-2008. It was estimated that nearly 15% of the housing stock was bank -owned or in some state of foreclosure. According to Property Radar, there were only 97 bank -owned properties (REO inventory) in the City in May 2016. This was a drop of 22.4% in the past year.
Since 2007-2008, housing prices have rebounded and fewer homeowners are under water with their mortgages. According to the Southwest Riverside County Realtor Report published in 2016, the median home price is $436,577 with the average home sale exceeding $500,000 for the first time since December 2007. This indicates that median home prices have increased by 5% in the last 12 months. Compared to 2007 sales price levels, the City is now less than 10% of what it was at its highest levels.
While this is good for the homeowner, it can be difficult for the first-time homebuyers to afford homes in Temecula. Nonetheless, home sales have increased by 18% for both April and May of 2016 over 2015 levels.
The City evaluated home loans for both mortgages and refinancing. The data revealed that none of the racial or ethnic groups experienced disproportionately lower approval rates, compared to other groups in the City. (See Appendix K for Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data charts.)
Observation No. 5 — There is a lack of information and knowledge about fair housing. 12 • Action Item No. 5. Improve access to fair housing information. The City of Temecula should add easy to find fair housing information on its website. It is critical that the City have a link to HUD's complaint -taking website and the State of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), where residents may file complaints if they so desire.
Progress Made: The City has added information on its website directing residents with fair housing questions to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County website that contains resource links to HUD, DFEH and other legal and regulatory agencies.
The City site also provides an explanation of the services provided by the Fair Housing Council.
b. Discuss how you have been successful in achieving past goals, and/or how you have fallen short of achieving those goals (including potentially harmful unintended consequences); and
As described above, the City has been very successful in achieving its goals. They are reflected in its commitment to address the needs that were identified as well as by the results of the survey.
The greatest deterrent in meeting the needs for affordable housing has been the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies by the State of California. This had been the greatest source of funding for cities such as Temecula in addressing its affordable housing needs. c. Discuss any additional policies, actions, or steps that you could take to achieve past goals, or mitigate the problems you have experienced.
Without the use of redevelopment funds, the City will be highly dependent upon the limited funds available through the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and HUD funded programs. The City will continue to pursue affordable housing grant program opportunities and partnerships with nonprofits, county, regional, and State agencies.
As mentioned earlier in this Assessment, the City is intending to bring to the City Council an ordinance in 2017 that would establish an Affordable Housing Overlay that will identify sites throughout the City where transitional and supportive housing is allowed by right, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing and establish a density bonus program.
This will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets established by the Southern California Association of Governments.
Also previously mentioned, the City issued a request for proposal(s) out for the remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds ($12.4 million), which could include more than one site, some of which are located east of 1-15. The request for proposals closed in May 2016. The City received twenty proposals from interested developers. The proposals are currently being reviewed by City staff.
d. Discuss how the experience of program participant(s) with past goals has influenced the selection of current goals.
Until the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies, the City had an aggressive and effective program in addressing its affordable housing needs. Through the redevelopment program, the City assisted eleven rental projects that provided 588 units for low and moderate income 13 families and individuals. In addition, it provided for 18 owner -occupied housing units. (See Appendix J for a list of the redevelopment projects completed by the City prior to the dissolution of the redevelopment agency.)
Current goals are being established as part of this planning process with the understanding that housing and community development resources are scarcer and the development of affordable housing is more challenging.
14 IV. Fair Housing Analvsis
A. Demographic Summary
1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time (since 1990).
In comparing Map 1-Race and Ethnicity 2010 with Map 2-Race and Ethnicity Trends 1990, the City of Temecula has grown substantially in population. Through this period of tremendous growth, the City remains a diverse and integrated community, and there are no significant concentrations of segregation. Table 2-Demographic Trends describes the growth rates during the twenty year period from 1990 to 2010 and provides trends for race/ethnicity, national origin, limited English proficiency, sex, age and families with children.
While all racial and ethnic groups, except Native Americans, have increased numerically, Hispanics and Asians have far exceeded the proportionate growth of other racial and ethnic groups. Whites are continuing to increase, but at a slower rate. This is also true for the region as a whole. This trend is also reflected in the percentage of persons from other nations. However, the proportion of those with limited English proficiency has not increased as dramatically as the ethnic populations have, both within the City and in the region as whole. The number families with children in proportion to the general population (and correspondingly those under the age of 18) increased over the twenty year period, but decreased in the last ten years for both the City and region.
2. Describe the location of homeowners and renters in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over time.
Multi -family areas are located throughout the City particularly along major arterials, in the downtown area and west side of the town. Undeveloped land in the north and south is projected on the General Plan for higher density residential. (See Appendix F for a map of the land use element of the City's adopted General Plan.) B. General Issues
i. Seuegation/Integration
1. Analysis
a. Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region.
Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.
According to the HUD provided Map 1-Race and Ethnicity, Temecula had no areas of concentrations of racial or ethnic groups. All ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City. The City also had no HUD -defined racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP areas). Local knowledge confirmed this observation. Map 2 shows no appreciable difference from 1990.
This is also confirmed with Table 3-Racial and Ethnicity Dissimilarity Trends.
According to HUD, if a jurisdiction has an Index value of less than 40, there is high 15 diversity (low segregation) in the City. The City has a score between 18.93 and
26.05 for the various racial and ethnic groups.
Likewise, Map 3-National Origin shows no segregation pattern based on national origin. The top five population groups are spread evenly throughout the City, showing the City's diversity and high integration.
In comparing the City with the region from Table 2-Demographic Trends, the percentage of Blacks and Hispanics is about half that in the region. There are more Whites and Asians in Temecula than the regional average. Twenty-two percent of the City's Hispanics were born in Mexico compared to 27% for the region based on calculation of figures in Table 1. Eighty-nine percent of the Hispanic immigrants are Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This is roughly the same as for the region.
There was a significant increase in the percentage of foreign born over the past twenty years, but the percentage of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons remained about the same, even though their population increased. Although only 3% of the population, 40% of Filipinos are LEPs, compared to 27% region -wide.
According to Map 4-Persons with LEP, their populations are spread evenly across the City.
According to Table 1, the largest disabled population are those who are ambulatory (3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty (3.54%), independent living difficulty (2.90%) and those with hearing loss (2.67%). There is probably considerable overlap in these populations.
According to Table 1, eight percent of the City's population is seniors compared to
10.4% region -wide. Fifty-six percent of the households are families with children compared to 51% region -wide. While all age groups increased in population, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of children and an increase in those of middle age. That could further be seen in a decrease in the proportion of families with children, even though it remains higher than the regional percentages. b. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990).
According to Table 2-Demographic Trends, racial and ethnic diversity has increased dramatically in the City over the past twenty years. Except Native Americans, the population of all racial and ethnic groups has grown; however, the Hispanic and Asian populations have increased at a much faster rate than the other population groups. Hispanics have increased from 14.5% to 25% of the population and Asians / Pacific Islanders from 2.40% to 9.71%. Despite an increase in population of over 28,000 in twenty years, the proportion of Whites has decreased from 80.23% in 1990 to 57% in 2010. Blacks have increased at a less dramatic rate from 1.3% to 4% from 1990 to 2010, but showed a slight decline percentagewise from 4.16% in 2000 to 3.88% in 2010, even though their population increased.
While Native Americans constitute only .6% of the population, they were the only ethnic group to show a decrease in population between 2000 and 2010.
Through the tremendous growth in populations, Table 3 demonstrates that the Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index range was still between 18.93 and 26.05, well below the HUD threshold of 40, meaning there is minimal segregation and high 16 integration within the City. This compares to a range between 41.29 and 47.66 for the region.
c. Identify areas with relatively high segregation and integration by race/ethnicity, national origin, or LEP group, and indicate the predominant groups living in each area.
According to Maps 1 through 4 pertaining to racial and ethnic data and dissimilarity indexes, there are no patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity, national origin or LEP groups in the City.
d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas.
Based on the above discussion, there are no patterns of segregation in the City by race, ethnicity, national origin or LEP. The majority of multi -family residential is located in areas with easy access to transit systems and employment centers throughout the City.
e. Discuss how patterns of segregation have changed over time (since 1990).
There has been little change in segregation patterns over the last twenty years even though the City has grown dramatically during that period. The City has no patterns of segregation.
f. Discuss whether there are any demographic trends, policies, or practices that could lead to higher segregation in the jurisdiction in the future.
Based upon data in Table 2, the trend is that the City is becoming increasingly diverse as it has grown over the last twenty years. This is in line with trends throughout the region. Maps 1 and 2 do not reveal trends of segregation patterns forming within the City as a result of the growth.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about segregation in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
Information gathered from community meetings and surveys along with data sources provided stakeholders did not provide any information that segregation exists in the City affecting other protected characteristics was provided through stakeholder consultations. Workshop participants also concluded that the City is highly diverse.
The region does have higher scores than the City, indicating a very diverse and integrated population, but as mentioned in the introduction, the region represents the largest MSA in the nation.
17 b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of segregation, including activities such as place -based investments and mobility options for protected class groups.
CDBG funds have been focused on the needs of the City's CDBG eligible census tracts. Public services and housing programs have been focused on the CDBG eligible areas of the City. (See Appendix F for the location of the CDBG eligible areas.)
3. Contributing Factors of Segregation
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of segregation.
❑ Community Opposition
❑ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
❑ Lack of community revitalization strategies
❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation
❑ Land use and zoning laws
❑ Lending Discrimination
❑ Location and type of affordable housing
❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions
❑ Private discrimination
© Other: There are no patterns in the City.
ii. R/ECAPs
1. Analysis
a. Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of RECAP tracts within the jurisdiction.
HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City. b. Which protected classes disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs compared to the jurisdiction and region?
N/A
c. Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time (since 1990).
N/A
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
18 N/A
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of R/ECAPs, including activities such as place -based investments and mobility options for protected class groups.
N/A
3. Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of R/ECAPs.
❑ Community Opposition
❑ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
❑ Lack of community revitalization strategies
❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation
❑ Land use and zoning laws
❑ Lending Discrimination
❑ Location and type of affordable housing
❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions
❑ Private discrimination
X❑ Other: Not Applicable. HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City.
iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
1. Analysis
a. Educational Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status.
The City does not have jurisdiction over the local schools. They are administered by independent public school districts, such as the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Table 12 - Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity provides an index regarding how well fourth graders of the various racial and ethnic groups are doing on their State exams in comparison with national indices. Higher scores indicate higher proficiencies in the schools.
According to Table 12, the school proficiency index is essentially the same for all races and ethnic groups in the City. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest, Hispanics scored 79.00, Blacks at 80.36, Native Americans at 80.86, 19 Asians at 81.58 and Whites at 82.20. In comparison, the region scored between
40.97 for Hispanics on the low end and 58.09 for Whites on the high end.
The City has one Title 1 school (Temecula Elementary School) in the northern end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 40% of the children participate in a free or reduced lunch program. The school is located in one of the City's CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title 1 Middle Schools or High Schools in the City.
The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children from school to school subject to availability. Parents would responsible for providing transportation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their place of residence. ii. Describe the relationship between the residency patterns of racial/ethnic, national origin, and family status groups and their proximity to proficient schools.
There is no difference in the school proficiency index Citywide between the higher income households and those populations below the poverty line; however, there is some difference in scores between some of the schools in the higher income areas and one school in a lower income area in the northwest part of the City. This can be found on Map 9 Demographics and School Proficiency by Race/Ethnicity, National Origin and Family Status. The lower income area is predominately Whites along with some Mexican, Korean, and Filipino immigrants. The Temecula Elementary School is located in this neighborhood. iii. Describe how school -related policies, such as school enrollment policies, affect a student's ability to attend a proficient school. Which protected class groups are least successful in accessing proficient schools? The City does not have jurisdiction over the public schools. However, all protected classes Citywide are performing at above regional levels as discussed above and there is virtually no difference between the various racial groups.
The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children from school to school subject to availability. Parents would be responsible for providing transportation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their place of residence.
b. Employment Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups.
The Jobs Proximity Index in Table 12-Opportunity Indicators provides an index for the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by race/ethnicity.
The Labor Market Index also in Table 12 provides a measure of unemployment 20 rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor's degree, by neighborhood. The higher scores represent greater the access to employment opportunities, and are better prepared to enter the labor market with higher incomes.
According to the Map 10 series for Job Proximities, persons in the lower -income areas live substantially closer to employment opportunities than their counterparts in the higher -income areas, often located farther away from the Interstate. Again, there was little difference between racial and ethnic groups or national origin according to Map 10 and Table 12 for Job Proximity.
The Labor Market Index for the various races and ethnicities range from 46.38 for Native Americans to 49.79 for Whites. These scores, which are based on a scale from 1 to 100, would be in the average range based on HUD's perspective nationwide. There was no difference between the City as a whole and those below the poverty line. In fact, all races except Asians who were below the poverty line had slightly higher scores than those above the poverty level. They ranged between 44.15 for Asians and 51.31 for Blacks with Whites at 48.79.
When compared with the region, the City residents scored much higher. The region ranged from 24.20 for Hispanics to 43.02 for Asians and unlike the City, there was a substantial difference for those below the poverty line. They ranged from 16.42 for Hispanics to 30.51 for Asians. Whites were at 25.55.
Although some classes are available locally, the lack of a community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency.
