City Council Chambers
14343 Civic Drive
Victorville, CA
www.victorvilleca.gov
VICTORVILLE CITY COUNCIL
VICTORVILLE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS AIRPORT AUTHORITY
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THE CITY AS HOUSING ASSETS SUCCESSOR
JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY
VICTORVILLE WATER DISTRICT
Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
5:00 p.m. Closed Session
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
The
City
Council
holds
its
business
meetings
in
public
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Ralph
M.
Brown
Act,
its
established
policies
and
procedures,
and
its
adopted
parliamentary
authority.
The
Council
strives
to
carry
out
its
meetings
in
an
atmosphere
of
professionalism
with
full
participation
by
members
of
the
body
and
the
public.
As
such,
the
Presiding
Officer
is
empowered
to
govern
City
Council
Meetings
to
foster
the
efficient
and
fair
administration
of
City
business
and
reserves
the
right
to
enforce
(or
cause
to
be
enforced)
the
Meeting
Rules
of
Conduct
and
Decorum
as
set
forth
in
Chapter
5 of
the
City
Council Policy and Procedures Manual.
The
City
Council
welcomes
and
encourages
public
participation
and
invites
the
community
to
attend
in
person.
City
Council
Meetings
will
be
held
in-person
at
City
Hall
in
Council
Chambers.
Remote
viewing
of
our
Council
Meetings
is
available
through
YouTube,
but
public
comments
must
be
given
in-person
at
the
meeting or in advance as noted below.
Public
Comments:
Members
of
the
public
may
submit
comments
electronically
by
4 p.m.
the
day
of
the
meeting
to
be
distributed
to
City
Council.
Participants
are
invited
to
address
the
Council
on
agendized
and
non-agendized
topics
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
Public
comments
will
be
no
longer
than
three
(3)
minutes
per
community
member.
Should
a
speaker
conclude
their
comments
prior
to
the
expiration
of
three
(3)
minutes,
the
speaker
waives
the
right
to
speak
for
any
remaining
amount
of
time.
For
further
information
about
how
to
address
the
Council,
please refer to the City's website at
victorvilleca.gov/agendas
.
LEVINE
ACT
DISCLOSURE:
Pursuant
to
the
Levine
Act
(Govt.
Code
section
84308),
any
party
to
a
permit,
license,
contract,
or
other
entitlement
before
the
Victorville
City
Council
is
required
to
disclose
on
the
record
any
campaign
contribution,
including
aggregated
contributions,
of
more
than
$250
made
by
the
party
or
the
party's
agents
within
the
preceding
12 months
to
any
City
official.
Participants
and
agents
are
requested
to
make
this
disclosure
as
well.
The
disclosure
must
include
the
name
of
the
party,
participant,
or
agent,
and
any
other
person
making
the
contribution;
the
name
of
the
recipient,
the
amount
of
the
contribution,
and
the
date
the
contribution was made.
In
compliance
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
if
you
need
special
assistance
to
participate
in
this
meeting,
please
contact
the
City
Clerk's
office
at
(760)
955-5188
no
later
than
72 hours
prior
to
the
meeting.
5:00 p.m. Closed Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments for Closed Session Items
Declaration of Closed Session Item(s) by City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
A.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property Location: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 0478-106-01 City Negotiators: Keith C. Metzler, City Manager, or authorized designee Negotiating
Parties:
Arrowhead
Central
Credit
Union,
a
California
nonprofit
mutual
benefit corporation
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
B.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name: Truc Nguyen
Case No.: CODE24-02710 (Citation No. 44616)
C.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name: Andranik Bebedezyn
Case No.: CIVSB2410678
D.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name: Andranik Bebedezyn
Case No.: CIVSB2410679
E.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Case name: Khachatur Kalantaryan
Case No.: CIVVS2400308
Recess to Closed Session
6:00 p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order
Roll Call
Closed Session Announcements by the City Attorney
Invocation: Elder Michael Reyes of Destiny Christian Center
Pledge of Allegiance: Police Captain Randy German
Proclamations/Special Presentations
Presentation
Recognizing
the
Winners
of
the
City's
Victorville
Recycles
Week
Contest
Presentation to Retiring Employee Eric Ray, Airport Director
City Clerk Presents Agenda/Revisions to Agenda
Conflict of Interest Declarations
Any
items
on
this
agenda
that
might
be
a
conflict
of
interest
to
any
Council
Members/Board Members should be identified at this time.
Introduction to Public Comments
Public Comments
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
1. United
States
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
Required
Public
Hearing for Community Planning and Development Grants - Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1)
Open
and
conduct
a
public
hearing
to
receive
citizen,
agency,
and
prospective
applicant
comments
regarding
the
City’s
needs
and
strategies
for
the
2025-2026
Annual Action Plan; and
(2) Close the public hearing.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Payroll Demand Schedule No. 6A
Recommendation:
That
the
City
Council
and
Board
of
Directors
ratify
Payroll
Demand
Schedule
No.
6A
for
Payroll
Period
November
22,
2024,
through
December
6,
2024,
in
the
amount
of
$2,376,147.35
covering
Check
Nos.
34396
through
34411,
including
Vendor
checks.
Please
note
employee
Check
No.
34397
has
a
Live
Check
and
an
EFT.
Also
included
are
Advice
Nos.
322013
through
322564,
per
adopted
budget
for
Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (period covering July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025).
3. Reduction of Securities for Tract Map No. 17316
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1)
Approve
an
80-percent
reduction
in
Water,
Sewer,
Drainage,
Landscaping
Maintenance
Assessment
District
(LMAD),
and
Street
Faithful
Performance
Securities for Tract Map No. 17316; and
(2)
Accept
the
completed
Water,
Sewer,
Drainage,
Landscaping
Maintenance
Assessment District (LMAD), and Street Improvements.
4. Reduction of Securities for Tract Map No. 16720
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1)
Approve
a
20-percent
release
of
the
Street
Faithful
Performance
Security
for
Tract Map No. 16720; and
(2) Accept the completed Street Improvements.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2454
Recommendation:
That
the
City
Council
adopt,
by
second
reading,
Ordinance
No.
2454,
approving
Amendment
Case
PLAN24-00023,
an
amendment
to
the
Victorville
Municipal
Code
with
an
environmental
exemption
to
make
various
changes
Citywide
to
Title
16 including
but
not
limited
to
new
and
updated
definitions,
new
land
use
allowances
and
standards
related
to
thrift
retail
stores,
revised
landscape
standards,
and
an
update and clarification to tentative tract map approval periods.
6. Notice of Completion for Building 756 Roof Replacement Project #CC24-087
Recommendation:
That the Southern California Logistics Airport Authority Board of Directors:
(1)
Approve
the
Notice
of
Completion
for
Building
756
Roof
Replacement,
Project
#CC24-087; and
(2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the Notice of Completion.
7. Commercial Demand Schedule No. 16
Recommendation:
That
the
City
Council
and
Board
of
Directors
ratify
Commercial
Demand
Schedule
No.
16 in
the
amount
of
$6,833,948.98,
covering
Electronic
Fund
Transfers
No.
343022
through
343151
and
Warrant
No.
798516
through
798666
for
02/06/2025
through
02/19/2025
and
Wire
Transfers
dated
02/24/2025,
per
the
adopted
budget
for
Fiscal
Year
2024-2025
for
the
period
covering
July
1,
2024
through
June
30,
2025.
8. Minutes
of
the
January
16,
2025,
Measure
P
and
City
Council
Joint
Special
Meeting, and the January 21 and February 4, 2025, Regular City Council Meetings
Recommendation:
That
the
Honorable
City
Council
approve
the
minutes
of
the
Measure
P
and
City
Council
Joint
Special
Meeting
held
on
January
16,
2025,
and
the
Regular
City
Council Meetings held on January 21 and February 4, 2025.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
9. Transfer
of
Rail-Related
Property
Owned
by
the
City
of
Victorville
to
the
Southern
California Logistics Airport Authority; Declaration of Exempt Surplus Land
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council/Board of Directors:
(1)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
25-016
declaring
City-owned
Properties
as
“Exempt
Surplus
Land”
pursuant
to
Government
Code
Section
54221(f)(1)(D),
and
authorizing
the
disposition
of
such
properties
to
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport Authority (“SCLAA”), and
(2)
Authorize
the
transmittal
of
a
certified
copy
of
Resolution
No.
25-016
to
the
Housing
and
Community
Development
(“HCD”)
Department,
as
specified
in
Section
400(e) of the Surplus Land Act Guidelines; and
(3)
Authorize
the
City
Manager,
or
his
designee,
to
sign
all
documents
necessary
and
appropriate
to
carry
out
and
implement
the
transfer
of
Properties
to
the
SCLAA;
and
(4)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
SCLAA
25-005
accepting
the
transfer
of
City-owned
Properties
and
authorizing
the
Executive
Director
to
sign
all
documents
necessary
to solidify the transfer of the Properties to the SCLAA.
10. Transfer
of
Rail-Related
Property
Owned
by
the
City
of
Victorville
to
the
Southern
California Logistics Airport Authority; Declaration of Exempt Surplus Land
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council/Board of Directors:
(1)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
25-017
declaring
City-owned
property
as
“Exempt
Surplus
Land”
pursuant
to
Government
Code
Section
54221(f)(1)(D),
and
authorizing
the
disposition
of
such
property
to
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
(“SCLAA”);
(2)
Authorize
the
transmittal
of
a
certified
copy
of
Resolution
No.
25-017
to
the
Housing
and
Community
Development
(“HCD”)
Department,
as
specified
in
Section
400(e) of the Surplus Land Act Guidelines;
(3)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
25-018
amending
the
annual
budget
for
Fiscal
Year
2024-
2025 approving additional revenue;
(4)
Authorize
the
City
Manager,
or
his
designee,
to
sign
all
documents
necessary
and
appropriate
to
carry
out
and
implement
the
transfer
of
Property
to
the
SCLAA;
and
(5)
Adopt
Resolution
No.