However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula, including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas in the region have notably higher ratings such as in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west.
ii. How does a person's place of residence affect their ability to obtain a job? According to Map 11 Labor Market Engagement, those living in the high income areas have a greater labor -force participation rate than those who are living in the lower income areas. The Job Proximity Index on Table 12 demonstrates virtually no difference between racial and ethnic groups, ranging from 43.37 for Asians on the low end to 44.36 for Hispanics on the upper end.
There was a wider range for those below the poverty line. They ranged from
39.32 for Native Americans to 57.42 for Asians. Except for Native Americans, all their scores exceeded the counterparts who were above the poverty line.
There was no substantial difference between the City and the region for these indices.
Which racial/ethnic, national origin, or family status groups are least successful in accessing employment?
21 There was no appreciable difference between the various groups. c. Transportation Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to transportation based on place of residence, cost, or other transportation related factors.
The Transportation Cost Index in Table 12 provides an index regarding the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation. The score for this index was the only index where the City fared lower than the region. The low scores indicate that the City needs to improve access to public transportation, however low transportation costs are a challenge to the entire region, and are not just limited to City boundaries.
According to Map 12-Demographics and Transit Trips and Map 13- Demographics and Low Transportation Costs, the lower -income areas had the highest scores, indicating that lower income residents have greater usage of public transportation than the higher income residents. This would be expected since the lower income persons are more dependent upon public transportation.
The scores in Table 12 ranged from 18.10 for Native Americans and 19.98 for Whites to 25.05 for Hispanics. The scores for those below the poverty line have greater usage of public transportation as well, but higher than those who are above the poverty level. They ranged from 24.93 for Whites to 3 5. 10 for Asians.
The exception is that Native Americans had a low score at 15.77. The reason for that anomaly is unclear.
There is one area in the north that has a low usage of public transportation. This is Census Tract 432.17 known as the Meadowview neighborhood. It is not an eligible CDBG area, because its median income is too high. It is also an area, as shown in Map 11, with a higher than average labor market engagement. This would indicate that there is not a great of a need for public transportation in that particular area.
The scores for the region were low, from 25.75 to 32.68 for the region as a whole; and 29.20 to 37.05 for those populations below the poverty line; however, somewhat higher than for the City for racial and ethnic groups. ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most affected by the lack of a reliable, affordable transportation connection between their place of residence and opportunities?
Except for Native Americans below the poverty line, there was no difference with the various protected class groups with access to low cost transportation.
The reason for the anomaly is unclear.
iii. Describe how the jurisdiction's and region's policies, such as public transportation routes or transportation systems designed for use personal vehicles, affect the ability of protected class groups to access transportation.
Public transportation is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency and is not under the authority of the City. However, the City is served by several bus 22 lines that provide service throughout the week and weekends. (See Appendix H for a map showing the service provided to the community.) As it has done in the past, the City will continue to partner with developers to privately fund transportation options as development occurs.
d. Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.
The Low Poverty Index rates family poverty by household (based on the federal poverty line) provides an index regarding the access to poverty by census tract.
The higher the scores, the less likely a neighborhood is exposed to poverty.
There was little difference between the various ethnic and racial groups. Indices ranged from 65.42 for Hispanics to 71.23 for Whites, which indicates that all racial and ethnic groups have low exposure to poverty in Temecula. Except for Asians, there was little difference between those below the poverty line. They ranged for 54.98 for Blacks to 67.95 for Native Americans. The only anomaly was for Asians at 46.21 who were more exposed to poverty than their counterparts. This could be reflective of recent Filipino immigrants which now constitute over 3% of the City's population and 40% are limited English speaking according to Table 1. Though a small minority group, there are a number living in a low income area.
Again, there was a substantial difference between the City residents and those within the region. In the region, the range was between 37.51 for Hispanics to
60.42 for Asians. For those below the poverty line, there was even a larger difference. They ranged from 23.78 for Hispanics to 42.30 for Asians. City residents have less exposure to poverty than the region as a whole. ii. What role does a person's place of residence play in their exposure to poverty?
According to Map 14-Demographics and Poverty, there were three adjoining census tracts in north Temecula that had low scores indicating a higher exposure to poverty. Three of the census tracts are CDBG eligible lower -income areas, but one of the adjoining areas is not, yet affected by its exposure to poverty.
Another adjoining area is an eligible CDBG area but did not indicate a high exposure to poverty. The area has a number of market -rate and subsidized apartment complexes in the vicinity of the Temecula Elementary School, which may be affecting this index score. The corridor also contains many of the City's commercial shopping centers.
iii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most affected by these poverty indicators?
There is not a substantial difference among the groups, except for Asians below the poverty line. This group may include recent immigrants from the Philippines, some of which have limited English proficiency. 23 iv. Describe how the jurisdiction's and region's policies affect the ability of protected class groups to access low poverty areas.
The City has adopted land use policies concentrating multi -family housing projects along major arterials, shopping, employment centers, and recreational facilities. This allows lower income persons easier access to opportunities; but at the same time, concentration of multi -family housing may statistically increase residents' exposure to poverty.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) represents six counties in the southern California area, which includes Temecula and Riverside County. In an effort to meet the affordable housing needs of the region and distribute this need evenly across the region, SCAG has provided Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets for creating a certain number of affordable housing units in every city in the region. The City's goal is to provide housing for 375 very low income households and 251 low income households. The City is using its available resources and the Affordable Housing Overlay to meet those targeted amounts.
e. Environmentally Healthy Neighborhood Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups.
The Environmental Health Index measures exposure based on EPA estimates of air quality carcinogenic, respiratory and neurological toxins by neighborhood.
The higher the scores, the less likely households are exposed to adverse environmental conditions.
According to Table 12 Environmental Health Index, there was virtually no difference between the racial/ethnic groups with ranges from 39.99 to 40.42.
For those below the poverty line, the range was similar with a range from 38.06 to 40.93. This means that in this category, all City's racial/ethnic population groups and income groups are slightly below the national average in their exposure to environmental issues. The City scored somewhat better than the region where the scores ranged from 26.57 to 41.33 and for those below the poverty line, ranging from 24.89 to 40.58. The wide scoring range for the region would reflect the enormous size of the region. The areas with the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns are located along the freeway.
Temecula's exposure to environmental health issues is lower than the region, on average.
ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods?
According to Map 15-Demographics and Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity, there was one area east of the Interstate, north of Temecula Parkway, west of Margarita Road and south of Pauba that had a low environmental score in this category, but there was no concentration of any of the protected groups in that area. The only distinguishing feature was that there were 24 few households with families in that area. The Temecula Valley Hospital is located in that area.
f. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
i. Identify and discuss any overarching patterns of access to opportunity and exposure to adverse community factors based on race/ethnicity, national origin or familial status. Identify areas that experience an aggregate of poor access to opportunity and high exposure to adverse factors. Include how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation and R/ECAPs.
Analysis of the HUD -provided maps and data did not reveal any overarching patterns of poor access to opportunity and did not reveal adverse community factors. However, Census Tract 432.16 along the Margarita Corridor, is identified on Map 14 as having high exposure to poverty. Two of the three block groups are in CDBG-eligible areas and the third is not. Yet the HUD data indicates that the third block group also has a high exposure to poverty. The only Title 1 School in the district is located in this neighborhood. The area is characterized by commercial retail and uses and the presences of a mix of multi- family and single family housing. Two of the multi -family complexes in one of the block groups are subsidized, the 40-unit Oak Tree Apartments on Lyndie Lane and the 55 unit Rancho California Apartments off of Margarita Road.
There are a number of subsidized units west of Interstate 15, which is a CDBG- eligible area, but that area does not have a high exposure factor. This could be partly because the City has focused its CDBG and local funds in addressing this area.
The City does not show any patterns of segregation, nor does it have any RECAPS.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disparities in access to opportunity in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD -provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disparities in access to opportunity, including any activities aimed at improving access to opportunities for areas that may lack such access, or in promoting access to opportunity (e.g., proficient schools, employment opportunities, and transportation).
Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD -provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics. 25 The City is involved in a number of efforts aimed at improving air quality of the entire region including the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Clean Cities Coalition, which aims to reduce the consumption of petroleum fuels. The City also participates in WRCOG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TUMF program makes improvements to the regional transportation system and provides transportation demand management through funds from new development.
3. Contributing Factors of Disparities in Access to Opportunity Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region.
Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of disparities in access to opportunity.
❑ Access to financial services
❑ The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation ❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities ❑ Lack of regional cooperation
❑ Land use and zoning laws
❑ Lending Discrimination
❑ Location of employers
❑ Location of environmental health hazards
❑ Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies ❑ Location and type of affordable housing
❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions
❑ Private discrimination
© Other: None of the maps and tables provided by HUD, nor our consultations with residents and stakeholders, revealed any significant disparities in access opportunities. iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs
1. Analysis
a. Which groups (by race/ethnicity and family status) experience higher rates of housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared to other groups? Which groups also experience higher rates of severe housing burdens when compared to other groups?
HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for housing for different groups in the community. A disproportionately greater burden exists when the members of a particular group experience a housing problem at a greater rate (90 percent or more) than the group as a whole.
Table 9-Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs shows the percentage of race/ethnicity groups and families with children experiencing two potential categories of housing burden. The first category is households experiencing one of four housing problems:
26 ■ Housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities)
■ Overcrowding
■ Lacking a complete kitchen
■ Lacking plumbing
The second category is households experiencing "one of four severe housing problems" which are:
■ Severe housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 50% of one's income for monthly housing costs including utilities)
■ Overcrowding
■ Lacking a complete kitchen
■ Lacking plumbing
Table 10-Demographics of Household with Severe Housing Cost Burden demonstrates the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity and family size experiencing severe housing cost burden. There is no substantial difference between racial and ethnic groups. Non -family households demonstrated the highest cost burdens. The City scores are reflective of the region.
According to Table 9, half of the City's households are experiencing one of the four housing problems identified above. There is a disparity in this category with
47.37% of the White households experiencing a housing problem, Asians at
54.31% and Blacks at 55.04%. Hispanics are higher at 62.24% and Native Americans at 80.90%. For severe housing problems, they range from 20.76% for White households to 35.56% for Hispanic households. Native Americans were at
33.71%.
Map 5 - Publicly Supported Housing and Map 6 - Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) provides the location of the limited number of publicly supported and HVC housing units in the City. Given the housing costs in the City and the region, there is a high demand for affordable rental housing.
While comparable with the region, all households, except Black households, were slightly more burdened in the City than in the region. For those below the poverty level, all groups, except for Native Americans, were less burdened in the City than in the region. Based on our examination of the data in Table 9 and demonstrated in Map 7-Housing Cost Burden and Race/Ethnicity, there were no disproportionate housing problems based on race, ethnicity, national origin, household type and size.
These results are not unexpected with the high costs of housing in Southern California as a whole.
27 b. Which areas in the jurisdiction and region experience the greatest housing burdens? Which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas, or R/ECAPs and what are the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin groups in such areas?
There are no R/ECAPS in the City. While mostly uniform throughout the City, the greatest housing burden appears to be in the far north and adjacent to it in the wealthier parts of the City. In the lower -income neighborhoods, there is much less of a housing burden. According to Map 7-Housing Cost Burden, the greatest housing burdens are in the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood which has a concentration of apartments on the far north, indicating the need for affordable rental housing. While there are two subsidized housing projects in the area, which should lower the housing burden scores, there are also several market -rate apartment complexes as well.
c. Compare the needs of families with children for housing units with two, and three or more bedrooms with the available existing housing stock in each category of publicly supported housing.
Based on the data in the Table 11, there are a limited number of Project Based Section 8 units for families in the City. There are 54 two- and three -bedroom units and only 36 units are households with children. There are also a limited number of Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) units where there are 30 two- and three -bedroom units and only thirteen units are households with children.
Additional affordable housing units for families continue to be a high demand in the City.
d. Describe the differences in rates of renter and owner occupied housing by race/ethnicity in the jurisdiction and region.
For the City, 67% of the households are owner -occupied and 33% are renter occupied. While general conclusions may be drawn, the data was not provided by HUD and is not available at the local level by tenure. It is evident that there continues to be a high demand for Section 8 vouchers due to the housing cost burden experienced by renters.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disproportionate housing needs in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
Based on a consultation with Inland Regional Center, and feedback from the community workshops, there is a large need in the region for affordable housing for adults with developmental disabilities. According to the Center, there are 651 persons with developmental disabilities in the three zip codes (92590, 92591 and 92592) that comprise the Temecula area. Some of these include large rural areas outside the City and it is believed that at least 200 of these individuals live outside the City limits. Regionally, many of those who independently live in group homes face substandard conditions, according to Inland Regional Center. However, they 28 indicate that this is not an issue within the City. The greatest demand is for studio and one -bedroom units for those with low and moderate disabilities.
In addition, there is a growing number of families for families with autistic children in the community. The stress on families with autistic children is creating a demand for housing single parent units. Often there is more than one child with autism in the home creating the demand for larger three and four bedroom units. Children with autism require housing units to address their sensory needs, such as dimmer lights and controls on hot water faucets. Inland Regional Center also advised that these units not be concentrated in a single complex so that integration of these families can be achieved.
The City has met with developers regarding the needs of residents with special needs. Some developers are willing to include options in the construction of new homes that meet the sensory needs of residents with disabilities. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disproportionate housing needs. For PHAs, such information may include a PHA's overriding housing needs analysis.
The City does not manage any public housing projects.
3. Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing Needs Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of disproportionate housing needs. ® The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes ❑ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
❑ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods ❑ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
❑ Land use and zoning laws
❑ Lending Discrimination
® Other: Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve special needs populations.
C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
1. Analysis
a. Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
i. Are certain racial/ethnic groups more likely to be residing in one category of publicly supported housing than other categories (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV))?
29 Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be living in Project -based Section 8 housing units than reflective of the overall City percentages for these racial and ethnic groups. According to the Housing Authority, there are 109 households receiving Tenant -based Section 8 vouchers in Temecula. Ninety are White, seventeen are Black, one is Asian, and one is Native American. Of the 109, 30 are Hispanic and 79 are non -Hispanic. Eighty five (85) are one person households and the rest are families. Seventy-six (76) are elderly and 53 have disabilities. The households are spread across the City with 47 households are in zip code 92590; 51 in 92591 and 11 in 92592.
ii. Compare the demographics, in terms of protected class, of residents of each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, and HCV) to the population in general, and persons who meet the income eligibility requirements for the relevant category of publicly supported housing.
Include in the comparison, a description of whether there is a higher or lower proportion of groups based on protected class.
According to Table 6-Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity, the HCV program (better known as the Tenant Based Section 8) generally reflects the population composition of the City, with the exception of Asians. There are 57% White, 16% Black, 27% Hispanic, but no Asians receive vouchers. It should be noted that Asians do not comprise a large percentage within the City's Section 8 population. There are a greater proportion of Blacks and Hispanics taking advantage of the Project -Based Section 8 program than the general population of the City. Only 37.04% of the residents were White with 20.37% Black and 40.74% Hispanic. Most of the units are occupied by those with incomes less than 30% of the County's median income.
According to the Housing Authority of Riverside County, there are 109 tenant -based Section 8 rental assistance vouchers in Temecula. Seventy-six of the households are elderly and 53 have disabilities. Some of the households are elderly and have disabilities.
b. Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
i. Describe patterns in the geographic location of publicly supported housing by program category (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, HCV, and LIHTC) in relation to previously discussed segregated areas and R/ECAPs.
There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. Most of the publicly supportive housing units are located near employment centers and transportation opportunities.
ii. Describe patterns in the geographic location for publicly supported housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities in relation to previously discussed segregated areas or R/ECAPs?
30 There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. iii. How does the demographic composition of occupants of publicly supported housing in RECAPS compare to the demographic
composition of occupants of publicly supported housing outside of R/ECAPs?
N/A
iv. (A) Do any developments of public housing, properties converted under the RAD, and LIHTC developments have a significantly different demographic composition, in terms of protected class, than other developments of the same category? Describe how these developments differ.
Black populations have a greater proportion living in public housing than the general population of the City, while Asians have a lower percentage. But with the limited number of units available in the City, it is not believed that these differences are considered significant.
(B) Provide additional relevant information, if any, about occupancy, by protected class, in other types of publicly supported housing.
No additional data is available.
v. Compare the demographics of occupants of developments, for each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, properties converted under RAD, and LIHTC) to the demographic composition of the areas in which they are located. Describe whether developments that are primarily occupied by one race/ethnicity are located in areas occupied largely by the same race/ethnicity. Describe any differences for housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or persons with disabilities.
All races except Asians are represented in the HUD and LIHTC developments. Black populations have a higher percentage living in publicly supported units compared to the general population of the City. But with the limited number of units available in the City, it is not believed that these differences are considered significant.
c. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
i. Describe any disparities in access to opportunity for residents of publicly supported housing, including within different program categories (public housing, project -based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted Developments, HCV, and LIHTC) and between types (housing primarily serving families with children, elderly persons, and persons with disabilities) of publicly supported housing.
31 According to the HUD supplied data, there were no significant disparities in access to opportunity for residents in publicly supported housing.
Anecdotal information gathered through the consultation and stakeholders meetings confirm this.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region, particularly information about groups with other protected characteristics and about housing not captured in the HUD -provided data.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders did not reveal other information to disparities in publicly -supported housing in Temecula affecting groups. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of publicly supported housing. Information may include relevant programs, actions, or activities, such as tenant self-sufficiency, place -based investments, or mobility programs.
According to the Housing Authority of Riverside County, there are 109 tenant - based Section 8 rental assistance vouchers in Temecula. Seventy-six of the households are elderly and 53 have disabilities. Some of the elderly are also disabled.
3. Contributing Factors of Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing issues related to publicly supported housing, including Segregation, RECAPS, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders did not reveal other information to disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula and the region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
❑ Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in publicly supported housing
❑ Land use and zoning laws
❑ Community opposition
❑ Impediments to mobility
❑ Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
❑ Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services and amenities
❑ Lack of regional cooperation
❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions
❑ Quality of affordable housing information programs
32 ❑ Siting selection policies, practices and decisions for publicly supported housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and other programs
❑ Source of income discrimination
® Other: High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the community and the region
D. Disability and Access Analysis
1. Population Profile
a. How are persons with disabilities geographically dispersed or concentrated in the jurisdiction and region, including R/ECAPs and other segregated areas identified in previous sections?
There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. According to Map 16- Disability by Type and Map 17-Disability by Age Group demonstrating the location where the persons with disabilities live, persons with disabilities are scattered throughout the City. There are 53 households with persons with disabilities that receive tenant -based rental assistance. Their addresses are confidential.
b. Describe whether these geographic patterns vary for persons with each type of disability or for persons with disabilities in different age ranges.
There is no difference in the geographic patterns for persons with disabilities.
2. Housing Accessibility
a. Describe whether the jurisdiction and region have sufficient affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.
Data is not available for the total number of accessible units; however, 33% of the City's occupied housing units were built after 2000, according to the 2008- 2012 American Community Survey five year estimates, suggesting that a number of units are adaptable based on California Building Codes in effect during those years.
b. Describe the areas where affordable accessible housing units are located. Do they align with R/ECAPs or other areas that are segregated?
There are no R/ECAPs in the City and the HUD data did not reveal any areas that were segregated.
c. To what extent are persons with different disabilities able to access and live in the different categories of publicly supported housing? According to the Housing Authority, their programs have a Reasonable Accommodation Process to assure that all persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations for equal access to housing programs. That includes regulations regarding live-in aide and changes in voucher size. 33 3. Integration of Persons with Disabilities Living in Institutions and Other Segregated Settings
a. To what extent do persons with disabilities in or from the jurisdiction or region reside in segregated or integrated settings?
There are five licensed developmentally disabled adult residential (18-59) facilities within the City or in unincorporated Riverside County. There are 26 beds provided in these facilities. Additional facilities provide day services but would not be considered as institutional settings. Despite these facilities, there are not concentrations of persons with disabilities within the City, according to the Map 16 — Disability by Type. b. Describe the range of options for persons with disabilities to access affordable housing and supportive services.
As mentioned above, based on a consultation with Inland Regional Center, there is a large need in the region for affordable housing for the developmentally disabled adults.
According to the Center, there are 651 persons with developmental disabilities in the three zip codes (92590, 92591 and 92592) that comprise the Temecula area. Some of these include large rural areas outside the City and it is believed that at least 200 of these individuals live outside the City limits. Regionally, many of these adults independently live in group homes, or face substandard conditions, according to the Inland Regional Center. However, none of those homes are located in the City. The greatest demand is for studio and one -bedroom units for those with low and moderate delays.
In addition, there is a growing population of for families with children with autism.
The stress on families with children with autism is creating a demand for housing units with additional bedrooms. Children with autism require housing units to address sensory needs such as dimmer lights and controls on hot water faucets. Mr. Toms also advised that these units not be concentrated in a single complex so that integration of these families can be achieved.
The City of Temecula employs an inclusion program specialist in the Human Services Division of the Community Services Department. The City has pioneered a progressive program called "High Hopes" that provides recreation programs for adults and children with developmental disabilities. They offer a wide variety of recreation, enrichment and vocational programs that are geared toward those with specific needs of individuals with disabilities. They not only serve those within the City of Temecula, but the program is so popular that people drive their family members more than two hours away to participate in the inclusionary programs.
In addition to a City staff inclusion specialist, the City has developed a webpage that provides parents, caregivers and individuals with a list of local resources in the community. The Human Services Resource Guide includes information on local resources that serve special needs, aging adults and military, limited income, and at - risk youth/families and much more. The site also provides the phone number of the City staff person who can provide additional assistance. The City also has a Facebook page for the "Family First" program that connects people with special needs. 34 The website for the guide is located here:
hqp:// www.ciiyoftemecula.or /Temecula/Residents/Youth/Human+Services+Resour ce+Guide.htm
In addition there are a number of other programs in the area designed for persons with special needs. They include the following in the Temecula-Murrieta area:
• Top Soccer: Temecula
• Up H.O.P.E: Temecula, Horseback riding.
• Kindermusik: Temecula, Music program
• High Hopes: Temecula, Performing arts. Singing, dance, photography, and more. Older teens and adults.
• My Gym (Capp's Kids): Murrieta
• S.C.E.G.: Temecula. Gymnastics, special needs friendly. • Actors Unlimited: Temecula. Performing Arts
• Cal Oaks Pool: Murrieta. Summer swim lessons sponsored by the Special Olympics.
• Baseball: Murrieta.
• Musicians Workshop: Temecula. http://www.musiciansworkshop.org Guitar, choir, orchestra.
• Pump it Up/Fun Zone: Murrieta.
• Sensory Time: Murrieta. Child Play Center.
http://www.sensoWimecenter.com
Periodically, Building and Safety holds workshops for the construction industry to discuss changes in the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The last workshop was held on March 1, 2015.
4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
a. To what extent are persons with disabilities able to access the following? Identify major barriers faced concerning:
i. Government services and facilities: City Hall and other City facilities are fully accessible to persons with disabilities. The City needs to adopt an ADA Transition Plan to identify if there are any remaining ADA needs at other public facilities. ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals): Many of the City's sidewalks and intersections are ADA compliant and where there are existing needs, the City is addressing them in conjunction with other construction projects. The City is currently constructing segments of missing sidewalks in Old Town, which can be an impediment to residents accessing City services, the neighborhood park, and the neighborhood grocery store. The City intends to replace wooden sidewalks along Old Town Front Street, removing an impediment to seniors and those with disabilities.
The City is at the forefront in the region in terms of addressing the recreational needs of those persons with physical disabilities. The City recently completed the construction of the Eagle Soar Playground and Splash Pad at Margarita Park. The 35 purpose of the park is to be inclusive and accessible in addressing the unique needs of children with and without disabilities. A description of this popular program is included as Appendix N.
The City continues to upgrade its infrastructure to address the physical barriers of persons with disabilities. Nearly all of the intersections along major streets have accessible ramps. Whenever there are improvements made to an intersection, the intersection is upgraded to address the needs of residents with vision impairments. iii. Transportation: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has accessibility ramps on their buses. RTA also provides a Dial -A -Ride program designed to meet the needs of those with disabilities. Fares are significantly reduced for the elderly and persons with disabilities. According to the RTA Short Range Transit Plan 2014- 2016, "All RTA vehicles comply with clean fuel policies and come fully equipped with ADA accessible wheelchair lifts, including the paratransit vans. In addition, all fixed route vehicles are equipped with bicycle racks." According to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the greatest problem with the Dial -A -Ride programs is that persons cannot depend upon these services for timely pickups. iv. Proficient schools and educational programs: The City does not have jurisdiction over the school district, and thus has limited influence on its programming. There was a lawsuit claiming that the Temecula Valley Unified School District discriminated against special education students at Vail Ranch Middle School by denying them instruction in social studies and sciences, instead doubling up on math and English classes. They doubled up on math and English classes instead. The case determined that the School District cannot discriminate against those with disabilities. Their situation has been corrected. v. Jobs: According to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the greatest priority in California is providing meaningful jobs that are not below the minimum wage for those working adults with disabilities. It was originally thought that it was acceptable to provide less that minimum wage to give persons with disabilities access to jobs; however, research has found this leads to employer abuse. There are now steps to being taken to change this practice at the State level by introducing legislation. The City's Office of Economic Development and Community Services Department have an annual internship program for teenagers and adults with special needs and developmental disabilities to learn valuable job skills and lead them on the path towards self- sufficiency. b. Describe the processes that exist in the jurisdiction and region for persons with disabilities to request and obtain reasonable accommodations and accessibility modifications to address the barriers discussed above.
The City is in compliance with State and federal law with respect to its ordinance providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. In addition to information provided elsewhere in this assessment, the City has adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance to provide exceptions in zoning and land use for housing persons with disabilities. The City annually evaluates constraints on development, maintenance, and improvement to housing for persons with disabilities, including the review of land use controls, permit procedures, and building codes for the development of housing for persons with disabilities.
36 c. Describe any difficulties in achieving homeownership experienced by persons with disabilities and by persons with different types of disabilities.
Affordable housing is an issue for most segments of the community, but it is especially a challenge for persons with disabilities. According to Inland Regional Center, the demand for affordable housing is high in the City. There is a demand for studio and one -bedroom units for persons with disabilities with low and moderate delay issues as well as larger units for especially single parent families with children with autism.
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
a. Describe any disproportionate housing needs experienced by persons with disabilities and by persons with certain types of disabilities.
In consulting with the Fair Housing Council, the greatest proportion of fair housing complaints are from persons with disabilities in both the City and the region.
Landlords are unaware or unwilling to make requested accommodations, either in modifications to a unit or allowing for service animals. State law requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations, when requested, to their units so that accessibility issues are mitigated. Therefore, the greatest priority in this area continues to be educating landlords and property managers on the rights of persons with disabilities to ensure that discrimination is not limiting their access to housing.
6. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD -provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any, about disability and access issues in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
The City treats licensed residential care units serving six or fewer residents as single family dwellings permitted by right as part of the zoning ordinance. Facilities serving more than six are similarly permitted by right in high density residential zone districts and are also conditionally permitted in any other residential zone.
Table 14 provides data of persons with disabilities by age range (5-17, 18-64, and 65+) for the City and region. The table reflects the greatest numbers of those with disabilities are adults between ages 18 and 64 followed by the elderly. Proportionately, compared to the region, the City has fewer people with disabilities, except for children.
Some of this may be because of the large draw of the City's services for the special needs population. This belief was reflected in the community meetings. b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its assessment of disability and access issues.
No additional information.
7. Disability and Access Issues Contributing Factors
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region.
Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the 37 severity of disability and access issues and the fair housing issues, which are Segregation, RECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.
❑ Access to proficient schools for persons with disabilities ❑ Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities ❑ Access to transportation for persons with disabilities ❑ Inaccessible government facilities or services
® Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure ❑ Lack of affordable in -home or community -based supportive services ❑ Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes ❑ Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services ❑ Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications ❑ Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing ❑ Land use and zoning laws
❑ Lending Discrimination
❑ Location of accessible housing
❑ Occupancy codes and restrictions
❑ Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with disabilities
❑ State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from being placed in or living in apartments, family homes, and other integrated settings
® Other: City will prepare and adopt an ADA Transition Plan.
E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis
1. List and summarize any of the following that have not been resolved:
A charge or letter of finding from HUD concerning a violation of a civil rights - related law,
A cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing agency concerning a violation of a state or local fair housing law, a letter of findings issued by or lawsuit filed or joined by the Department of Justice alleging a pattern or practice or systemic violation of a fair housing or civil rights law, or A claim under the False Claims Act related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, or civil rights generally, including an alleged failure to affirmatively further fair housing.
In addition to the City's CDBG funding to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, the Fair Housing Council received a five year Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grant from 2010-2015 for private enforcement, and in 2015 received an additional $270,895 for another three-year grant for that purpose. Under the previous contract, the Council conducted fifteen tests in Temecula. Six of the tests were conducted for lending institutions and nine for rental projects. Two of the cases warranted sending to HUD as civil rights violations. One of those cases was against a lending agent who did not provide an African American all of the loan options that other applicants were provided. The 38 second case was a rental manager who was accused of discriminating against a person with disabilities who was not allowed a support animal. Of the remaining thirteen, seven are pending further testing and six were closed. (For more detail the FHIP investigations, refer to Appendix L.) In 2013, the Fair Housing Council also settled a familial status case.
The Council noted that those who have had fair housing complaints filed against them, often voluntarily send new employees to Council training sessions.
In addition to the enforcement grant, the Fair Housing Council has applied for an additional $125,000 grant for education and operations which, if approved, would begin in October.
According to the Fair Housing Council, the patterns of discrimination are more individualized than systemic. They saw a spike in complaints, particularly against persons with disabilities, during the recession when many realtors turned to rental management.
They were not as familiar with rental fair housing laws as they were with sale of property.
The greatest priority for the Fair Housing Council in the category is in training and education, especially new real estate agents and property managers.
2. Describe any state or local fair housing laws. What characteristics are protected under each law?
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act provides protection from harassment or discrimination based on the following: age, ancestry, color, disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, national origin, race, sex, familial status, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, source of income, and arbitrary discrimination. This year the State legislature added primary language, citizenship and immigrant status to the protected class status.
3. Identify any local and regional agencies and organizations that provide fair housing information, outreach, and enforcement, including their capacity and the resources available to them.
The City of Temecula contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. The City has funded this organization with CDBG since becoming an Entitlement City in 2012.
The Fair Housing Council is located 45 miles from Temecula, and unfortunately Fair Housing does not have sufficient funds to locate an office in the Temecula Valley. The Fair Housing Council indicates that, because of the distance, it is difficult to provide the same level of service as with other cities in the County.
4. Additional Information
a. Provide additional relevant information, if any, about fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources in the jurisdiction and region.
As described above, the City provides CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County for landlord tenant services, training and discrimination complaints.
During the last fiscal year (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016), there were calls from fifteen households regarding discrimination issues above the ones described under the FHIP discussion above in Temecula. Of that group, 87% were from White renter households.
Most were from households with disabled persons. The City provides fair housing 39 brochures at City counter, public libraries and community centers. Links and information are provided on the City webpage.
During that same period, there were 222 calls to the Fair Housing Council regarding landlord -tenant issues. Of those calls, 57% were from White households, 20% from Hispanic households and 17% from Black households. The greatest number of calls pertained to lease and rental terms, notices to vacate and evictions, security deposits, repairs and rent increases.
The greatest gap in the City in this category is the provision of affordable housing for new homebuyers and renters. There are a number of issues that the Fair Housing Council has identified: large families have difficulty finding landlords that will rent to them; unreasonable conditions placed on children; homeowners associations have restrictions on service animals for the disabled; rent increases are forcing lower income renters out of the local market; and crime -free restrictions create disparate treatment of minorities.
In addition, HUD's fair market rent limits are lower than the average rents in Temecula.
It is increasingly difficult for tenants to find units that meet those limitations with their vouchers, as there are an insufficient number of rental units that charge rents at or below HUD's current rental limits.
b. The program participant may also include information relevant to programs, actions, or activities to promote fair housing outcomes and capacity.
The Fair Housing Council provides training for the Southwest Riverside Realtors Association twice a year. City staff refers residents to the Fair Housing Council and there is a link on the City's website that directs them to the Fair Housing Council's website.
5. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Contributing Factors
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region.
Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources and the fair housing issues, which are Segregation, RECAPS, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each significant contributing factor, note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor impacts. ❑ Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement ❑ Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
❑x Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations ❑ Lack of state or local fair housing laws
❑ Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law ❑ Other:
40 V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
1. For each fair housing issue, prioritize the identified contributing factors. Justify the prioritization of the contributing factors that will be addressed by the goals set below in Question 2. Give the highest priority to those factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance.
The City has developed four fair housing goals to overcome the two fair housing issues and related contributing factors identified in the AFH analysis. These goals and the respective contributing factors have been prioritized based on feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Identified metrics, milestones and timeframes for achievement were chosen specifically to address disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs that were identified in the analysis in an effort to preserve Temecula as an inclusive community with integrated living patterns. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority.
Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws
Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Contributing Factor 213: Location and type of affordable housing Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure
Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Contributing Factor 4B: Private discrimination
Based on the above goals and contributing factors, metrics, were identified to measure progress over the next five years to address disparities in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs while continuing to promote fair housing for its residents.
The fair housing issues identified in Temecula, in order of greatest priority, include: 1) Disproportionate Housing Needs; and 2) Disparities in Access to Opportunity. The contributing factors identified for each fair housing issue are ranked in priority order.
Identified action items and goals were chosen based on their ability to increase access to opportunity and positively impact fair housing choice for members of protected classes.
Priority was given based on feedback from the community, surveys, stakeholder 41 interviews and consultations, staff, data analysis, as well as factors that will have the greatest impact on fair housing choices.
Fair Housing Issue 1) Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors in order of priority:
• The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes (Addressed at Goal 2) • Land use and zoning laws (Addressed at Goal 1)
Based on data analysis, and community feedback, a lack of affordable housing units in a range of sizes is the highest priority contributing factor in Temecula. Due to the lack of public financial resources because of the dissolution of redevelopment, the City must look to the private sector to construct affordable housing and provide necessary incentives to achieve the highest priority goal of increasing access to affordable housing.
Temecula is not alone in this problem — the region and the entire state of California is approaching an affordable housing crisis.
In recognition of finite public financing available for affordable housing, the City places a high priority on deploying its available resources and exploring alternative resources during the planning period for this AFH. In 2016, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) to utilize $12.4 million in remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds for the development of affordable housing. The City may entertain and accept more than one proposal for more than one site. In addition to the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds, the City owns sites that may have been considered as part of the City's contribution to the project.
In response to the RFP, the City received 20 proposals from 13 developers for eight sites throughout the City. The City expects to hold interviews with potential developers by July 2017; select developers by December 2017; enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with at least one developer by June 2018; and entitlements to be secured by June 2019. At this time, the City cannot provide the specific number of units to be constructed or rehabbed, but although outside this planning period, the City expects that at least 100 affordable units will be constructed and/or rehabbed using the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. As part of the process, the City will continue to make specific efforts to encourage the development of affordable housing that increases housing opportunities for residents with special needs.
While the City cannot divulge details of the proposals due to the nature of property negotiations and confidentiality, there is a wide range of needs proposed to be addressed including housing for the homeless, veterans, seniors, and persons with special needs.
Most proposals include tax credits where at least 30% of the units will be set aside for the very low income (below 30 percent). A maximum of 20% of the units will be affordable between 60 — 80% AMI, and no rents may exceed 80% AMI, in conjunction with the requirements of Senate Bill 341.
To ensure meaningful, inclusive access to housing in the community for low- and moderate -income persons of all racial and ethnic backgrounds and special needs populations, the City will modify its land use and zoning laws to adopt and implement an Affordable Housing Overlay program that was included as a recommended program in the City's Housing Element, adopted by City Council in 2014. This new ordinance will create the conditions necessary for increased private -sector affordable housing production in a range of sizes for the general low- and moderate -income populations 42 where the greatest need is. The City will amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower income households, as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). The Housing Element program stipulated that the City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require:
• Minimum densities of 20 units per acre.
• 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses. • Multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit.
Fair Housing Issue 2) Disparities in Access to Opportunity Contributing Factors in order of priority:
• Land use and zoning laws (Addressed at Goal 1)
• Location and type of affordable housing (Addressed at Goal 2) • Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure (Addressed at Goal 3)
• Inaccessible government facilities or services (Addressed at Goal 3) • Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations (Addressed at Goal 4)
• Private discrimination (Addressed at Goal 4)
To address land use and zoning laws to address disparities in access to opportunity, please see the discussion above concerning the Affordable Housing Overlay.
To address the location and type of affordable housing, please refer to the discussion in Goal 2. With respect to segregation, it is noteworthy that the City has no R/ECAPs and that the City's dissimilarity index score and mapping all indicate a highly integrated community. The City wishes to emphasize that there is no history of segregation. With that understanding, the City further evaluated mapping to identify areas that may be susceptible to future designation as a RECAP. Through that analysis, it was noted that Census Tract 432.66 and Census Tract 496.00 are approximately 38% Hispanic, compared to other Census Tracts in the City. The City's overall population of Hispanics is 23%. Further, the analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less), given that the Citywide scores ranged from 65.42 to 71.23.
None of the 20 proposed developments would be located in or near any of the five Census Tracts cited in the paragraph above. The various potential affordable sites are located throughout the City in Census Tracts 512.00, 432.22, 432.54, and 432.50. While some sites are in the same Census Tracts as existing affordable housing, most potential sites are not located directly adjacent to existing affordable housing sites. Development of new affordable housing is unlikely to result in any new patterns of segregation, or create any new areas of concentration. The City will continue its commitment on affirmatively furthering fair housing and work with developers to prevent any patterns of segregation.
To address disproportionate housing needs through the construction of units using the $12.4 million in remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds, the City shall require that all (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes 43 constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households as well as households with disabilities All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD's form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable or practical.
During the five-year planning period covered by this AFH, none of the City's current affordable housing units are at -risk of converting to market -rate housing. During future planning periods, the City will include efforts to preserve those units at -risk of conversion to market rate as affordable units through the Consolidated Plan. The City conducts and an annual inspection and audit of each of the affordable housing complexes in Temecula. During inspections, critical issues are addressed and resolved.
In the previous cycle of the City's Consolidated Plan, the City worked with two affordable housing complexes at risk of converting to market rate. Both complexes successfully extended their term of affordability.
During this planning period, the City will continue to partner with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program. This program focuses on low- income home owners to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing.
The third and final phase of construction for the Madera Vista (previously known as Summerhouse) will also be completed during this planning period. This phase includes 30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8 units are very low income. Entitlements are complete for this project.
Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex, will complete substantial rehabilitation during this AFH cycle. In this project, 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (It also includes one manager's unit.) Rancho California recently successfully extended the term of their affordability covenant in the previous Consolidated Plan cycle, and the rehabilitation will further preserve the stock of affordable housing.
In November 2015, the City adopted the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The area, encompassing 580 acres, is located north of Rancho California Road, west of the 1-15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Street. Recognizing the demand for housing in the area, the Specific Plan allows up to an additional 3,726 multi -family housing units in the area, in a range of sizes, in a range of affordability levels.
The City is currently working with several developers that are proposing housing targets towards special needs populations including seniors and residents with disabilities. One proposed project currently in the entitlement phase, in the south side of the City, near Pechanga Parkway, is proposing 245 multi -family units which will offer options for families with special needs. Options include downstairs bedrooms; flex space, adjacent handicap parking, and more. If approved, the City will process a General Plan Amendment for this project, allowing increased density and expanding our existing 44 housing stock. The City will work with the developer on outreach to potential residents with special needs.
The City is also processing a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the proposed Altair project, adjacent to Old Town. If approved, the Altair Specific Plan allows accessory dwelling units and micro units throughout the entire site. Because of their size, accessory dwelling units and micro units are a more affordable option to many segments of the community including seniors, veterans, students, and residents with special needs. These options offer housing units in a range of sizes to the community.