SCLAA
25-006,
accepting
the
transfer
of
City-owned
Property,
and
authorizing
the
Executive
Director
to
execute
related
transactional
documents.
11. Building
553
Roof
Replacement,
Standard
Construction
Agreement,
Project
#CC25-064
Recommendation:
That
the
Southern
California
Logistics
Airport
Authority
Board
of
Directors
approve
the
award
of
a
Standard
Construction
Agreement
with
Universal
Coatings,
Inc.,
for
Building
553
Roof
Replacement,
Project
#CC25-064,
with
the
total
compensation
not to exceed $243,000.
12. Discussion
and
possible
action
to
add
a
yield
sign
at
Bear
Valley
Road
between
the
Mall of Victor Valley and Pacoima
Recommendation:
Any action is at the discretion of Your Honorable City Council.
13. Discussion
and
possible
action
to
direct
the
City
Manager
to
purchase
a
tiered
sponsorship
package
on
behalf
of
the
City
for
Pride
Week
2025
and
Pride
Prom
2025,
to
be
held
in
June
2025
at
Victor
Valley
College
and
that
the
sponsorship
for
each event not exceed $5,000
Recommendation:
Any action is at the discretion of Your Honorable City Council.
14. City Manager Reports
15. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Upcoming Agenda Items
16. Reports from Council Members
Adjournment
Item Number: 1
City Council / Board of Directors
Public Hearing(s)
Meeting of: March 4, 2025
Submitted By:
Alex Jauregui, City Planner
Subject:
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Required Public Hearing for Community Planning and Development Grants - Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Open and conduct a public hearing to receive citizen, agency, and prospective applicant comments regarding the City’s needs and strategies for the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan; and
(2) Close the public hearing.
Fiscal Impact:
None at this time; however, associated Agenda Items in the future will guide the disbursement of approximately $1.9 million dollars in federal Community Planning and Development (CPD) Grants.
Strategic Plan Goal:
The subject public hearing will allow the City Council to obtain public input regarding the future allocation of available HUD funding via the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, which will enable the City to further fulfill the following Goals outlined in the 2023-2026 Strategic Plan:
•Goal A (Financial Sustainability) – Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds represent funding opportunities that require limited financial commitments while ensuring greater availability of general fund resources.
•Goal D (Reduce Homelessness) – Eligible activities such as public service and housing projects are aimed to directly benefit the homeless population as well as those at risk of homelessness, providing the City an opportunity to expand the outreach network and partnerships.
4 0
2 7
•Goal E (Invest in Infrastructure) – Projects that benefit or improve City facilities (e.g. parks and recreational facilities, public roadways, etc.) are eligible projects when located within CDBG Target Areas or when serving target populations.
Background:
In 1997, the City of Victorville became an Entitlement City with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This status allows the City to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds directly from HUD. Prior to Victorville’s status as an Entitlement City, CDBG funding was awarded to the City of Victorville through the County of San Bernardino and was subject to projects/programs that fulfilled a countywide need rather than those specific to the City.
The City of Victorville successfully formed a consortium in 2003 with the Town of Apple Valley in order to meet the threshold of obtaining HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) entitlement status with HUD. The successful formation of the consortium results in an annual allocation of HOME funds to both communities, which can be used in concert with CDBG funding to address specific needs within the City of Victorville.
As an Entitlement City for both programs, staff is responsible for all required tasks including program development, application guidance and processing, determination of project eligibility, project oversight, contract compliance, all reporting requirements, and direct draw of funds from HUD.
One of the key requirements of an Entitlement City status is the development of a five- year planning document, known as the Consolidated Plan (ConPlan). Pursuant to Section 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91, HUD has established regulations that set forth the ConPlan process. The ConPlan is designed to help states and local jurisdictions to assess their affordable housing and community development needs, market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The ConPlan, which may have a duration of between 3 and 5 years, describes the jurisdiction’s community development priorities and multiyear goals based on an assessment of housing and community development needs, an analysis of current housing and economic market conditions and available resources. Subpart E of Section 24 CFR Part 91, requires local governments that participate in a consortium to include said consortium in the ConPlan. Pursuant to this regulation, on April 19, 2022, the City of Victorville adopted the 2022-2026 ConPlan, including the required consortium component.
The ConPlan is carried out through Annual Action Plans, which provide a concise summary of the actions, activities and the specific federal and non-federal resources that will be used each year to address the priority needs and specific goals identified by the ConPlan. Each year, grantees must submit an updated Action Plan describing specific planned uses for HUD program funds, including CDBG and HOME. The fiscal year 2025- 2026 Annual Action Plan represents the fourth program year of the 2022-2026 ConPlan.
A copy of the ConPlan in its entirety is available for the public on the City’s website 4 0
2 7
(Attachment A); however, the priority needs outlined in the City’s 2022-2026 ConPlan are provided for your reference as follows:
•Supportive services for the homeless and at risk
•Human services
•Housing programs
•Accessibility and Mobility
•Economic Development
As part of the Action Plan preparation and adoption process, citizens of the City of Victorville are afforded an opportunity to provide input on housing and community development needs and issues affecting very-low and low income persons. Public notices to facilitate community participation were published in a local newspaper 10 days prior to the hearing date in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan (Attachment B), which included notices in both English and Spanish and the notice was also placed at the Victorville City Library, Hook Community Center and posted on the City’s website. Lastly, statements regarding the availability of special accommodations for non-English speaking persons and those with disabilities are printed on all written materials pertaining to the Annual Action Plan development.
Discussion:
The purpose of this HUD required public hearing is to gather community input, incorporate citizen participation and complete the tasks necessary in the creation of the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan by:
1. Receiving citizen and agency comments regarding the City’s needs and strategies for the upcoming 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan, including comments regarding proposed projects for FY 2025-2026, as required by HUD guidelines in the City of Victorville’s Citizen Participation Plan; and
2. Allowing prospective applicants for FY 2025-2026 CDBG/HOME grant funds an opportunity to share their needs.
ESTIMATED FUNDING:
The City is estimated to receive a 2025-2026 CDBG allocation amount of $1,373,412 and a HOME allocation of $509,649, based on 2024-2025 grant allocations. As of this writing, the 2025-2026 Federal budget has not been approved and HUD states that the grant amounts may change depending upon their final, actual appropriation. For reference, the current fiscal year 2024-2025 funding is provided in Attachment C. Additionally, the noted amounts are anticipated to remain consistent annually over the course of the 5-year ConPlan with slight increases or decreases possible based upon historic fluctuations in funding allocations due to various factors including population and need.
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The City is required to utilize CDBG grant funding to “provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities.” It is required 4 0
2 7
by the Federal government that “the aggregate use of CDBG funds....shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons ....”. This grant has funding restrictions for certain functions (Public Services - 15%, and Administration - 20% maximum allocations), but generally can be distributed as follows:
•Public Service Projects - $206,012 (15% of Total CDBG Allocation) •Construction/Other Projects - $892,718 (65% of Total CDBG Allocation) •Administration - $274,682 (20% of Total CDBG Allocation) TOTAL - $1,373,412 (2025-2026 estimated CDBG Allocation)
2. HOME
The City is required to utilize HOME grant funding to “provide decent affordable housing to lower-income households; expand the capacity of nonprofit housing providers; strengthen the ability of state and local governments to provide housing; and leverage private-sector participation.” HOME funds also have a minimum 15% funding restriction that is dedicated to Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), and an Administration cap of 10%. The City of Victorville and the Town of Apple Valley have established a consortium in order to meet the population threshold for HOME entitlement status. Pursuant to HUD’s 2024 HOME Consortia Participating Members Percentage Report, Victorville’s funds will be distributed as follows:
•Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) - $76,447 (Required 15% minimum of HOME Allocaiton)
•Construction/Other Projects - $382,237 (75% of HOME Allocation) •Administration - $50,965 (Maximum 10% of HOME Allocaiton) TOTAL - $509,649 (2024-2025 estimated HOME Allocation)
In addition, the HOME Program requires that federal HOME funds be matched 25% with non-federal forms of subsidy. Unless HUD waives the local match requirement, applicants for HOME funding will be responsible for providing match contributions. As of the current fiscal year, the Apple Valley/Victorville Consortium has been deemed fiscally distressed by HUD and this matching fund requirement has been waived as it has been in previous funding cycles.
APPLICATIONS, PROJECT TYPES AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Applications
The deadline to submit applications for FY 2025-2026 funding was January 17, 2025 from non-profit agencies and City departments. Staff has begun evaluating the applications to determine eligibility using the federal CDBG and HOME criteria.
2. Project Types
Public Service Projects are defined by the population they serve and may only be 4 0
2 7
funded by CDBG. Most public service projects are determined to be eligible based on the federal guidelines that presume certain groups are eligible, such as the homeless, victims of domestic violence, senior adults, certain at-risk groups such as the unemployed and youth, and low/moderate income families. CDBG regulations place a 15% cap on funds that can be allocated to Public Service Projects. Staff anticipates a total of $206,012 will be available to fund projects defined as Public Service Projects in the upcoming 2025-2026 program year.
Construction and Other Community Development Projects are generally limited by their location and are funded with CDBG. A target area map determined by the 2020 census defines those areas where there exists a concentrated portion of the low and moderate-income population, or an area severely affected by blight. A map of the City's current CDBG targeted areas has been included with this agenda item as Attachment D. A project is eligible under this funding type when it demonstrates that the immediate or target area benefits from the project or activity.
During the subject program year approximately $892,718 is available to fund projects defined as Construction and Other Community Development Projects.
Housing Projects may also be funded from this category.
Housing Projects may be funded with either CDBG or HOME funds. CDBG regulations limit housing activities to “providing or improving permanent residential structures which, upon completion will be occupied by low and moderate-income persons”. HOME regulations are designed to provide affordable housing to low and very-low-income households. HUD requires a minimum of 15% of the total HOME allocation to be reserved for CHDO activities. Approximately $382,237 in HOME funds is anticipated to be available to fund non-CHDO housing projects. Housing Projects may also be funded utilizing the $892,718 in CDBG funds from the Construction and Other Community Development Projects category listed above.