Upon buildout, there will be between 870 and 1,750 total dwelling units, subject to financing, the economy, and other market conditions.
Other action items the City will complete during the 2017-2021 AFH Cycle include:
• Consider proposals for using, when feasible, City -owned or City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. Several City sites, located in Census Tracts 512.00, 432.22, 432.54, and 432.50, were included in the Affordable Housing RFP and it is expected at least one project will utilize this incentive. • Continue to support and promote the County's Mortgage Credit Certificate program as a source for new homebuyer assistance. The City Council approves a resolution affirming the support for this County program every 1 — 2, at the County's request, years and will continue to do so during the planning cycle. • Support and promote the State of California Housing Finance Agency (Ca1HFA) to provide assistance to new homebuyers.
• In order to increase funding resources, the City will consider applying for State HOME funds for affordable housing programs such as first time homebuyer, housing rehabilitation or new construction
• The City will continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program through annual review of the PHA Plan and issuance of the certification of consistency and to assure sufficient numbers of vouchers for lower income residents in the City and the region. In 2015-16, there were 109 Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City of Temecula. Community outreach and consultations suggest that demand for vouchers is quite high; however, demand exceeds the supply of Section 8 units within the City. Temecula will continue to work with the County of Riverside to educate property owners on the Section 8 program.
To address inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure as well as inaccessible government facilities or services, the City will implement the metrics discussed below that are a part of Goal 3.
To make it possible for residents to fully avail themselves of all public facilities, services, and infrastructure in the City as a means of promoting access to all opportunities afforded in the community, the City has recently identified improvements that can be made to public improvements and facilities, such as the replacement of sidewalks. Old Town and the adjacent area have over 500 affordable units. Old Town is in a CDBG Eligible Census Tract, 432.15. There are several sections of sidewalk needed for safe access to public facilities, parks, and a grocery store. The City funded two sections of the construction of new sidewalks in Old Town in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan cycle.
45 The Ynez Road sidewalk improvements will install missing sections of sidewalk to connect residents using the bus to access mainstream services offered at the Riverside County Offices located at 41000 County Center Drive. Residents, including those with disabilities, use this route to access services such as the mental health clinic, substance abuse program, WIC program and County courts.
To help the City ensure that all such facilities posing barriers to residents are addressed, the City will complete and adoption of an ADA Transition Plan. The ADA Plan is expected to be adopted by December 31, 2018 and identify accessibility issues at public facilities including The assessment will include 38 City parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops, and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps.
Approximately 587 locations will be analyzed. Both City Hall and the Old Town Police Substation were constructed in 2010 and are ADA compliant. Once the ADA Transition Plan is updated, those accessibility needs shall be prioritized for funding. Each deficiency will be evaluated based on the level of inaccessibility, funding availability, number of persons affected, and priorities established. The City typically budgets one accessibility infrastructure project with CDBG funds per year. Other projects may be undertaken as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program.
The City will include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle.
In the City's proposed 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, $150,000 will be allocated for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. This segment will complete a critical connection between regional bus lines and a regional job center (Promenade Mall) and County services.
In a developer -driven project, upgrades to Pala Park will be constructed to improve accessibility, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive, that are designed to provide access to those with special needs. During this AFH cycle, the City will also complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. The park is located in a CDBG eligible Census Tract (432.15) that serves many low income families.
The analysis in the AFH has demonstrated that there is an ongoing need to provide fair housing education, outreach and enforcement, especially as it pertains to the special needs community — particularly for persons with disabilities. At the local, state and national level, discrimination on the basis of disability is the leading basis for fair housing discrimination cases. According to consultation with the City's fair housing service provider, the lack of knowledge on fair housing issues amongst property owners and landlords continues to be the primary reason for discrimination complaints against persons with disabilities in Temecula and the region. This denies persons with disabilities the right to avail themselves of housing opportunities in the City or the right 46 to remain housed in place when, for example, a landlord refuses a disability -related modification.
To address the contributing factor of lack of resources for fair housing organizations, the City will provide approximately 12% of public service funds from CDBG to a fair housing service provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair housing laws — particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents.
To further supplement resources for fair housing organizations and actively participate in addressing private discrimination, the City will increase public awareness of accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting representatives of the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community from the City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. Additionally, the City will increase support for fair housing training and education by adding the most current fair housing information on the City's website. The City will also distribute and replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at five City facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center.
Furthermore, the City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and the Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents with disabilities.
2. For each fair housing issue with significant contributing factors identified in Question 1, set one or more goals. Explain how each goal is designed to overcome the identified contributing factor and related fair housing issue(s). For goals designed to overcome more than one fair housing issue, explain how the goal will overcome each issue and the related contributing factors. For each goal, identify metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved, and indicate the timeframe for achievement.
In the initial submission of the Assessment of Fair Housing on October 3, 2015, the City listed nine contributing factors with corresponding goals. The subsequent resubmission of the AFH on January 14, 2017 resulted in a consolidation of goals and contributing factors that were identified in the analysis of the AFH. Below is a detailed analysis on the consolidation of the City's initial goals and contributing factors from subsequent submissions.
Original Goal 1: Increase the affordable housing stock in the City. o Change: Tied into Goal #2 in resubmission.
Original Contributing Factor: Location and type of affordable housing. o Change: Removed. It was not identified as an original contributing factor in the AFH analysis.
Original Milestone: Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay o Change: Moved to Goal #1 — Amend zoning ordinance to promote the development of affordable housing.
47 Original Milestone: Enter into an agreement with potential developers to allocate $12.4 million in Tax Allocation Bond proceeds.
o Change: Updated verbiage to include more specific, measurable metrics.
Associated with Goal #2 — Increase and preserve affordable housing units for renters and homeowners
• Original Goal 2: Partner with local organizations for the provision of services to address homelessness.
o Change: Per a recommendation from HUD, the City has chosen to focus on goals associated with jurisdictional programs, as opposed to regional programs. This allows the City to have more control and focus on the outcomes. As such, the City can provide more specific metrics. The City will continue to partner with local organizations for the provision so services to address homelessness.
• Original Contributing factor: High housing costs in region; distance from social services; lack of homeless shelters in Southwestern Riverside County o Change: Removed from matrix. This contributing factor was not identified in the AFH analysis. Relevant metrics and milestones are included in the discussion.
• Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal #2 are related to partnerships and regional organizations. Per HUD's guidance, they remain in the analysis as examples of efforts the City is currently participating in to affirmatively further fair housing.
• Original Goal 3: Increase homeownership opportunities in the City. o Change: Removed. Contributing factor was not identified as a contributing factor in the original AFH analysis. Repetitive of other contributing factors. • Original Contributing factor: High housing costs in the region; location and availability of affordable new and existing homes.
o Change: Modified into new Contributing Factor 2A.
• Original Metrics, Milestone, for Original Goal #3:
o Changes: Action items listed were regional programs that the City supports.
The City's participation is discussed in the AFH analysis. Per HUD's recommendation, the City's goals and milestones focus on City programs. • Original Goal 4: Increase accessibility to public facilities. o Change: New Goal #3.
• Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Adopt an ADA Transition Plan o Change: Have been updated to reflect more specific and measurable metrics.
Reflected in new Goal #3.
• Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Continue to increase public awareness and educate representatives of the housing industry on ADA requirements by holding workshops.
o Change: Metric more specifically defined in matrix below. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Continue to upgrade the City's infrastructure to make them more accessible for those with disabilities. o Change: Improved action item to be more specific and measurable. • Original Goal 5: Support the Fair Housing Council on education on fair housing laws.
48 o Change: Modified and included in new Goal #4.
• Contributing Factor: Landlords and property managers have a lack of knowledge on fair housing issues.
o Change: Removed because it was not identified as a contributing factor in the original AFH analysis.
• Original Goal #6: Preserve affordable rental housing. o Change: Combined into new Goal #2.
• Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to promote the preservation of affordable housing projects at -risk of converting to market rate housing.
o Change: Included in the discussion of Goal 2. However, no affordability covenants are set to expire during this planning period, so no metrics could be defined. Therefore, it was removed as a specific goal. The City will continue to promote the preservation of affordable housing. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program.
o Change: Per HUD's technical assistance, the City focused on jurisdictional programs for inclusion in metrics and milestones. This milestone is discussed and elaborated upon in the discussion for Goal #2. • Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to use, when feasible, City -owned and City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. o Change: Moved into the discussion of Goal 2. The City will still continue this program; however, it depends heavily upon developer demand and market forces.
• Original Goal #7: Increase housing choices for those with special needs and disabilities.
o Change: Modified and combined into new Goal #2.
• Original Contributing Factor: Increased demand of affordable housing for seniors and persons with disabilities.
o Change: Modified and combined into new Goal #2. It was not listed as a specific contributing factor in the original AFH analysis. • Original Metrics and Milestone Goal 7: Continue to promote housing design standards that improve accessibility for those with special needs. o Change: Included in the discussion for Goal #2. The City will continue to work with developers on this action item.
• Original Goal #8: Increase access and usage of public transportation. o Change: Removed. It was not tied to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis.
• Original Contributing Factor: Demand for public transportation. o Change: Removed. It was not identified as a contributing factor in the AFH analysis.
• Original Metrics and Milestones for Goal 8
o Change: Removed. They did not tie to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis.
• Original Goal #9: Improve the environmental health of neighborhoods. 49 o Change: Removed. It was not tied to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis.
Original Contributing Factor: Proximity of the 1-15 freeway and major arterial corridors.
o Change: Removed. It was not identified as a contributing factor identified in the analysis.
Original Metrics and Milestones Goal 9
o Change: Removed. They did not tie to any contributing factor identified in the AFH analysis.
Subsequent to the January 14, 2017 resubmission, HUD convened a technical assistance conference call on February 2, 2017 to discuss the need for more well-defined metrics, milestones and timeframes. On February 9, 2017, an excerpt of the Executive Summary and the Goals Section was emailed to Arturo Cardenas, Equal Opportunity Specialist in the L.A. Field Office.
Subsequently, HUD sent correspondence of withdrawal of the AFH on February 10, 2017, and followed this correspondence with a Technical Assistance letter dated February 14, 2017, the City made further revisions to the four goals to more closely align the goals with the HUD -defined fair housing issues and the contributing factors identified in the AFH.
After three rounds of technical assistance and guidance from HUD, the following matrix represents the final goals designed to overcome the contributing factors to fair housing issues identified in the preceding sections.
The City of Temecula wishes to express its sincere appreciation to HUD Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity staff in the Los Angeles local field office, the San Francisco regional office and in Washington D.C. at HUD Headquarters for their efforts and contributions to this AFH.
50 Goal
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Issues
Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
• Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)
Program by Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula's regional
housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower
1. Amend
income households. The City will establish an AHO on
Zoning Code
Disproportionate
at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, to promote
Housing Needs
sites identified will require:
the
1A: Land use and zoning
- minimum densities of 20 units per acre
City of Temecula
development
laws
Disparities in
- 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing
of affordable
Access to
exclusively residential uses
housing
Opportunity
- multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a
conditional use permit
Affordable Housing Overlay expected adoption by
City Council by June 30, 2018. (CF IA)
Discussion: The analysis of disproportionate housing needs revealed a disproportionate housing burden for Hispanic and Native American households.
According to Table 9, 51.52 percent of the City's households are experiencing housing problems. There is a disparity in this category because Hispanic households (62.24 percent) and Native American households (80.90 percent) experience housing problems at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher than all households. Only 47.37% of the White households in Temecula experience a housing problem. None of the racial or ethnic groups experienced a disproportionate level of severe housing problems. HUD -defined housing problems include housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities), overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen and lack of plumbing. Based on consultation and other data, the most prominent housing problem is cost burden. Additionally, consultation with the Inland Regional Center revealed a high need for affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults as well as housing appropriate for families with autistic children.
The analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less), given that the Citywide scores ranged from 65.42 to 71.23.
51 The adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance is the City's highest priority in the AFH because it is a critical first step toward meaningfully addressing the factors that contribute to disproportionate housing burden and disparities in access to opportunity for protected classes including Hispanic households, Native American households and households that include person(s) with disabilities. First, the AHO will create the conditions for the development of new affordable housing units in a range of sizes including micro units and efficiencies that may be beneficial to developmentally disabled adults. Second, the AHO will remove barriers to affordable housing development by allowing multi -family uses at higher densities by right without a conditional use permit. This will promote the development of additional affordable units needed to reduce the number of cost -burdened Hispanic and Native American households. Third, the AHO will establish this zone on at least 100 acres throughout the City to promote inclusive living patterns with respect to the location of affordable housing outside of areas with relatively higher exposure to poverty. The AHO sets the stage for the accomplishment of the metrics included in Goal 2.
In 2014, the City Council approved and the City implemented an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element included a program to amend the Temecula Municipal Code with an Affordable Housing Overlay program (AHO), which will accommodate Temecula's regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower income households, as determined by Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). The City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. The ordinance will allow transitional and supportive housing by right in certain areas, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing, and strengthen the City's density bonus program. The strengthened density bonus program will be calculated using the available maximum density of 30 units per acre under the AHO, rather than any allowable base density of the underlying zone. Incentives also include planning application priority and fast tracking. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require:
• minimum densities of 20 units per acre
• 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses • multi -family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit The Affordable Housing Overlay is expected to be successfully adopted by City Council by June 30, 2018.