3. Funding Considerations
Funding caps are established by statute for administration (CDBG - 20% and HOME – 10% maximum of the total grant award), public service projects (CDBG - 15% maximum of the total grant award) and CHDO projects (HOME – 15% minimum). Although these fundings limits were previously waived in conjunction with associated but separate CDBG-CV funds (CDBG CARES Act funding in repsonse to the coronavirus pandemic), such waivers are not applicable to the subject CDBG & HOME funds being discussed.
A. Council Policy
On November 15, 1994 (amended April 4, 1995, May 1998 and January 15, 2019), the City Council adopted a policy that established guidelines for determining CDBG/HOME program and project priority. The policy states that Council is tasked with the responsibility of determining program and project priority as well as allocating funds during the fiscal year in which grant funds are available. In order to facilitate the annual allocation of funds, 4 0
2 7
the City Council designates two members of the Council to serve on the CPD Grants Subcommittee. Currently, Mayor Becerra and Councilmember Jones are appointed to serve on the CPD Grants Subcommittee, which will make recommendations to the City Council for formal review and approval in conjunction with the Annual Action Plan.
B. Religious Organizations
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships was established by former President George W. Bush through executive order on January 29, 2001. The initiative sought to strengthen faith-based and community organizations and expand their capacity to provide federally funded social services. HUD revised its regulations to remove barriers to the participation of faith-based organizations in HUD programs. In general, no group of applicants competing for HUD funds should be subject to greater or fewer requirements than other organizations solely because of their religious character or affiliation. However, HUD does require that organizations clearly delineate eligible and ineligible uses of funds. HUD’s final rule stipulates that a recipient organization may not use direct HUD funds to support inherently religious activities, such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
C. Fair Housing
Affirmatively furthering fair housing is a legal requirement that federal grantees advance the purposes of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. There are no requirements for minimum funding levels, or funding caps for this activity.
The City’s responsibilities include identifying barriers to fair housing and taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of those barriers. This activity is generally contracted to organizations that principally offer fair housing services as well as landlord/tenant mediation, such as Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board. Additionally, included in the 2022-2026 ConPlan is an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, which along with the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Plan adopted in conjunction with the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element will be incorporated into the Annual Action Plan by ensuring compliance with applicable goals.
CPD Grants Subcommittee and Allocation of Funds:
The CPD Grants Subcommittee will work with staff to review applications and provide their funding recommendations prior to the adoption of the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan.
It is anticipated that the City Council will award grant amounts as part of the adoption of the Annual Action Plan during a public meeting anticipated to occur in May 2025.
Staff is available to answer questions as needed.
4 0
2 7
Attachments: A. 2022-2026 ConPlan
B. Citizen Participation Plan
C. 2024-2025 CDBG/HOME Allocations
D. CDBG Target Area Map
CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT A
2022-2026 Consolidated Plan
Draft Consolidated Plan
2022-2026
Draft Annual Action Plan
FY 2022– 2026
This page is intentionally left blank.
VICTORVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Debra Jones
Mayor
Leslie Irving
Mayor Pro Tem
Elizabeth Becerra
Council Member
Blanca Gomez
Council Member
This page is intentionally left blank.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................2 ES-05 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 2 The Process ........................................................................ 9 PR-05 Lead & responsible agencies ......................................................................................................9 Needs Assessment ........................................................ 43 NA-05 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 43 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment ..................................................................................................... 45 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs ....................................................... 54 Housing Market Analysis ............................................ 62 MA-05 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 62 MA-10 Number of Housing Units ......................................................................................................... 67 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing ..................................................................... 72 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets ....................................................... 76 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households ........................................................................................................................................................ 85 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation, Victorville ................................................................................................. 87 Strategic Plan .................................................................. 89 SP-05 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 89 SP-10 Geographic Priorities ...................................................................................................................... 91 SP-25 Priority Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 92 SP-35 Anticipated Resources ................................................................................................................. 98 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure ............................................................................................. 101 DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE ii
SP-45 Goals Summary .............................................................................................................................. 105 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards ....................................................................................................... 107 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy ................................................................................................................. 109 SP-80 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................... 111 2022-2023 Action Plan .................................................113 AP-15 Expected Resources ...................................................................................................................... 113 AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 115 AP-35 Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 117 AP-38 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................... 119 AP-50 Geographic Distribution ........................................................................................................... 129 AP-85 Other Actions................................................................................................................................... 130 AP-90 Program Specific Requirements .........................................................................................133
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 2
Executive Summary
ES-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The City of Victorville is a growing and vibrant community conveniently located between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Incorporated in 1962, the City has grown from 8,110 residents in an area of 9.7 acres to over 128,000 residents in 74.16 acres. The City has long been part of essential transportation corridors, including Route 66 and Interstate 15. Pride of place is evident in the clean air, mountain vistas and big skies, and pride of people is evident in the strong entrepreneurial spirit, and commitment to neighbors through volunteerism. Victorville has evolved and experienced significant growth in population and economic activity in the last 60 years.
The City of Victorville prepared the 2022-2026 Consolidated Plan, with select analyses required to receive federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The Consolidated Plan provides the U nited States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with a comprehensive assessment of the City’s housing and community development needs and outlines the City’s priorities, objectives, and strategies for the investment of CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Consortium funds to address these needs over the next five years, beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2027.
The City of Victorville and the Town of Apple have formed the Apple Valley-Victorville Consortium. Thi s strategy enables the City and Town to access HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds and make more affordable housing resources available to residents. Apple Valley serves as the lead agency for coordinating the Co nsortium’s Consolidated Planning process and submission. Each jurisdiction is responsible for administering its own CDBG program, while the Town of Apple Valley administers the HOME program for both jurisdictions. HOME objectives and goals are determined by both jurisdictions through an extensive analysis of housing needs for low er income residents, as specified by the program regulations. Each jurisdiction is also responsible for preparing its own Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Perf ormance Evaluation Report (CAPER).
The City and Consortium receive CDBG and HOME funds from HUD on a formula basis each year, and in turn, awards grants and loans to nonprofit, for -profit, public organizations, and residents for programs and projects in fu rtherance of this Plan.
These programs provide for a wide range of eligible activities to address the needs of Victorville residents.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 3
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created the CDBG Program with three primary objectives against which HUD evaluates the Consolidated Plan and the City’s performance. Those primary objectives are decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic opportunities for low - and moderate- income persons. The CDBG regulations require each activity meet one of the following national objectives:
• Benefit low- and moderate-income persons; or
• Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight; or • Meet other community development needs having a particular urge ncy (usually the result of a natural disaster).
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 created the HOME program to expand the supply of affordable housing for low - and moderate-income households. Often used in partnership with local nonprofit housing development organizations, the HOME program can support a wide range of affordable housing activities, including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating rental and housing ownership to low- and moderate-income people. Additionally, HOME funds are used to fund the City’s Senior Home Repair Program.
For the 2022 -2023 Program Year, it is es timated the City will receive $ 1,447,740 of CDBG funds and it is estimated the Consortium will receive $783,168 in HOME funds.
When combined with available prior year resources, the 202 2-2023 Action Plan allocates $1,683,386 of CDBG funds, and $538,967 of HOME funds to program activities listed below that will be implemented from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023.
2022-2023 CDBG Public Service Activities
Assistance League of Victor Valley: Operation School Bell $23,639 Child Advocates of San Bernardino County $10,000
Family Assistance Program $11,820
Greater Hope Foundation for Children $19,699
High Desert Homeless Services $31,515
Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board $28,000
Millionaire Mind Kids $10,000
Moses House Ministries $20,369
Partners Against Violence $15,760
Rock'n Our Disabilities Foundation $22,720
Victor Valley Domestic Violence $23,639
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 4
2022-2023 CDBG & HOME Capital Activities
High Desert Homeless Services $300,000
Route 66 Victor Valley Revitalization $150,000
Victor Valley Community Services Council $34,000
City of Victorville – Blight Abatement $104,000
City of Victorville – Code Enforcement $250,000
City of Victorville – Demolition $175,145.72
City of Victorville – Planning: Residential Rehabilitation Program $200,000 City of Victorville – Public Works – Graffiti Abatement *$0.00 City of Victorville – Planning – Senior Home Repair Program (HOME) $131,561 Hughes Training and Development (HOME) $272,665
* Program will be funded up to requested $12,500 in surplus allocation of funds 2022-2023 Program Administration Activities
CDBG Program Administration $289,548
HOME Program Administration $26,948
Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan needs assessment Overview
The priority needs and goals identified in the Plan are based on analysis of information including the results of the City’s Resident and Stakeholder Surveys and the housing and community development data elements required by HUD in the online Consolidated Plan system (eCon Planning Suite). Data supplied by HUD includes the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 -Year Estimates and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) covering the same period .
Other sources of information used to identify needs and establish priorities were obtained through consultation with local nonprofit agencies and cited publicly available data.
In consideration of community input and available data, the five priority needs listed below are established as part of this Plan:
• Supportive services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness • Human services
• Housing programs
• Accessibility and mobility
• Economic Development
Consistent with HUD’s national goals for the CDBG and HOME programs to provide decent housing opportunities, maintain a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities for low - and moderate-income residents, the priority needs listed above will be addressed over the next five years through the implementation of DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 5
activities aligned with the following measurable goals included in the Strategic Plan section of this Plan:
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 7
There were some delays to construction projects toward the end of the five-year cycle due to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). To limit spread of COVID-19 and protect City staff and residents from the virus in person interactions were suspended limiting the City’s ability to conduct job walks or enter construction contracts. Construction projects resumed in 2021-2022.
Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The Consolidated Plan regulations at 24 CFR Part 91 provide the citizen participation and consultation requirements for the development of the Consolidated Plan. Chief among those requirements is the need to consult with the Continuum of Care (CoC) to address homelessness , Public Housing Authorities (PHA), business leaders, civic leaders and public or private agencies that address housing, health, social service, victim services, employment, or education needs of low -income individuals and families, homeless individuals an d families, youth and/or other persons with special needs. Information supplied by these community stakeholders, together with the data supplied by HUD resulted in a well -informed planning document that reflects the housing, community and economic development needs and priorities for the City of Victorville over the next five years.