The City has a long history that demonstrates its support of affordable housing. As noted above, the City Council approved the Housing Element in 2014 that contained the Affordable Housing Overlay program. The City has not previously tried to adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay, and is optimistic at the AHO's ability to provide incentives at developing affordable housing. Through the use of redevelopment funds, the City has assisted 600 affordable housing units throughout the community. Madera Vista, previously known as Summerhouse, was publicly opposed by many members of the community.
Recognizing the need for affordable housing, the project was ultimately approved by the City Council, and is a very successful example of affordable housing in the City. The public has embraced the development, and there have been no issues since its approval. Madera Vista will complete its third and final phase of development during this Consolidated Plan cycle. The AHO is expected to be as successful as the City's other numerous affordable housing projects.
During the five-year planning period covered by this AFH, none of the City's current affordable housing units are at -risk of converting to market -rate housing. During future planning periods, the City will include efforts to preserve those units at -risk of conversion to market rate as affordable units 52 through the Consolidated Plan. The City conducts and an annual inspection and audit of each of the affordable housing complexes in the City. During inspections, critical issues are addressed and resolved. In the previous cycle of the City's Consolidated Plan, the City worked with two affordable housing complexes at risk of converting to market rate. Both complexes successfully extended their term of affordability.
The City is currently working with several developers that are proposing housing targets towards special needs populations including residents with disabilities. One proposed project currently in the entitlement phase, in the south side of the City, near Pechanga Parkway, in Census Tract 432.50, is proposing 245 multi -family units which will offer options for families with special needs. Options include downstairs bedrooms; flex space, adjacent handicap parking, and more. If approved, the City will process a General Plan Amendment for this project, allowing increased density and expanding our existing housing stock. The City will work with the developer on outreach to potential residents with special needs.
The City is also processing a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the proposed Altair project, adjacent to Old Town. If approved, the Altair Specific Plan allows accessory dwelling units and micro units throughout the entire site. Because of their size, accessory dwelling units and micro units are a more affordable option to many segments of the community including seniors, veterans, students, and residents with special needs. These options offer housing units in a range of sizes to the community. Upon buildout, there will be between 870 and 1,750 total dwelling units, subject to financing, the economy, and other market conditions.
53 Goal
Contributing
Factors
Fair Housing
Issues
Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
• Enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a
developer to allocate $12.4 million in remaining
affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to
create or rehabilitate an estimated 100 affordable
housing units, subject to market forces. The selection
process includes priority consideration for proposals that incorporate housing units for persons with disabilities.
Based on a preliminary review of the siting for these
proposals, none are located in the three Census Tracts
identified as having relatively high exposure to poverty.
2. Increase
Interviews with developers expected by July 2017;
and
2A: The availability
Disproportionate
Selection of developer to occur by December 2017;
preserve
of affordable units in
Housing Needs
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by June 2018;
affordable
a range of sizes
Entitlements to be secured by June 2019. Construction to City of Temecula
units for
Disparities in
begin by June 2020. Estimates are subject to financing, renters
and home
2B: Location and
type of affordable
Access to
property negotiations, market demand, and economic
owners
housing
Opportunity
forces. (CF 2A and CF 2B)
• All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned
affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative
outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households as
well as households that include persons with disabilities.
Units advertised to contain specific accessibility features shall be prioritized for occupancy by persons identifying themselves as disabled. At least 50 units will benefit the aforementioned protected classes identified as having
disproportionate housing needs. All (100%) of
54 marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department
prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%)
affordable developments shall be required to maintain
records related to marketing and protected classes and
provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD's form 935.2A, the
Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -
Family Housing, where applicable or practical.
(Completion date subject to completion of affordable
housing construction and commencement of sale or
leasing. Expected June 2021) (CF 2A and CF 213)
• Require marketing materials for any new City of
Temecula -assisted affordable housing project to be made available in Spanish. (July 1, 2017) (CF 2A)
• Translate City Affordable Housing Brochure in Spanish to promote meaningful access to affordable housing.
(July 1, 2017) (CF 2A)
• Continue the partnership with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program to provide funding for at least 30 low income home owners
to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate
kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing.
(Complete by June 2022) (CF 2A)
• Complete construction of Phase III of Madera Vista
(formerly Summerhouse), which includes 30 affordable
units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low
income and 8 units are very low income. (Entitlements
are complete; Building permits to be issued by
September 2017; Construction to be completed by
September 2019) (CF 2A)
55 • Complete substantial rehabilitation of Rancho California Apartments, 55 unit affordable housing complex. 43
units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted
50% AMI. (One manager's unit.) (Rehab has begun.
Expected completion date — March 2018.) (CF 2A)
Discussion: The analysis of disproportionate housing needs revealed a disproportionate housing burden for Hispanic and Native American households.
According to Table 9, 51.52 percent of the City's households are experiencing housing problems. There is a disparity in this category because Hispanic households (62.24 percent) and Native American households (80.90 percent) experience housing problems at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher than all households. Only 47.37% of the White households in Temecula experience a housing problem. None of the racial or ethnic groups experienced a disproportionate level of severe housing problems. HUD -defined housing problems include housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities), overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen and lack of plumbing. Based on consultation and other data, the most prominent housing problem is cost burden. Additionally, consultation with the Inland Regional Center revealed a high need for affordable housing for developmentally disabled adults as well as housing appropriate for families with autistic children.
The analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less) given that the citywide scores ranged from
65.42 to 71.23.
The deployment of Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to develop 100 affordable housing units will address disproportionate housing needs by increasing the number of affordable units in a range of sizes, which when combined with affirmative marketing efforts, will help to alleviate disproportionate 56 housing needs for Hispanic and Native American households. Preliminary evaluation of proposals received indicates that none of the proposed projects are located within the three Census Tracts in north Temecula exhibiting higher than expected exposure to poverty as discussed above. As a result, this metric will facilitate access to opportunity and promote economically balanced living patterns.
To improve access to publicly supportive and publicly subsidized housing, the City issued an RFP in February 2016 to allocate $12.4 million in remaining Tax Allocation bond proceeds and possibly also utilize City -owned or City -controlled land for the development of affordable housing.
The RFP specified that interested developers were required to address one or more housing needs in the community: 1) Special Needs; 2) Veterans; 3) Seniors; 4) Housing First / Transitional / Supportive and/or 5) Other Needs. The City is currently evaluating 20 proposals, but has not made any commitments of funds or land to a specific project. The City expects to hold interviews with potential developers by July 2017; select developers by December 2017; enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with at least one developer by June 2018; and entitlements to be secured by June 2019. At this time, the City cannot provide the specific number of units to be constructed or rehabbed, but although outside this planning period, the City expects that at least 100 affordable units will be constructed using the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. Estimates are subject to financing, property negotiations, market demand, and economic forces. As part of the process, the City will continue to make specific efforts to encourage the development of affordable housing that increases housing opportunities for residents with disabilities.
While the City cannot divulge details of the proposals due to the nature of property negotiations and confidentiality, the proposals seek to address a wide range of housing options including housing for persons with disabilities. Developers were required to identify a service provider that would provide services to targeted groups. Most proposals include tax credits where at least 30% of the units will be set aside for the very low income (below 30 percent). A maximum of 20% of the units will be affordable between 60 — 80% AMI, and no rents may exceed 80% AMI, in conjunction with the requirements of Senate Bill 341.
All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic households, Native American households and households that include persons with disabilities. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD's form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable or practical. Marketing plans will included, at a minimum, information on targeted marketing activity, evaluation of marketing activities, fair housing, and staff training.
Although the City has no R/ECAPs, the City has noticed pockets of higher populations of certain races and ethnicities. It is noteworthy that none of the 20 proposed developments would be located in or near Census Tract 432.66 and Census Tract 496.00, which are approximately 38% Hispanic, compared to other Census Tracts in the City. The City's overall Hispanic population is 23%. Several Census Tracts reflect increases of Hispanic 57 residency that are significantly higher than in other areas of the City. The City's overall Hispanic population is increasing, while Whites/Non-Hispanic is decreasing. Although these trends exist, the City wishes to emphasize that there is no history of segregation. The various potential affordable sites are located throughout the City. Most potential sites are not located near existing affordable housing sites. Through this process, the City will continue to promote an inclusive, integrated community.
To further address disproportionate housing needs and promote access to opportunity through the creation of affordable units in a range of sizes and in locations that promote access to opportunity, the third and final phase of construction for the Madera Vista complex, formerly known as Summerhouse, will be completed during this planning period. This phase includes 30 affordable units - 14 units will be moderate income, 7 units will be low income, and 8 units will be very low income. Entitlements are complete for this project. According to the Riverside County draft PHA Plan, 7 of the units will include project -based voucher assistance. Additionally, Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex, will complete substantial rehabilitation during this AFH cycle. In this project, 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (It also includes one manager's unit.) Rancho California recently successfully extended the term of their affordability covenant in the previous Consolidated Plan cycle, and the rehabilitation will further preserve the stock of affordable housing.
Other City of Temecula Initiatives to Generally Promote Affordable Housing:
To address housing needs for homeless and those at -risk of homelessness in the region, the City continues to explore and evaluate partnership opportunities with the Riverside County Continuum of Care (CoQ for the provision of services for the homeless in southwestern Riverside County.
The City continues to take a lead in the Regional Homeless Alliance, work with other local jurisdictions, the Riverside County Sherriff's Department and Homeless Outreach Team, and local nonprofits. The City understands the importance of collaboration with a wide array of organizations throughout the community and County to address a regional issue.
The City negotiates with developers requesting zone changes to provide units to assure that those with special needs are met. A recent example was a 245-unit multi -family residential development on the south side of town near Temecula Parkway, where the developer will provide options for families with special needs. While dependent on the private sector to propose multi -family projects, the City will continue to create housing opportunities for persons with disability.
The City will explore other action items with regional and County organizations during the 2017-2021 AFH Cycle. Because these are not all City programs, the City has limited control over the metrics and the outcomes of the programs. However, it is important to recognize the broader effort of actions intended to affirmatively further fair housing. These actions include:
58 • Consider proposals for using, when feasible, City -owned or City -controlled land for affordable housing projects. Several City sites were included in the Affordable Housing RFP and it is expected at least one project will utilize this incentive. • Continue to support and promote the County's Mortgage Credit Certificate program as a source for new homebuyer assistance. The City Council approves a resolution affirming the support for this County program every 1 — 2 years, as the County requests, and will continue to do so during the planning cycle.
• Support and promote the State of California Housing Finance Agency (Ca1HFA) to provide assistance to new homebuyers. • In order to increase funding resources, the City will consider applying for State HOME funds for affordable housing programs such as first time homebuyer, housing rehabilitation or new construction. If the City is successful in securing funds for these programs, all (100%) marketing plans will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation to assure there is no discrimination or barriers to fair housing. All (100%) affordable complexes will be required to keep metrics related to marketing and protected classes and provide data to the City. No protected classes will be discriminated against. At least 50% of the applicants that will benefit will include protected classes such as seniors, female heads of households, families with children, disabled, veterans, and ethnic groups. Marketing plans will be based off of HUD form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan — Multi -Family Housing, where applicable. Marketing plans will included, at a minimum, information on targeted marketing activity, evaluation of marketing activities, fair housing, and staff training. • The City will continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program through annual review of the PHA Plan and issuance of the certification of consistency and to assure sufficient numbers of vouchers for lower income residents in the City and the region.
In 2015-16, there were 109 Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City of Temecula. Community outreach and consultations suggest that demand for vouchers is quite high, and as a result, demand exceeds the supply of Section 8 units within the City. Temecula will continue to work with the County of Riverside to educate property owners on the Section 8 program. 59 Fair Housing
Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement
Responsible
Goal
Contributing Factors
Issues
Program
Participant(s)
• Adopt an ADA Transition Plan to evaluate public
facilities to ensure equal access for persons with
disabilities. The assessment will include 38 city
parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball
courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities,
four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95
bus stops and 310 miles of roadways with ADA
ramps. (Adopt Plan by December 31, 2018) (CF 3A)
• Include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the
2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to
3. Provide
3A: Inaccessible
upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities greater access
sidewalks, pedestrian
to provide accessibility for those with disabilities.
to public
crossings, or other
Disparities in
An average of one accessibility project will be
facilities and
infrastructure
Access to
constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an
City of Temecula
improvements
for persons
A. 3B: Inaccessible
Opportunity
average allocation of $100,000, based on level
with
government facilities
CDBG funding during the planning cycle. (Con Plan
disabilities
or services
adopted by May 15, 2017. Allocation adopted
annually by June 30.) (CF 3B)
• In the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, allocate
$150,000 for the construction of a new sidewalk on
Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County
of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG
funding throughout the entire planning period. (Plan
adopted by May 15, 2017; Construction completed
by December 31, 2018) (CF3A and 313)
• Construct accessibility upgrades at Pala Park located in Census Tract 432.50, including 4 additional
disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new
playground with approximately 7 play structures
designed to be all inclusive and provide access to
those with special needs. (Construction completed
by January 2019). (CF 3A)
Complete the construction of the new playground at
Sam Hicks Park located in Census Tract 512.00,
utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an
ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA
compliant ramps. (Construction completed by
December 31, 2017). (CF 3A)
Discussion: To promote meaningful access to opportunity for disabled residents in the community, the City of Temecula is committed to providing greater access to public facilities and improvements as well as government facilities for persons with disabilities. According to Table 1, the largest disabled population are those who are ambulatory (3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty (3.54%), independent living difficulty (2.90%) and those with hearing loss (2.67%). To make it possible for residents to fully avail themselves of all public facilities, services, and infrastructure in the City as a means of promoting access to all opportunities afforded in the community, the City has recently identified improvements that can be made to public improvements and facilities, such as the replacement of sidewalks. Old Town and the adjacent area have over 500 affordable units.
Old Town is in a CDBG Eligible Census Tract, 432.15. There are several sections of sidewalk needed for safe access to public facilities, parks, and a grocery store. The City funded two sections of the construction of new sidewalks in Old Town in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan cycle.
The Ynez Road sidewalk improvements will install missing sections of sidewalk to connect residents using the bus to access mainstream services offered at the Riverside County Offices located at 41000 County Center Drive. Residents, including those with disabilities, use this route to access services such as the mental health clinic, substance abuse program, WIC program and county courts.
To help the City ensure that all such facilities posing barriers to residents are addressed, the City will complete and adoption of an ADA Transition Plan. The ADA Plan is expected to be adopted by December 31, 2018 and identify accessibility issues at public facilities including The assessment will include 38 City parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops, and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. Approximately 587 locations will be analyzed. Both City Hall and the Old Town Police Substation were constructed in 2010 and are ADA compliant. Once the ADA Transition Plan is updated, those accessibility needs shall be prioritized for funding. Each deficiency will be evaluated based on the level of inaccessibility, funding availability, number of persons affected, and priorities established. The City typically budgets one accessibility infrastructure project with CDBG funds per year. Other projects may be undertaken as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program. 61 The City will include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City's infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle.
In the City's proposed 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, $150,000 will be allocated for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. This segment will complete a critical connection between regional bus lines and a regional job center (Promenade Mall) and County services.
In a developer -driven project, upgrades to Pala Park will be constructed to improve accessibility, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive, that are designed to provide access to those with special needs. During this AFH cycle, the City will also complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. The park is located in a CDBG eligible Census Tract (432.15) that serves many low income families.
As it has done in the past, the City will continue to work with the community to establish priorities and needs for accessibility upgrades at City facilities. 62 Goal
Contributing Factors
Fair Housing
Issues
Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
• Annually provide approximately 12% of public
service funds from CDBG to a fair housing service
provider to provide outreach, education and assistance
enforcing fair housing laws — particularly those
protecting the rights of disabled residents. (Annually
by June 30) (CF 4A)
• Increase public awareness of accessibility and fair
housing requirements by inviting representatives of
the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing
industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City
of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations
4. Provide
4A: Lack of resources for
will be extended to 25 frequent developers, uent develo 50 q p
equal housing
fair housing agencies and
Disparities in
members of the local real estate community from the
opportunities
organizations (CF 4A)
Access to
City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13
City of Temecula
for protected
A.
APrivate
Opportunity
affordable housing complexes in the City. (Annually
classes.
discrimination
disc
by June 30). (CF 4A and 4B)
• Increase support for fair housing training and
education by adding the most current fair housing
information on the City's website. (Annually by June
30) (CF 4A and 413)
• The City will distribute and replenish the supply of
fair housing materials, including literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and
responsibilities at five City facilities including the
Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary
Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library,
and the Community Recreation Center. (Monthly, by
the 30' day of each month) (CF 4A and 413)
63 The City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless
Alliance, will host three different panels of
representatives from organizations such as the Fair
Housing Council of Riverside County and the
Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local
homelessness and affordable housing advocates on
fair housing issues and affordable housing issues,
particularly those affecting residents with disabilities. (June 2022) (CF 4A and 4B)
Discussion: The fourth goal is to provide equal housing opportunities for disabled residents. At the local, state and national level, discrimination on the basis of disability is the leading basis for fair housing discrimination cases. According to consultation with the City's fair housing service provider, the lack of knowledge on fair housing issues amongst property owners and landlords continues to be the primary reason for discrimination complaints against persons with disabilities in Temecula and the region. This denies persons with disabilities the right to avail themselves of housing opportunities in the City or the right to remain housed in place when, for example, a landlord refuses a disability -related modification.
To address this denial of access to housing opportunities that affects Temecula residents with disabilities each year, the City will ensure the provision of a robust fair housing program each fiscal year that promotes outreach and education via multiple modes of communication. This effort will include annual appropriations of funds to a nonprofit fair housing service provider with a specific scope of work to address the housing rights of residents with disabilities. Further, the City will supplement the limited financial and staffing resources of the nonprofit fair housing service provider by convening representatives of promote awareness by convening an annual workshop to include the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries for the purpose of providing fair housing education. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community that graduated from the City's Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. The property managers of the 13 affordable complexes are some of the most likely housing providers to need information about their obligation to comply with fair housing laws.
Further, education will be supplemented through the availability of printed materials at five public facilities and on the City's website.
The City's third party fair housing provider, the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, conducts an annual conference on fair housing issues and invites representatives of the government, building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries. Over 150 people attend the annual Fair Housing Conference.
During this Planning period, City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and M
affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues. Conducting workshops for those in the housing industry will educate the appropriate stakeholders on fair housing regulations and accessibility requirements, and then reduce instances of fair housing violations.
Training this Regional Alliance will not only help overcome the contributing factor in Temecula, but in surrounding cities as well. y.
APPENDIX A
HUD -Provided Maps
Map Series Title
Map 1
Race and Ethnicity Trends(2010)................................................................1 Map 2
Race and Ethnicity Trends (1990)............................................................... 3 Map 3
National Origin(2010)................................................................................. 5 Map 4
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) with R/ECAPs..................................... 7 Map 5
Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity......................................... 9 Map 6
Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity..........................................11 Map 7
Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity.......................................................... 13 Map 8
Housing Burden and National Origin......................................................... 15 Map 9
Demographics and School Proficiency
School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity......................................... 17 School Proficiency and National Origin ....................................... 19 School Proficiency and Family Status .......................................... 21 Map 10
Demographics and Job Proximity
Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity................................................. 23 Job Proximity and National Origin ............................................... 25 Job Proximity and Family Status .................................................. 27 Map 11
Demographics and Labor Market
Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity................................................. 29 Labor Market and National Origin ................................................ 31 Labor Market and Family Status ................................................... 33 Map 12
Demographics and Transit Trips
Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity................................................... 35 Transit Trips and National Origin ................................................. 37 Transit Trips and Family Status .................................................... 39 Map 13
Demographics and Low Transportation Cost
Low Transportation Cost and Race/Ethnicity ............................... 41 Low Transportation Cost and National Origin .............................. 42 Low Transportation Cost and Family Status ................................. 44 Map 14
Demographics and Poverty
Poverty and Race/Ethnicity........................................................... 46 Poverty and National Origin......................................................... 48 Poverty and Family Status............................................................ 50 Map 15
Demographics and Environmental Health
Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity.................................... 52 Environmental Health and National Origin ................................... 54 Environmental Health and Family Status ...................................... 56 Map 16
Disability by Type
Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disability ..................................... 58 Ambulatory, Self -Care and Independent Living Disability........... 60 Map 17
Disability by Age Group............................................................................ 62 HUD -Provided Maps
As described in the narrative, the City of Temecula is located in the corner of the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in the continental United States. It is so large that the Assessment of Fair Housing could not include the entire region on the maps without losing all relevant data. The region is larger than ten of the smallest U.S. states. Most of the population is located in the southwest corner and while Temecula appears to be near these population centers because of the scale of the map, it is actually over 40 miles from the City of Riverside and 70 miles from the Cities of San Bernardino and Ontario, the largest cities in the region, and 75 miles away from the retirement desert towns and farming areas to the east.
Mountain ranges separate Temecula from population centers to the west in Orange County, as well as the eastern portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
As required by HUD, the City has included a series of maps and tables that analyze demographic trends, integration and segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, housing needs, disability access, publicly supported housing, and fair housing needs. The following series of maps is organized such that the first map shows the relationship between the City and the region, and subsequent maps are organized so that a City data topical map will be presented first, followed by the regional map.
The maps are numbered to correspond with HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) AFFH data system. The map numbers correspond to the topic.
Map 1 — Race/Ethnicity Trends (2010)
AFFHT Maps
. �. % 7 .N
Temecula jCDBG}
Name: Map 1 - RacelEthnicity
Description: Current racelethnicity dot density mal
for Jurisdiction and Region with
RIECARs
Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG)
Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario,
CA
Legend TOC
But Value:1 dot= 75
Demographics 2919
1 Dot = 75
�X••r; White, Non -Hispanic
WO Black. Non -Hispanic
.ti
Native American, Non -Hispanic
8 ' AsianlRacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
.4
Other. Non -Hispanic
TRACT
RiE❑CAP
Map 1 demonstrates geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. Each dot represents 75 persons. This map demonstrates that racial and ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City of Temecula. There is no significant segregation within the City.
Appendix A 1
Map 1 - Race/Ethnicity (Race/Ethnicity)
Current raceleihnicity dcl density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction - - •
y4
CBSA
• + 1 �i�,1, «
j ___� • ♦ �V • ••
GRANTEES
•• ••
Demographics 2010
_•._�
1 Dot=75
White, Non -Hispanic
• . •�
•�
�'� Black, Non -Hispanic
- •;�� ••.
Native American, Non -Hispanic
4F AsiariPacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
• �. %.y '+, s� a s w. •� •. _,
:•t y' ���'
••1
Dvy� Hispanic
•.
?
� .Y'• _�_� •:� ti
y'
� �• Other, Non -Hispanic
TRACT
RIECAP
+�' ;�sS�- yr' pa, .. • ••' . '•J 4=• .�"r�.`
f, •`mil •.r 7A� •'y' •71
qo
•: +•+ Esri HERE DeL SGS, NPS i United States Census Bureau e
The regional map is provided to add context and point out the large size of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) accounted for in regional data comparisons supplied by HUD. To better evaluate the data, the scale of the map has been reduced in the remaining regional maps. However, much of the detail is lost due to the scale. As indicated in the narrative, because of its location and distance from the population centers further north, the characteristics of the City data is not always comparable to the region as a whole. Note that the City of Temecula is shown in dark red at the southwest corner of the region.
Appendix A 2
Map 2 — Race/Ethnicity Trends (1990)
77 User Guide
Temecula iCDRG}
Name: Map 2- Race±Ethnicity Trends
Variation: Race;Ethnicity Trends, 109C
Description: Past race ethnicity dot density map S
Jurisdiction and Region with
RIECAPs
Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG
Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario.
CA
Legend TOG
Dot Value:1 dot= 75
Demographics 7990
1 Dot = 75
White, Non -Hispanic
Black. Non -Hispanic
Native American. Non -Hispanic
AsianFacifc Islander. Non -Hispanic
i� Hispanic
t
TRACT
WECAP
Map 2 demonstrates geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 1990. In comparing the maps from 1990 and 2010, there are no significant concentrations of segregation that have developed, despite tremendous growth that has occurred during the period.
Appendix A
Map 2 - Race/Ethnicity Trends (Race/Ethnicity Trends, 1990) Past racelethn" dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction �•-.I •ti , a { GRANTEES
.• ,� ar-•':.`5.. .�.='�M•. :• Bemog ra Ph ics 1990
•I *y y ♦ S 7 - r; �;' •r =ivy„' •':' � 1 Dot=75
rr... _Mp.at;_r.,•i' • ��:�; ,._ • • . •-�r'�' White, Non -Hispanic 4},,~ «: '�`;!• , t , •`�s�: - a'�' Black, Non -Hispanic •.•" :yam_ . _
!. • ♦�� . 4 ��`� � • � •'� � Native American, Non -Hispanic • ♦ r '' -�ti . • ' A �''7 ~ tY�♦•�� �'}� Asian/Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic - � f, rr• ` • 1 ., tea•' t:r' ..1��1 � - �• . � A
•� 'i •''^♦ ;.`_ ,.iT` �.y�• �� :T;t i. •. .. C•a .s. �` Hispanic c d• .Y t7cS r „� •:, . ' �: • ' .,� -!_ . TRACT
Y'. e•a :i•}t `.. ••� .... _! RIECAP
.
t !: _r y+.. •fit^� • Y Esri. HERE. HeLorme NGA, USGS, NPS•I United States Census Bureau Map 2 demonstrates the racial composition in the region in 1990 and it shows the tremendous growth of Hispanics in the population centers of the north. The City has also shown a less dramatic growth rate than the region.
Appendix A 4
Map 3 — National Origin (2010)
1 User Guitle
r --%L9�RJ�:!
Temecula (CDBG}
Name: Map 3-National Origin
Description: Current national origin (5 most
populousl dot density map for
Jurisdiction and Region with
RIECAPs
Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG)
Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario.
CA
Legend TOG
Dot Vatue:7 dot 75
Natii Origin (Top 5 in Descending Order)
t Dot= 75 People
McKico
Philippines
h�? Korea
EPT El Salvador
a
�9 India
TRACT
RIECAP
Map 3 demonstrates population by national origin in Temecula, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are no significant concentrations of persons based on national origin. Instead they are spread evenly throughout the City.
Appendix A
Map 3 - National Origin (National Origin)
Current national ergin (5 most populous) dot density map for Jurisdiction and Region with WECAPs Riverside -San Bernardi Tic -Ontaria, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CRSA
GRANTEES
N
National Drigin{TopS in Descending Drdert
1 Dot=75 People
Mexico
• G. fiL�-1e Philippines
YD:_!