From October 2021 through April 2022, the City’s Planning Department held a community meeting, two public hearings, a public meeting, focus groups and surveys to afford citizens and local and regional organizations representing low - and moderate-income residents the maximum feasible opportunity to provide input on the housing and community development needs of the City. The resident and stakeholder surveys solicited input from re sidents and employees working in Victorville. The questionnaire polled respondents about the level of need in thei r experience for various types of improvements that could potentially be addressed with CDBG and HOME resources. The focus groups were organized by interest group:
food banks and homeless services; youth and education services; public servicers; veterans, elderly and disables services; and faith-based organizations. The community meetings and were publicly noticed.
Summary of public comments
A community meeting and two public hearing were held to receive comments on the housing and community development needs. The community meeting was held on November 17, 2021, at 10 am and 6 pm. The public hearings were held on February 15, 2022, and April 19, 2022 at 6 pm Participants were encouraged to join remotely via the video conferencing application Zoom.
A public meeting to discuss applications received in response to the City’s Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 2022-2023 CDBG funds was held before the Victorville Community Development and Planning Grants Subcommittee on March 3, 2022.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 8
The City of Victorville received two written comments and 12 participants spoke at the February 15 public hearing. All comments were accepted and entered into the record.
A summary of these comments may be found in Appendix B.
Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them
All comments and views received by the City in the development of the Consolidated Plan were accepted and taken into consideration in the development of the Consolidated Plan.
Summary
Examination of 201 3-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 -Year Estimates and the 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, in addition to local data, as well as consultation with citizens and stakeholders revealed five high priority needs to be addressed through the investment of an anticipated $ 7.1 million of CDBG and $3.9 million HOME Consortium funds over the five -year period of the Consolidated Plan. The investment of CDBG and HOME funds in eligible activities shall be guided principally by the three goals of the Strategic Plan. Activities submitted for consideration in response to any solicitation or Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process must conform with one of the four Strategic Plan strategies and the associated action-oriented, measurable goals to receive consideration for CDBG or HOME Consortium funding.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 10
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Alejandro Jauregui, Senior Planner
City of Victorville
Planning Department
14343 Civic Drive, Victorville, CA 92392
(760) 955-5132
Orlando Acevedo, Director
Town of Apple Valley
Business Development and Communications
14955 Dale Evans Parkway, Apple Valley, CA 92307
(760) 240-7915
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 11
PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(l) and 91.315(l)
1. Introduction
In the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with public and private departments and agencies and social service and non- profit organizati ons to understand the community’s needs and available resources. The City met with several department representatives to provide information about the Consolidated Plan and its processes. Department staff provided input on how CDBG resources could be used and leveraged to provide services. Focus group participants highlighted the priority needs in general terms and specific to the population.
Other jurisdictions within the region were contacted and consulted, including the Town of Apple Valley. As the HOME Consortium lead agency, the Town of Apple Valley held joint community meetings as well as strategy sessions to determine priority use of HOME funding over the next 5 years. During the joint consultation process, the Consortium provided detailed informat ion about the Con solidate Plan and HOME program, the Consortiums distribution of funds and current projects using HOME funds.
The City of Victorville recognizes Victorville residents are the center of and partners in the development of the Consolidated Plan. The Citizen Participation Plan establishes a means by which citizens, public agencies and other interested parties can actively participate in the development of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report.
Opportunities to participate in the planning process were provided throughout.
Special effort was made to engage low-income persons. City efforts to make opportunities for engagement known include:
• Public notices printed in the local newspaper in English and Spanish. • Public notices posted on the City’s website in English and Spanish. • Public notices posted at community facilities including library in English and Spanish.
• Web-based surveys links were shared widely through the City’s social media accounts and blast and direct email and hard copies were available at the City Planning Department.
• Stakeholder meetings were targeted to specific groups; especially those of people with disabilities, disadvantaged youths, homeless people.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 12
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)).
The City recognizes the importance of careful coor dination and alignment among various service providers to maximize the effectiveness of the CDBG program. As a result, during the development of this Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with organizations that provide assisted housing, health services and other community - focused programs. Outreach efforts included surveys, invitations to community meetings, and follow-up in-person interviews where appropriate.
The City further recognizes the importance of continued coordination and alignment during the upcoming five -year planning period with these organizations and agencies. The City will reinforce these partnerships through the implementation of the NOFA process for CDBG funds each year and through technical assistance provided to subrecipients.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness To help prevent homelessness and protect at- risk populations the City supports and participates in the San Bernardino County Continuum of Care System and the San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership. The City plans to fund CoC member, High Desert Homeless Ser vices, over the 5 -year planning period to assist in efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS
The City is not a direct recipient of ESG funding. However, it is a participating jurisdiction in the CoC and works closely with the homeless provider system to create funding policies and procedures for ESG.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 34
income needs are meet, issues are comprehensively evaluated and thoroughly addressed. Aside from these partnerships, other departments within the City are involved in collaborating and cooperating with state and federal entities in planning efforts.
PR-15 Citizen Participation - 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal setting In preparation for the Consolidated Plan the City followed the established processes of the Citi zen Participation Plan to ensure broad community engagement . At each step the City worked to ensur e low- and moderate-income residents, members of minority groups, agencies involved in the provision of services to these populations, and others who are dire ctly impacted by the programs and activities supported by the Consolidated Plan programs had the opportunity to be actively involved. The Citizen Participation Plan, Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, C onsolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (C APER) and the Assessment of Fair Housing Choice are posted on the City website at:
https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/city-
departments/development/planning/grant-programs/2022-2027-consolidated-plan and a hard copy will be available for review in the City Planning Department for 30 days from March 21 to April 19, 2022.
To assist in identification of priority needs citizens were engaged through community meetings, surveys, public hearings, and individual meetings. Citizens wh o participated in the process received extensive information about the Consolidated Plan, citizen participation process, HUD requirements for an entitlement City, the amount of funding the City anticipates receiving and how those funds can be used by the City. Residents were given the opportunity to provide City staff with their input on the prioritization of community needs. Each of these efforts, including review of HUD Data and relevant policy documents, assisted the City in its goal setting efforts.
Two publicly noticed meetings were held at different stages in the development of the Consolidated Plan. The community meeting on November 17, 2021, and the public hearing February 15, 2022. Twelve residents spoke at the February meeting and two written comments were received. All comments were accepted and entered into the record. A summary of these comments may be found in Appendix B.
In November 2021, the City opened surveys to afford citizens and local and regional organizations representing low -and-moderate income persons the maximum feasible opportunity to provide input on housing and community development needs
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 35
of the City. The surveys solicited input from residents and employees working in Victorville. The questionnaire polled respondents about the level of need in their neighborhoods for various types of improvements which could potentially be addressed using federal funds, such as CDBG and HOME allocations. The electronic survey was made available on the City’s website and across its social media platforms.
It was also made available in hard copy at the City’s Planning Department. The survey was available in English and in Spanish, as recommended in the Citizen Participation Plan. The resident survey received 25 responses and the stakeholder survey received four responses.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 38
4 Internet
Outreach
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
The Resident
Survey was
available online
and in paper
format at the
Planning
Department
from
November 17 to
January 14,
2022. The City
advised
residents and
stakeholders of
the availability
of the survey via
email to
stakeholders,
posting on the
City websi te,
Facebook,
Twitter,
announcement
s at City Council
meetings, and
during the
Community
Meetings.
The purpose
of the survey
was to allow
all residents
the
opportunity
to provide
their
assessment
of the level
of need in
Victorville
for a variety
of housing ,
community,
and
economic
developmen
t activities.
In total, 25
residents
completed
the survey. A
summary of
all survey
responses is
provided in
Appendix B.
All survey
responses
were
accepted.
https://forms.office.com/r/x6XvJ4c1dr
5 Newspape
r Ad
Non-targeted/
broad
community
Newspaper ad
published
February 4,
2022 in the
Daily Press
No public
comments
were
received.
No
comments
were
received.
https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/agend
as/-fsiteid-1
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 40
6 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
A public
hearing was
held before the
Victorville City
Council on
February 15,
2022, in the
Victorville City
Council
Chamber and
live via Zoom to
receive input
on the highest
priority
housing,
community
and economic
development
needs in
Victorville. This
meeting took
place prior to
the publication
of the draft
2022-2026
Consolidated
Plan
for public
review and
comment.
12 verbal
and two
written
comments
were
delivered. 11
comments
were in
support of
CDBG
public
services
application
submitted
and one was
identifying
the need for
affordable
housing.
Not
applicable.
All
comments
were
accepted.
Not applicable.
7 Newspape
r Ad
Non-targeted/
broad
community
Newspaper ad
published on
March 21 2022
in the Daily
Press
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 43
Needs Assessment
NA-05 OVERVIEW
Needs Assessment Overview
The Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment examines housing, homelessness, non - homeless special needs, and non- housing community development needs. The housing needs assessment section evaluates household income, tenure (renter or owner), housing cost as a function of household income, disproportionate need amongst racial and ethnic groups and public housing needs. The homeless needs assessment examines the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population in San Bernardino County to inform Apple Valley -Victorville’s strategy to address homelessness during the next five years. The non-homeless special needs assessment section evaluates the needs of people who are not homeless, but due to various reasons need services. This population includes elderly, frail elderly, severe mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and physically disabled persons, persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS, victims of human trafficking, persons with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and victims of domestic violence. The non- housing community development needs assessment section discusses the need for public facilities, public infrastructure improvements and public services to benefit low- and moderate-income residents.
Methodology
To assess community needs, the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville examined data, held community meetings and focus groups, conducted a survey of residents and stakeholders, and consulted with experts and local stakeholders. The Needs Assessment primarily relies on the following sources of data:
• American Community Survey (ACS), 2013-2017, 5-year estimates • Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013 -2017, 5 -year estimates
• 2020 Point-In-Time Homeless Count
The 2013-2017 ACS 5-year estimates and the 2013-2017, 5-year estimates were the most recent available complete datasets supplied through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Con Planning Suite planning framework.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 44
Consolidated Plan Focus Groups and Surveys for Residents and Stakeholders
The Apple Valley- Victorville Consortium held five virtual focus groups over the period of three days in mid -December 2021. The focus groups were promoted by the cities and facilitated by MDG. The five groups were as follows:
1. Food Banks and Homeless Services,
2. Education and Youth Services,
3. Public Services,
4. Veterans, Elderly and Disabled Services, and
5. Faith Based Organizations.
Some organizations participated in multiple focus groups because they serve multiple constituencies. In total, 29 unique people participated in the focus groups, excluding the facilitator and organizers.
Apple Valley and Victorville residents and stakehol ders had the opportunity to respond to the 2022-2026 Consolidated Plan survey to rate the need and/or to identify highest priority need for public facilities, infrastructure, and services, housing facilities and services, business services. The tabulation of survey results from the 111 Apple Valley and 25 Victorville residents and four community stakeholders who responded to the surveys are integrated throughout the Needs Assessment (NA) and Market Assessment (MA) of Consolidated Plan and can be found in the following sections:
• Housing facility and service results – NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment, • Public facility, infrastructure, and service results – NA-50 Non -Housing and Community Development Needs,
• Discrimination in housing results – MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing, • Business service results – MA-45,
• Internet access, cost, type, and speed – MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households, and
• Disaster preparedness results – MA-65 Hazard Mitigation.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 45
NA-10 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Summary of Housing Needs
For the City of Victorville, the income levels are divided by different AMI levels corresponding with HUD income definitions as follows:
• 0-30 percent AMI: extremely low-income – just over 16 percent of all households; • 30-50 percent AMI: low-income – almost 15 percent of all households; • 50-80 percent AMI: moderate-income – just over 18 percent of all households; • 80-100 percent AMI: medium -income – approximately 10 percent of all households; and
• Greater than 10 0 percent AMI: upper- income – about 40 percent of all households.
The most common household type in Victorville is small family. About 49 percent of specific household types earn less than 80 percent AMI, with the highest rates of occurrence among households with one or more children 6 years of age or younger or 62 years of age or older.
Figure 1
Data Source: 2013-2017 CHAS
According to ACS data in Table 6 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics - Victorville, Victorville’s population grew by 19 percent during the period between 2009 and 2017, increasing in number from 102,666 to 121,720 people. During this time, the number of households increased by 13 percent from 28,842 to 32,630 and the median
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 47
Figure 2: Households with extremely low-income and severe housing cost burden
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 48
Figure 3: Households with low-income and severe housing cost burden
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 49
Figure 4: Households with moderate income and severe housing cost burden
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 50
Figure 5: Population Asian alone (not Hispanic)
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 51
Figure 6: Population Black/ African American alone (not Hispanic)
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 52
Figure 7: Population Hispanic origin (any race)
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 53
Figure 8: Population White alone (not Hispanic)
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 54
NA-50 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities.
The City of Victorville was incorporated in 1962. It has grown from 8,110 residents in an area of 9.7 acres to over 128,000 residents in 74.16 acres. It has evolved and experienced significant growth in population and economic activity since incorporation. While new facilities and amenities continue to be added, older facilities require rehabilitation to address the changing needs of the community.
The City of Victorville has invested significan tly in community facilities. According to the City’s website, it provides a library, golf course, two activity, two community, and a sport center and 18 parks. Maintaining and expanding these amenities requires significant financial investment.
Responses to the Resident and Stakeholder Surveys and focus groups give insight into the needs and priorities of those who live and work in Victorville. Residents responded there is a high level of need and the highest priority for homeless facilities and youth centers. In focus groups private facilities offering youth and family programming, such as a YMCA, and a performing arts center were identified as needs.
CDBG public facility projects that meet CDBG eligibility requirements, align with a Strategic Plan goal and address a CDBG National Objective will be considered for funding in the five Annual Action Plans. The Strategic Plan includes a goal to improve public facilities and infrastructure to benefit low - and moderate-income people or those presumed under HUD reg ulations to be low - and moderate-income, such as elderly people and adults with disabilities . Some of the types of facilities and infrastructure that may require rehabilitation during the next five years include, but are not limited to community centers, senior centers, parks and recreational facilities.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 55
How were these needs determined?
The needs identified for public facilities were determined through Community Meetings, responses from the Consolidated Plan Survey and consultation with City officials. Over the next five years Victorville’s Strategic Plan will continue to prioritize additional or improved public facilities to enhance or maintain the high level of services and amenities available to residents.
Figure 9: Resident Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 56
Figure 10: Resident Survey
Figure 11: Stakeholder Survey
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements.
Infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, storm drains, sewers, driveway approaches, pedestrian crossing, and streetlights in CDBD target areas or to support a project that benefits an identifiable segment of the population comprised of low - and moderate-income residents or residents presumed under HUD regulations to be low- and moderate -income must be developed and maintained. Infrastructure improvements are included as part of the Strategic Plan goal concerning City of Victorville Public Facilities Improvements should the need arise to modify existing infrastructure or install new infrastructure.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 57
Responses to the Resident Survey show public infrastructure improvements to streets/ alleys, drainage, and high-speed internet infrastructure represent the greatest combined high and moderate levels of need. The highest priority infrastructure improvements are high- speed internet, street lighting, street/ alley improvements and tree planting.
How were these needs determined?
The needs identified fo r public infrastructure improvements were determined in consultation with the City and Town residents, City of Victorville Public Works Departments, Community Services Departments, and affordable housing developers.
Figure 12: Resident Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 58
Figure 13: Resident Survey
Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services.
1. Those in need of public services are diverse and numerous. The homeless and non-homeless special needs populations are described in the Consolidated Plan Needs Assessment sections 40 and 45. Focus group s with nonprofit service providers shed light on the current and daily challenges faced by homeless and non- homeless special needs populations in Apple Valley and Victorville. Most focus group participants believed the priority needs facing their community are as follows:Supportive services for the homeless and those as risk of homelessness,
2. Human services, and
3. Accessibility and mobility.
Participants shared the types of prog ramming they believed would most effectively address those needs as well as the gaps in homeless and youth services delivery systems. A handful of programming areas were identified across the focus groups.
Those areas are as follows:
1. Mental and behavioral health services, especially for children
2. Community support for youth and families in the form of youth programming, in the arts, the consequences of underage substance use, and positive attitudes and behaviors to prevent violence
3. Transportation, including paved roads and sidewalks and electric bike share
4. Education on public services and changing eligibility, service providers and resources available to service providers. Throughout the focus groups there was a recurring theme around the need for centralizat ion and formalization of networks.
The input from the focus groups is supported by the resident and stakeholder survey results. The top three highly and moderately needed public services and highest priority public services as indicated in the Resident Su rvey are the same: homeless,
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 59
mental health, and youth services. Mental health services and homeless emergency shelter were identified as the top two highest needed public services by the stakeholder survey.
How were these needs determined?
Public service needs are driven by the City’s desire to ensure high quality services are provided to maintain residents’ quality of life and to promote the well- being of all residents — particularly low- and moderate -income residents including youth, seniors, and people with special needs. These needs were determined based on contributions from focus groups, and resident and stakeholder surveys.
The Apple Valley- Victorville Consortium held five virtual focus groups over the period of three days in mid -December 2021. The focus groups were promoted by the cities and facilitated by MDG. The five groups were as follows:
1. Food Banks and Homeless Services,
2. Education and Youth Services,
3. Public Services,
4. Veterans, Elderly and Disabled Services, and
5. Faith Based Organizations.
These groups spoke directly to the need for specific services and the needs of homeless and non- homeless special needs populations. Some organizations participated in multiple focus groups because they serve multiple constituencies. In total, 29 unique people participated in the focus groups, excluding the facilitator and organizers.
Responses to the Resident Survey are presented in Figures 7, 8 and 9. As a result of the citizen participation and consultation process and in consideration of the local nonprofits the City of Victorville considers public services benefitting low - and moderate-income residents a high priority in their respective Strategic Plans.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 60
Figure 14: Resident Survey
Figure 15: Resident Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 61
Figure 16: Stakeholder Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 62
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 OVERVIEW
Housing Market Analysis Overview
This section of the Consolidated Plan evaluates housing market conditions in the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville independently as well as the Apple Valley- Victorville Consortium as a whole. The analysis includes housing supply, demand, condition, and cost. Apple Valley’s housing stock primarily consists of single -family detached residential dwellings (76 percent) and three -bedroom units (71 percent).
Victorville’s housing stock primarily consists of single -family detached residential dwellings (79 percent) and three-bedroom units (79 percent).
From December 2017 to December 2021, median home value in Apple Valley increased 53 percent from $ 252,000 to $ 386,000, and the median home value in Victorville increase 59 percent from $246,000 to $391,000, according to Zillow Home Value Index. As of 2017, the most common rental unit size in Apple Valley was two- bedrooms and in Victorville was three -bedrooms. During the December 2017 to December 2021 period, median monthly rent for a two-bedroom unit in Apple Valley increased 55 percent from $ 896 to $1,385, and the median monthl y rent for three - bedroom unit in Victorville increased 42 percent from $1,299 to $1,850, as reported by Zumper, a rental listing aggregator . As a result, Apple Valley and Victorville households have become increasingly cost-burdened. Data from 2013-2017 shows an insufficient number of housing units affordable to people with incomes less than 80 percent of AMI.