EI Salvador
s India
TRACT
RIECAP
— . 1• ' S, NPS I United States Census Bureau
Map 3 demonstrates population by national origin throughout the region, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are significant concentrations of persons of Mexican origin in the urban areas to the north.
Appendix A 6
Map 4 — Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) with Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Temecula (CD6G)
R aM A LEP
•
L�•
erl rn4°
me.
ap -
Description: LEP persons r5 most commonly user
languages; for Jurisdiction and
Region with R±ECAPs
Jurisdiction: Temecula rCDBG1
Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario.
CA
Legend TOC
Dot Value:1 dot= 75
Limited English Proficiency (Top 5 in
Descending Order)
1 Dot = 75 People
Spanish
Tagalog
Korean
Chinese
x�L1 Thai
TRACT
RECAP
Map 4 demonstrates where persons with limited English proficiency live, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are no significant concentrations of persons with limited English proficiency within the City. They are spread evenly throughout the community.
Appendix A 7
Map 4 - LEP (Limited English Proficiency)
LEP persons (5 mast common used languages) for Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisldlction f
�'r<1 •.
- - \ -
1 CBSA
GRANTEES
Limited English Proficiency ;Top 5 in Descending Order} 1 Dot - 75 People
5 Spanish
Tagalog
Korean
Chinese
V Thai
t.
TRACT
RIECAP
LI
21 Map 4 demonstrates where those with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) lived throughout the region in 2010. They were concentrated in the population centers to the north.
The City has some limited English proficiency residents, but they are not concentrated in one section of the City.
Appendix A 8
Map 5 — Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity
AFFHT .p. • • • , •d • •• .• w. • • • '
Map Query 1 User Guide
Temecula (CDBG}
Name: Map 5-Publicly Supported
Housing and Race.lEthnicity
Description: Public Housing. Project -Based
Section 8. Other Multifamily. and
LIHTC locations mapped with
racelethnicity dot density map with
MECAPs. distinguishing
categories of publicly supported
housing by color
Legend TOG
Dot Value:I dot= 75
Public Housing
0 other Multifamily
0 Project -Based Section 8
v
LIHTC
0 Demographics 2010
1 Dot= 75
White. Non -Hispanic
Black. Non -Hispanic
' Native American, Non -Hispanic
Map 5 demonstrates where subsidized housing is located throughout the City, based on the 2010 Census. Subsidized housing is primarily located near major employment centers and transportation systems.
Appendix A 9
Map 5 - Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity (Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity) Public Housing, Project -based Section 8, Other Multifamily, and LIHTC locations mapped with racefethnm4 dot tensity map with RfECAPs, distinguishing categories of puhlicly supported housing by color Riverside -San Bernardinc-Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction lQ. ,
Mill
'ep� •' ••�. .tip• ..
•; .tit �' 4: �.' :., •�` + • • . f . v •��
-wF.i• Yam•, .• •'M.
CBSA
• GRANTEES
Ll
Public Housing
Other Multifamily
0 Project -Based Section 8
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Demographics 2010
1 Dot = 75
✓d White, Non -Hispanic
• rr
41� Black, Non -Hispanic
r'
Native American, Non -Hispanic
F. r� AsianlPacifiic Islander, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
1,'11
Other, Non -Hispanic
TRACT
RIECAP
Ei,dHERF DeLrme. N .
Map 5 shows the locations of publicly supportive housing throughout the region. The City has some publicly supported housing units, mostly located in the western central portion of the City. The City also has a number of developments assisted by redevelopment funds. These can be found in Appendix J.
Appendix A 10
Map 6 — Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity
'
•Z%
.• r • .. ; 1• .S•
iUser Guide
Temecula (CDBG)
Name: Map 6- Housing Choice Vouchers
and Race.+Ethnicity
Description: Housing Choice Voucher map with
race+ethnicity dot density map and
R?ECAPs
Jurisdiction: Temecula (CDBG)
Region: Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario.
CA
Legend TOC
Dot Value: 1 dat= 75
Demographics 2010
1 Dot =75
s" =� White. Non -Hispanic
�wr Black. Non -Hispanic
100 Native American, Non -Hispanic
{,• .AsianlPacificlslander Non -Hispanic
��rr
�
P,,' A Hispanic
: Other Non -Hispanic
TRACT
RIPCAP
Map 6 demonstrates that there are no racially and ethnically concentrated areas with Housing Choice Vouchers in the City. There are no RE/CAPS in the City.
Appendix A 11
Map 6 - Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity (Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity) Housing Choice Voucher map with race/ethnicity dot density map and RIECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction COSA
•• f ,q GRANTEES
} •' L ■ �, , Demographics 2010
k•,■���White, Non -Hispanic
)• •R+��_ , • • i • ,f •• I• • Black, Non -Hispanic
■ }. •- :r,•., C1 �Lr Native American, Non -Hispanic
5 --f .'- =^ �•y .•[ F�• i « �Lk' AsianlPaciSc Islander, Non -Hispanic • a ; ;
1 - ;.} wen
�•-SP
Hispanic
.,+ Li Other, Non -Hispanic
s.• ; 4: �•.4'•'. i r •* •.s". • •LJ. _ , f �\ TRACT
RIECAP
+ - - �' r e«� ♦ Percent Voucher Units
Y. �{. • • r., s •�°°°llRy.. i. • ___....i • • , • , •• •�+1. . hill6.046-11.7046 y - 1 ,.r• • ry
1' ,,y;. ', ' ,[ 1 - i` ti • • •! P hill 11.71% - 20.38% I ■ P' , ii' 20.3996-38.2846
•tea . i
. r
J•'
fii :w' s• .. ,� i•,. hill38.29%-100%
�� .' r1~ + �s� tiz•r •j _•.� f ,• , •e � w.� Nf ,
.1 t�—Fsri HERE, DeLo irwe NCy6,J1SG5, NPS I United Slates Census Bureau ( i Map 6 shows that there are few concentrations of housing choice vouchers in the region, mostly in the northern part of the region. Temecula has some housing choice vouchers located in the western central portions of the City.
Appendix A 12
Map 7 - Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity (Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity) Households experiencing one or more housing hardens in JurGdVinn and Regmn with RIECAPs and racelethnlcity dot dens€ty Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
1 Dot=75
White: Non -Hispanic
Black, Non -Hispanic
hNative American, Non -Hispanic
f~71� PsianlPaciSc Islander, Non -Hispanic
}� Hispanic
Other. Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
Percent Households with Burden
0%-26.07%
® 26.08%-35.86%
`35.87%-46.38%
' 46.39%-59.74%
' 5975%-100%
Map 7 shows geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates where households are experiencing one or more housing burdens. The darker the shading, the greater the prevalence of homes experiencing cost burdens. Cost burden means that rent plus utility costs exceed 30% of the resident's monthly income. The area with the greatest burden is located in the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood where there is a high concentration of market -rate apartments. This would indicate the need for additional affordable rental housing. The older established single-family neighborhoods in the City have the least cost burden.
Appendix A 13
Map 7 - Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity (Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity) Households experiencing one or more housing burdens in Jurisdiction and Region wdh RIECAPs and racefethnicay dot density Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction :r-
r
CBSA
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
1 Cot-75
White. Non -Hispanic
Black, Non -Hispanic
ars Native American, Non -Hispanic
AsianlPacific Islander, Non -Hispanic
Hispanic
a, Other, Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
Percent Households with Burden
0%-26.07%
. 26.08%-3586%
' 35.87% - 46.38%
. 46.39%- 59.74%
. 59.75%-100%
Fsri HFRF F7a4 orma NC'A I15CS NPS I Ilnitarl Stalac C,ancac RM-L_.
Map 7 shows areas with housing burden, something that Temecula shares with most of the region and all of Southern California. The darker the shading, the greater the percentage of households experiencing housing cost burdens.
Appendix A 14
Map 8 - Housing Burden and National Origin (Housing Burden and National Origin) Households experiencing one or more housing burdens in Jurisdiction and Region with RIECAPs and national origin dot density Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
National Drigin {fop 5 in Descending Order)
1 Dot =75 People
XMexico
's Philippines
�^ Korea
rro
YkEl Salvador
t India
RIECAP
Percent Households with Burden
0%-25.07%
hk 26.08%-35.86%
' 35.87%-46.38%
' 46.39%-5974%
. 59.75%-100%
Map 8 shows geographic patterns of national origin concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates where households are experiencing one or more housing burdens. The darker shading represents a greater prevalence of housing units with cost burdens. Cost burden means that rent plus utility costs exceed 30% of the resident's monthly income. While the greatest concentrations of households with housing costs burdens are located in two areas of the City, there is not a concentration in those areas of persons based on national origin.
Appendix A 15
Map 8 - Housing Burden and National Origin (Housing Burden and National Origin) Households experiencing one or more housing burdens in Jurisdiction and Region with PJECAPs and national origin dot density Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA
GRANTEES
National Origin ITop 5 in Descending Orderl
1 Dopttt-75 People
�Zq Mexico
VAI Philippines
Korea
�,; EI Salvador
7t i
t India
RYECAP
Ll
Percent Households with Burden
- 0%-26.07%
' 26.08%-35.86%
' 35.87%-46.38%
. 46.39%- 59.74%
. 59.75%-100%
Map 8 shows housing cost burden by national origin. The City does not have any concentrations of immigrants; they are spread throughout the City. The regions to the north and east do have concentrations and many immigrants are experiencing higher than average cost burdens in the region. The housing burdens are felt equally by all racial and ethnic groups in Temecula.
Appendix A 16
Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity) School Proficiency Index foF Jurlsdiction and Region with racelethnlcily, national origin, family status, and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
Demographics 2010
1 Doi
;A White, Non -Hispanic
rs Black, Non -Hispanic
Native American. Non -Hispanic
AsianlPaciic Islander, Non -Hispanic
q. Hispanic
N'
i. Other, Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
Schaal Praliick rl InAex
0-10
10.1-20
' 20.1-30
30.1-40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1-50
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-30
' 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
There are three versions for Map 9 for school proficiency. This first map shows geographic patterns school proficiency with an overlay of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates the performance of 4' graders on State exams in 2012. The darker the shadowing, the higher the performance. The area with the lowest school proficiency is in an area with a large number of apartments. The area with the lowest school proficiency in the northwest is sparsely populated and is comprised of mostly industrial uses. There is no significant concentration of racial/ethnic groups in the low performing tracts.
Appendix A 17
Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity) School Prcftciency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and PJECAPS Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Temecula, CA (063712) Judsidiction , CBSA
's GRANTEES
y1�t• • . , .f +•, 1: r Demographics 2910
:d 1 Dot=75
`` �,•� r•�� T��}`, ter_. �� IR White, Non -Hispanic
• . •' ` !. -s-� �� Black, Non -Hispanic
ti..�• , V•
.� _ Native American. Non -Hispanic
°:''y'`.� s • . -fir �_N Asian/Pacific Islander, Non -Hispanic .'1, • '•`t TT• r Hispanic
"ra ,
Y �•ti' 1,;,'-• •�• !r� Other, Non -Hispanic
RIECAP
Sc hool Profic ie ncy Index
0-10
10.1-20
�:• 1.. -
4i � 20.9-30
C � ,h�•.;�1,g: � iNY_ ' ��• ' 50.1-60
60.1-70
�_• - ' 70.1 -80
. r;
' 80.1-90
Esri. HERE. DeLonne. NGA. USGS. NPS I United States Census Bureau esn 11h90.1 -100
This version of Map 9 is difficult to analyze the detail because of the breadth of the region; however, the following map with national origin provides more detailed data in comparing school proficiency in Temecula.
Appendix A 18
Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and National Origin) SchooV Proficiency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and RIECAPs Temecula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction
GRANTEES
National Origin [Top 5 in Descending Order)
1 Dot =75 People
Mexico
13 Philippines
Korea
El Salvador
9India
RlECAP
School Proficiency Index
0-10
10.1-20
11111 20.1-30
` 30.1 - 40
` 40.1 - 50
` 50.1 - 60
. 60.1-70
' 70.1-80
■ 80.1-90
' 90.1-100
This version of Map 9 shows geographic patterns school proficiency with an overlay of national origin concentrations in Temecula in 2010. The shading indicates the performance of 4' graders on State exams in 2012. The darker colors indicate higher performance on exams. There is no significant concentration of a particular group in the lower performing schools.
Appendix A 19
Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and National Origin) School Proficiency Index for Jurisdiction and Region with racelethnicity, national origin, family status, and RlECAPs Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario, CA Region; Terrec+_ula, CA (063712) Jurisidiction CBSA
GRANTEES
National Origin ;Top 5 in Des cer ding Drde r}
1 Dot-75 People
',}!ram•' Mexico
Philippines
Korea
El Salvador
India
RIECAP
School Proficiency Index
V 0-10
' 10.1-20
. 20.1 - 30
' 30.1-40
' 40.1 - 50
' 50.1 - 60
' 60.1-70
' 70.1-30
■ 80.1 - 90
. 90.1 - 100
This version of Map 9 for National Origin data demonstrates that school proficiency is much higher in the City than in most of the region. As indicated in the narrative, all racial and ethnic groups benefit from the good schools in the City.
Appendix A 20
Map 9 - Demographics and School Proficiency (School Proficiency and Family Status) School Proficiency index for Jurisdiction and Region with raceiethnicity. national origin, family status, and RIECAPS Temecula; CA (063712) Jurisdiction
GRANTEES
% of Households that are Families with Children
• 0%-20%
* 20.1%-40%
40.1%-60%
60.1%-80%