Tables 10 and 11 of the Needs Assessment section of the Consolidate d Plan show 74 percent of households (19,649 households) in the Apple Valley-Victorville Consortium earning 0-80 percent of AMI, are cost burdened— meaning households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing — and 9,515 (41 percent) households are considered severely cost burdened, meaning they pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. Of the severely cost burdened households earning 0-80 percent of AMI , more than two thirds are renters. Of those severely cost burdened renter households, 94 percent (6,255 households) earn less than 50 percent of AMI and are considered the most at risk of becoming homeless.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 63
Figure 17
Data Source: 2013-2017 ACS
Five year estimates from the ACS and CHAS were evaluated to determine if a geographic concentration of housing problems, racial and ethnic minorities, and low- income households exist in the Victorville. The spatial units under consideration are census tracts. A concentration is defined as ten percent over the rate at which any of the circumstances identified above occur throughout the City as a whole. The thresholds are as follows:
• Low-income households 59.7 percent,
• One or more housing problem 39.2 percent, and
• Racial and ethnic minorities 82.6 percent
As seen in the concentration maps in the section there are multiple census tracts which exceed the thresholds identified above. Notably there are two census tract which exceed all three thresholds.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 64
Figure 18: Concentration of households with low-income
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 65
Figure 19: Concentration of households with multiple housing problems
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 66
Figure 20: Concentration of racial and ethnic minorities
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 70
affordable housing stock, they may consider preserving the existing assisted units or facilitating the development of new units. Each negotiation to pre serve affordable units is unique in the sense that each project’s ownership interests, and economic needs will vary, and the jurisdiction’s resources may be insufficient to preserve all expiring units. Depending on the circumstances of each project that includes at- risk units, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units.
Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? The current availability of housing units in the Apple Valley -Victorville Consortium does not meet the needs of the population. The re is a significant need for additional rental housing units — particularly zero, one-bedroom units, and those affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of AMI. According to the data discussed in the Needs Assessment, the most common housing problems in the Consortium are cost burden and overcrowding. There are 6,255 renter households who earn less than 50 percent of AMI that are severely cost burdened paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs (Table 11). Overcrowding, having more than 1.01 people per room, excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, hal ls, or half -rooms, impacts 2,148 low- and moderate -income households in the Apple Valley -Victorville Consortium, almost 76 percent of whom are renters (Table 12).
Describe the need for specific types of housing.
Of the 2,150 renter households in the Apple Valley-Victorville Consortium who earn less than 50 percent of AMI and are severely cost burdened paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing costs:
• 3,305 are small, related households with four or fewer members • 1,135 are large, related households with five or more members • 880 are elderly households with one or more members over age 62 • 935 are other/single person households
This breakdown by tenure, income, cost burden and household type indicate a need for additional affordable zero - and one -bedroom rental units in the Apple Valley - Victorville Consortium.
Discussion
For decades, California’s housing market has been among the most expensive in the country, and those conditions persist in 2021 . Renting can take up a considerable amount of income, while purchasing a home may be out of reach for individuals. To afford median rent for a three -bedroom unit as of December 2021, a Victorville household needs to earn $38.54 per hour or work 119 hours pe r week at minimum wage of $13 per hour, which equates to about three full time jobs. These calculations were made using the same method as the National Low-Income Housing Coalition in
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 71
the Out if Reach series and using median rents from Zumper a rental list ing aggregator. Median rents are far greater than fair market rents and more accurately reflect the experience low- and moderate-income households are facing.
Figure 23
Data Source: 2021 Zumper Research (accessed 2/4/2022) and State of CA Minimum Wage Data
As noted in the City of Victorville’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, it is the City’s goal to encourage development of different housing types to meet the City’s different needs.
Over the next eight years the City will strive to meet the following housing goals:
• Maximize land utilization for residential development, • Preserve existing housing stock,
• Encourage more affordable housing units,
• Maximize solution for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, • Encourage homeownership,
• Improve quality of life and promote placemaking, and
• Affirmatively further fair housing.
Through these efforts, the City will strive to maintain a healthy community that encourages family stability and economic growth.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 72
MA-15 HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS: COST OF HOUSING
Introduction
One of the most important factors in evaluating a community’s housing market is the cost of housing and whether the housing is affordable to households who live there or would like to live there. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, a correspondingly high prevalence of housing cost burden and overcrowding will typically occur.
Table 11 – Rental Housing Cost Estimates – and Table 12 – Cost of Housing – indicate the median home value and contract rent (not including utility or other assoc iated costs). These values are self-reported by residents through the U.S. Census American Community Survey. However, in looking at more current housing sales and rental market data – the cost of housing has risen tremendously over the past five years.
According to Zumper, a rental listing aggregator, median rents for two- and three- bedroom units have increased from December 2017 to 2021. The 2017 average rents reported by Zumper significantly exceeded the median contract rent as reported by the ACS 2013-2017 estimates in the Cost of Housing table below.
Figure 24
Data Source: 2017-2021 Zumper Research (accessed 2/4/2022) Median home values have increased significantly since the last Consolidated Planning process. In 2017, according to ACS data, median home values in Victorville were d 31 percent below what they had been in 2009, prior to the mortgage -backed securities housing foreclosure crisis. By 2019, according to the same source, housing prices had still not rebounded to 2009 levels. According to the Zillow Home Value Index housing values increased 59 percent in Victorville from December 2017 to 2021, from $483,000 to $676,000, according to the Zillow Home Value Index. Based on this more current data, home values have exceeded 2009 amounts.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 74
to households earning at or below 30, 50, 80 and 100 percent of AMI and 2013-2017 ACS data on household income.
How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents?
Rental housing costs have increased steadily over the past five years – creating more pressure on extremely low -income households. According from Zumper (Table 11 – Rental Housing Cost Estimates ), a rental listing aggregator, average rents for a two- bedroom unit in Victorville increased from $838 to $1,455 on average, an increase of 74 percent and three-bedroom rents increased from $1,299 to $1,850 an increase of 42 percent over the last five years. These rents represent a significant burden for low- and moderate-income households struggling to remain housed. Home values increased significantly as well. In Victorville, from December 2017 to 2021 according to sales data supplied by Zillow (Figure 15), home values increase from $246,000 to $391,000, a rate of 59 percent. Based on this information and barring significant regional and national changes in economic conditions, the price of housing in Victorville is forecast to continue increasing during the period of the 2022-2026 Consolidated Plan.
How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing?
HOME rents, Fair Market rents, and Market rents were compared to median contract rents from 2019 to determine the financial impact on operating income. To produce or preserve affordable rental housing units that carry a minimum HOME affordability period of 20 years, significant levels of subsidy are required.
For Victorville the low HOME and market rate rent closest to the median contract rent was for four - and two-bedroom units. The foregone rent over a 20 -year period for a four-bedroom unit at low HOME rates was $5,040. The foregone rent over a 20 -year period for a two -bedroom unit at market rate was $14,160. Notably, a quarter of occupied rental units in the Town are two -bedroom and nine percent are one - bedroom and efficiency units. The high concentration of larger rental units may drive up the median rental contract and drive down the rental rate per square foot.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 75
Figure 26
Data Source: 2019 ACS, HUD Fair Market Rent 2019, 2019 Zumper Research,
Discussion
Economic expansion over the last decade and a lag in production of new housing units in Southern California have created a housing economy that is over -burdened.
As a result, Apple Valley and Victorville households have become increasingly cost - burdened. Data from 201 3-2017 shows an insufficient number of housing units affordable to people with incomes less than 50 percent of AMI. Considering the scarcity of land and monetary resources available to create new affordable housing units, housing affordability is expected to remain a significant challenge in the next five years.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 76
MA-45 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ASSETS
Introduction
Non-housing community development needs includ e economic development and improvements to public facilities . Special economic development activities must meet a National Object ive by addressing low - or moderate-income residents, slum/ blight, or urgent need and be an eligible activity per 24 CFR 570.203. Public facilities assisted with CDBG must serve low - and moderate -income residents or those residents presumed by HUD to be low- and moderate-income. Such facilities include senior centers, community centers, facilities for victims of domestic violence, facilities for treatment of persons with HIV/AID S, and ADA improvements to public facilities throughout the City. During the implementation of the 2022 -2026 Strategic Plan, Victorville will use CDBG funds to develop the local economy and address these needs and provide a suitable living environment for low- and moderate-income people.
To expand economic opportunities for low - and moderate -income people and provide a pathway out of poverty, the Strategic Plan and the 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan includes public services. These projects include getting clothing to school aged children, homeless shelter operations, providing behavioral health care to foster youth and their foster families, and exercise, cooking, and art classes for people with special needs.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 80
Figure 27
Data Source: 2015-2020 County Employment by Industry CA EDD
Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community
The business community in Victorville relies largely on a skilled workforce. Residents of Victorville identified employment training as the greatest need and highest priority in the city. Employers across all sectors, and especially those for which Victorville is a destination location or part of a larger logistics chain such as arts, entertainment and accommodations and manufacturing, require a well -functioning transportation system.
Figure 28: Resident Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 81
Figure 29: Resident Survey
Figure 30: Stakeholder Survey
Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create.
The coronavirus pandemic has had a major and sustained impact on all sectors of the economy. It has both highlighted and increased the need for fast, reliable, and secure internet has increased across all sectors of the economy.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 82
In response to the COVID -19 pandemic, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The Act authorized $.2.2 trillion to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID -19 pandemic. The City of Vi ctorville received $1,527,782 in CARES Act CDBG funds. These funds assisted households to make emergency rent, mortgage, and utility payments and to help small businesses prepare and respond to the virus.
Additionally, the City of Victorville received $33 ,500,000 in Federal American Rescue Plan Act funds. The first tranche of 16.75 million was received in June 2021 and the second tranche will be released in June 2022. City staff identified the following eligible activities and funding for each one:
Housing and Homelessness - $6 Million
o Outreach Programs
o Wellness Center Facility
Community Improvements - $9 Million
o Utility Assistance Program
o Self-Cleaning Restrooms
o Improve Public Facilities
Broadband - $8 Million
o WiFi at Victorville Parks and Community Centers
o New Infrastructure
Community & Small Business Recovery - $4 Million
o Hiring Bonuses
o Hazard Pay for Essential Workers
Water/Sewer/Storm Drain - $6 Million
o Water Well Maintenance/Repairs
o Reservoir Refurbishment
The first implemented program using ARPA funds was the City’s Past Due Utility Program, which assisted residents with their past due water bills. For 2022-2023 ARPA funds will be used to funds utility assistance programs, rental and mortgage assistance programs and food banks administered by non-profit organizations.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 83
How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction?
Most employees in Victorville’s civilian labor force have some post-secondary education, almost 42 percent of the employed labor force has some college or Associates degree . Generally . T he skills and education of the current workforce correspond to the employment opportunities in Victor ville; however, the jobs and opportunities do not correspond to the number of available workers . In 2017, there were only two employment sectors where there were more jobs than workers. More than half the working population in Victorville travel more than half an hour to work.
Figure 31
Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan.
The San Bernardino County Workforce Development Board provides strategic direction and relationships for the WDC. San Bernardino County Workforce Development Centers (WDC) are the primary source of workforce training available to residents of Victorville. The WDC is operated by America’s Job Centers of California.
The City of Victorville work with the San Bernardino County WCD and employers to secure on-the-job training when appropriate.
Victor Valley College (VVC) is a p ublic community college located in Victorville and serving Victorville, Hesperia, Apple Valley, Phelan and Adelanto. It is part of the
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 84
California Community College System. VVC offers over Certificates in over 100 vocational subjects. The College is an important partner in educating and training the local workforce.
Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy?
Yes, the City of Victorville participated in development of the San Bernardino County 2019 CEDS.
If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth.
The City of Victorville’s CDBG program will support local economic growth by meeting extremely low-, low- and moderate-income and homeless residents where they are to improve quality of life and better position for access and engagement in economic opportunities. This will be achieved by supporting local nonprofit ser vice providers, including housing services, and support of the development and preservation of affordable housing.
Discussion
The highly contagious nature of COVID-19 and the scale of illness and death has had significant ripple effects on the economy. In the spring of 2020, unemployment rates in the United States reached the highest levels since the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began recording this data. According to the BLS, unemployment rates peaked at 14.2 percent in San Bernardino County and 17 percent in Victorville in April 2020. Those rates have fallen to 5.2 and 8.2 percent, respectively, as of December 2021, unemployment is still above pre -pandemic levels. Health and safety guidelines and requirements continue to change as the co ronavirus evolves and the scientific community learns more about the virus. Employers and workers are required to constantly learn and reevaluate changing situations.
Another indication of the negative economic impact of the pandemic is the year over year decrease in California of personal consumption expenditures of over four percent from 2019 to 2020, as calculated by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA calculated San Bernardino County’s gross domestic product which inc rease from $96.7 million in 2019 to $97 million in 2020.
State level calculations, which are more current, show the negative economic impact cause by the pandemic. According to the BEA, in 2020, California GPD fell for the first time in ten years.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 85
MA-60 BROADBAND NEEDS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED
BY LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods.
Broadbandnow.com is a widely used source of information about internet availability throughout the county and reports Victorville residents have several options for broadband internet service. According to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) three percent of consumers only have access to one or fewer wired internet providers at their address and the average download speed is almost 194 megabits per second (mbps). The responses to the Resident Survey show a relatively low rate of connectivity given the FCC data. This could be due to the small sample size of the survey.
Figure 32:Resident Survey
Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction.
According to the FCC, 97 percent of Victorville has access to at least two wired internet providers at their address. Throughout the City , residents are serviced by multiple internet service providers who offer high speed internet. Providers include, Spectrum, Viasat, HughesNet, Frontier Communications, T -Mobile, and Ultra. According to the Resident Survey, most pay $50 to $100 per month for internet service provided by Spectrum or Frontier.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 86
Figure 33:Resident Survey
Figure 34: Resident Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 87
MA-65 HAZARD MITIGATION, VICTORVILLE
Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change.
The City of Victorville’s Hazard Mitigation Plan has been approved by Cal OES, FEMA, and City Council. The Plan is based on extensive research and community engagement and intended to mitigate the effects of natural disasters and return to “the norm” soone r, while also building back better so the community is more advantageously positioned for future disasters. Such planning is required by FEMA to receive federal disaster mitigation funds.
Through multivariate analysis Victorville’s risks were quantified and ranked. Across 13 hazards, four were ranked as high. From greatest to least those risks are Earthquake/ Seismic, Flash Flood, Climate Change, Dam Inundation, Drought, Power Failure/ PSPS, Terrorism, Pandemic, Pipeline Rupture HAZMAT Release, Extreme Heat, High Winds/ Severe Storm, Aviation Accident, Fire/ Wildfire.
Victorville’s mitigation goals are as follows:
• Goal 1: Protect life, property, and reduce potential injuries from natural, technological, and human- caused hazards, including catastrophic threats posed by the DWR owned Cedar Springs Dam and the USACE owned Mohave Forks Dam which are high hazard dams and a major earthquake hazard. • Goal 2: Improve public understanding of and support for the need for hazard mitigation measures.
• Goal 3: Promote disaster resistance for Victorville’s natural, existing, and future built environment.
• Goal 4: Strengthen partnerships and collaboration to implement hazard mitigation activities.
• Goal 5: Enhance the City’s ability to effectively and immediately respond to disasters.
Describe the vulnerability of housing occupied by low- and moderate- income households to these risks.
Most of the respondents to the Resident Survey feel somewhat prepared for a disaster (Figure 25: Resident Survey.). Low- and moderate-income residents and special needs populations are especially vulnerable to the risks of c limate-related hazards. The residences of low - and moderate -income households are more often in worse condition and thus are more susceptible to external weather conditions such as extreme heat. Likewise, elderly residents are at a greater risk during extreme weather events such as extreme heat events.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 88
Figure 35: Resident Survey
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 89
Strategic Plan
SP-05 OVERVIEW
The Strategic Plan is a guide for the City of Victorville to establish its housing, community and economic development priorities, strategies, and goals for the investment of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from HUD over the next five years, beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2026. The priority needs and goals established in this Strategic Plan are based on analysis of information including the results of the City’s 2022 Resident and Stakeholder Surveys, focus groups, and housing and community development data elements required by HUD in the online Consolidated Plan system (the eCon Planning Suite) from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 -Year Estimates and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) covering the same period. Additional sources of information used to identify needs and establish priorities were obtained through consultation with local nonprofit agencies involved in the development of affordable housing and the delivery of public services to low - and moderate -income people, persons with special needs and those at risk of homelessness.
In consideration of community input and available data, the five priority needs listed below are established as part of this Strategic Plan.
• Supportive services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness • Human services
• Housing programs
• Accessibility and mobility
• Economic Development
Consistent with HUD’s national goals for the CDBG and HOME programs to provide decent housing opportunities, maintain a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents, the priority needs listed above will be addressed over the next five years through the implementation of CDBG- and HOME -funded activities aligned with the following nine measurable Strategic Plan goals as elaborated in Section SP-45:
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 91
SP-10 GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITIES
Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA)
According to data from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates in HUD’s eCon Planning Suite for the Consolidated Plan, the City's household median income is $ 47,895. Evaluation of maps generated through HUD's Community Planning and Development mapp ing system (CPD Maps) reveals one Census Tract, the majority of which falls outside of the City limits, where the median income is less than 50 percent of AMI, it is above 50 percent of AMI in the remaining census tracts.
HUD allows CDBG grantees to implement certain activities such as initial construction or expansion of community facilities and infrastructure that benefit certain neighborhoods or villages (but not the entire City) provided the entire service area for the facility or infrastructure is pri marily residential and where at least 51 percent of residents are low- and moderate-income. In the majority of Census Tracts in Victorville over 51 percent of residents earn less than 80 percent of AMI. According to CPD maps, there are five Census tracts (98.00, 99.04, 99.05, 99.12, and 99.13) within Victorville City limits where over 49 percent of household incomes exceed 80 percent of AMI.
The Consortia will use a place-based strategy to distribute funding. It is the Consortia’s intent to fund construction activities in the areas most directly affected by the needs of low-income residents and those with other special needs. Where appropriate the Annual Action Plan will direct investment geographically to an area benefit neighborhood. The area benefit cate gory is the most used national objective for activities benefitting a residential neighborhood. An area benefit activity is one that benefits all residents, where at least 51 percent are low- and moderate-income. Public infrastructure improvements are an area benefit activity when they are in a predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhood.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 93
Elderly; Frail Elderly; Persons with Mental Disabilities; Persons with Physical Disabilities; Persons with Developmental Disabilities; Persons with Alcohol of Other Addictions; Persons with HIV/ AIDS and their Families; Victims of DV; Non -Housing Community Development
Geographic
Areas Citywide
Associated
Goals
Provide suitable living environments for residents
Description The City of Victorville holds this as a high priority and will support CDBG public service activities which help support individuals and families with individual and group development. This priority will be addressed with CDBG and other public funds along with
contributions from the private sector.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
The City of Victorville’s Strategic Plan for calls for a range of services for low - and moderate -income residents and those with special needs as a high priority. The top four highly needed and highest priority public services, excluding homeless services, according to the 2022 Consolidated Plan Resident Survey, are as follows: mental health, youth services, and services for abused and neglected children. The need for public services will be addressed with CDBG and other public funds along with contributions from the private sector. These results were echoed by participants in five focus groups: homeless services and food banks, education and youth services, public services, veterans, elderly and disabled services, and faith-based organizations.
Throughout San Bernardino County, including Victorville, maintaining mental health, and appropriate services for youth including abandoned and neglected children is a high priority. - Nearly 17 percent of San Bernardino Count y residents had mental illness in 2017, and only about eight percent received mental health services, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
- population, including ch ildren will have PTSD at some point in their lives. Applying those rates to the 121, 000 residents of the Victorville, approximately 7,303 suffer from PTSD.
- In Victorville children under the age of six are present in 4,890 households with incomes below 80 percent of AMI.
The National Center reports an estimated six percent of the
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 96
Table 21 – Priority Needs Summary
Narrative (Optional)
The City will incorporate the above goals along with specific needs identified through community engagement in considering funding applications f or each of its five Action Plans covered by the 2022-2026 Consolidated Plan.
Pursuant to CDBG regulations, all projects must meet one of three national objectives set forth by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): (1) Benefit low- and moderate-income households, (2) Aid in the elimination/ prevention of slum and blight, or (3) Meet and urgent need (catastrophic events). Pursuant to HOME regulations, HOME funds are specifically focused on affordable housing activities and may be used to develop and support affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities. Recommended project for funding should be Geographic
Areas
Citywide;
Associated
Goals
Expand access to essential services and amenities; Economic Development
Description Develop and support efforts to improve mobility in the community; identify and remove barriers that impede accessibility; support transit systems, mass and specialized, that enable residents to access destination for employment, edu cation, and other essential purposes; support collaborative efforts to improve community and regional transit.
Economic Development activities will include commercial rehabilitation, which includes exterior improvements and code compliance; micro-enterprise development to include training and technical assistance and other support services to increase the capacity of grantees to carry out microenterprise activities; water and sewer projects.
Basis for
Relative
Priority
Focus group participants voiced the need for improved mobility within the city and access to points beyond the city.
Based on the results of the Consolidated Plan Resident Survey and input from community workshops and consultations, the City of Victorville places a low priority on employment training and loans/ grants to small businesses owned and operated by low - and moderate-income residents as a pathway out of poverty. This priority will be addressed with CDBG and other public funds along with contributions from the private sector.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 97
consistent with addressing the needs identified, and priority strategies developed, in each five-year Consolidated Plan.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 99
Depending on the financing structure of a given activity, it may be advantageous for the City to use CDBG funds to leverage appropriate state, local and private resources, including but not limited to those listed below.
Federal Resources
• American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
• Continuum of Care (CoC) Program
• HUD Veterans Affairs supportive Housing (HUD-VASH)
• Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202)
• Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) • Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
• Youthbuild
• Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
State Resources
• State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
• Homekey
• Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN) • CalHome Program
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• Housing Related Parks Grant
• CalHFA Single and Multi-Family Program
• Mental Health Service Act (MHSA) Funding
Local Resources
• San Bernardino County CoC
• Housing Authority of San Bernardino County (HASBC)
• Southern California Home Financing Authority (SCHFA)
• City of Victorville General Fund
Private Resources
• Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program Community Reinvestment Act Programs United Way Funding Private Contributions
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 100
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan.
Over the past year, City staff has been pursuing the development of a navigation center campus, called the “Wellness Center,” to be located at 16902 First Street, a City owned property, in accordance with City Council direction at the August 18, 2020, meeting to continue with the land use entitlement process and securing of funding for the project.
Discussion
Assuming continued level funding of the CDBG program, the City expects to spend approximately $ 7,238,700 of CDBG funds on housing, community development, public facilities, infrastructure and neighborhood services activities that promote a suitable living environment between July 20 22 and June 2026. It is anticipated that approximately $4.7 million of this will be spent on construction and housing projects and that $1 million will be spent on public services. Anticipated projects include:
• Housing rehab,
• Public Facilities Improvements (including fire suppression.), and • Public Services.
Assuming the continued funding level of the CDBG program, the City may allocate CDBG funds for economic opportunity activities to support the development and expansion of local small businesses during this next Consolidated Planning cycle through its Office of Economic Development with its microenterprise assistance program.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 103
Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth)
The City of Victorville works jointly with the Town of Apple Valley as a consortium to provide housing to their jurisdictions. Together, they participate in the San Bernardino County’s Continuum of Care (COC), which provides funding and a network of resources for homeless abatement. The COC provides emergency shelter, supportive services, transitional and permanent housing. Victorville commits s taff to the COC planning and implementation process and provides the COC Steering Committee critical information regarding the types of resources and programs Victorville currently funds to assist the homeless.
Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above.
The Apple Valley -Victorville Consortium has a long track record of successful partnerships among public and pri vate sector entities. The delivery system for the HUD grant program is no exception. Communication and cooperation is strong between the Consortium the San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition, including partner agencies, and the Housing Authority of the C ounty of San Bernardino . City staff continues to work closely with the other organizations to improve regulatory compliance, monitoring, cooperation and partnerships among agencies and technical capacity of organizations involved in project delivery.
The s ingle most significant gap in the service delivery system remains the lack of available funding to support local programs in Victorville and the Consortium for special needs populations and persons experiencing homelessness. In Victorville, this funding is limited to 15 percent of the annual allocation of CDBG funds. The City is not a direct recipient of Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds; therefore, most of the HUD funding to address homelessness is available through the San Bernardino County Continuum of Care. State funding has been reduced with several years of fiscal challenges for the State of California and City funds for this purpose are limited. It has been difficult to accommodate increasing levels of need in the community and increases in the cost of providing services to homeless and special needs populations.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 104
Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs.
To address the lack of resources necessary to fully address the needs of special needs populations and persons experiencing homelessness, the City continues to work with its nonprofit service providers to explore alternate funding sources and encourages the identification of alternate revenue streams.
The City of Victorville is undertaking several initiatives to address homelessness and housing instability. In December 2021, the City announced it was awarded a $28 million Homekey award from the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the construction and operational support of its Wellness Center Campus. The campus is a critical component of the City’s strategy to reduce homelessness. Combining a low-barrier emergency shelter, recuperative care facility, medical clinic, interim housing, and wraparound support services. Construction is expected to begin in 2022.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 107
SP-65 LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARDS
Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards.
The Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X) emphasizes prevention of childhood lead poisoning through housing -based approaches. This strategy requires the City to implement programs that protect children living in older housing from lead hazards.
Overall, the City has a relatively new housing stock . Therefore, lead -based paint hazards are not an extensive issue in Victorville. According to ACS data, about 79 percent Victorville’s housing stock was built after 1979, when the use of lead -based paint was outlawed, meaning that the residents of these homes should not be at risk of lead-based paint hazards. Only those units constructed prior to January 1, 1978, are presumed to have the potential to contain lead- based paint. In these units, the best way to have reasonable assurance that lead-based paint hazards are not present is to have the painted surfaces tested.
According to the City of Victorville Residential Rehabilitation Program, a typical lead- based paint screening survey costs approximately $5 00 to $1,000 . To reduce lead - based paint hazards, the City of Victorville takes the following actions:
• Include lead testing and abatement procedures, as required, in all residential rehabilitation activities falling under Strategic Plan Goal No. 2 for units built prior to January 1, 1978.
• Educate residents on the health hazards of lead-based paint through brochures and encourage screening children for elevated blood-lead levels. • Disseminate brochures about lead hazards through organizations such as the Inland Fair Housing Council and the City’s residential rehabilitation activities.
How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards?
Over time through testing and abatement, monitoring of public health data, and through public education, the public will have greater awareness of the hazards of lead-based paint to children. This will prompt homeowners, landlords, and parents of young children to proactively address unsafe housing conditions in pre -1978 units where children may potentially be exposed to lead-based paint hazards.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 108
How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures?
In accordance with federal regulation the Town of Apple Valley and the City of Victorville have established policies regarding the identification of lead -based paint (LBP) hazards. Housing build prior to 1978 must undergo lead- based paint testing prior receiving funding for rehabilitation. If deteriorated lead-based paint surfaces are found, they must be stabilized during the rehabilitation of the property. Abatement must be performed by a certified lead- based paint assessor prior to the issuance of the Notice of Completion. The Cons ortia will continue to maintain policies and procedures to increase assess to housing without LBP hazards. CDBG and HOME funding is not provided until it is determined properties are free of LBP hazards.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 109
SP-70 ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY
Jurisdiction Goals, Prog rams and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families.
Poverty continues to be a significant challenge in Victorville and the Consortium .
According to the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, there are 26,480 Victorville residents living below the poverty level. Of these residents, 9.479, over a quarter, are children under the age of 18.
To meaningfully address this challenge, each of the goals included in the 2022 -2026 Strategic Plan is aligned to support activities promoting the availability of affordable housing and provide essential services that directly benefit low - and moderate - income residents. In the implementation of the Strategic Plan, the City will prioritize funding for activities that most effectively address these goals over the next five years.
This strategy will emphasize using CDBG funds to help individuals and families rise out of poverty to long-term self-sufficiency.
The implementation of CDBG activities meeting the goals established in this Strategic Plan will help to reduce the number of poverty-level families by:
• Supporting a continuum of housing and public service programs to prevent and eliminate homelessness.
• Supporting expansion of housing affordable to low - and moderate -income households through development of new and preservation of existing housing. • Supporting public services for low - and moderate-income residents including the elderly, veterans, those with special needs and those at -risk of homelessness offered by nonprofit organizations receiving CDBG funds; and • Support access to services, employment center, and amenities and mobility within the city and to surrounding areas.
• Promoting economic opportunity for low - and moderate -income residents through workforce training and small business assistance.
In addition to these local efforts, mainstream state and federal resources also contribute to reducing the number of individuals and families in poverty. Federal programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and Head Start provide a pathway out of pove rty for families who are ready to pursue employment and educational opportunities. In California, the primary programs that assist families in poverty are CalWORKS, CalFresh (formerly food stamps) and Medi-Cal. Together, these programs provide individuals and families with employment assistance, subsidy for food, medical care, childcare, and cash payments to meet basic needs such as housing,
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 110
nutrition and transportation. Other services are available to assist persons suffering from substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness.
How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan?
Victorville’s Strategic Plan goals are aligned to benefit low - and moderate -income residents and to reduce the number of poverty-level families. For example, the goal of decent and affordable housing for families earning less than 30, 50 and 80 percent of AMI will preserve and provide additional affordable housing options for families transitioning from activities funded under the Homelessness Services goal. It will also include activities targeted to families who own their residence but lack the resources to address emergency repairs or maintain the property in compliance with City codes and standards. Addressing substandard or emergency housing conditions allows low- and moderate-income families to maintain housing stability while also guaranteeing that all economic segments of the community live in decent housing . The goal to provide suitable living environments will include funding for activities targeted to families in poverty and other low - and moderate -income households with specific service needs. Providing this range of targeted services allows children, families, seniors, and re sidents with special needs in Victorville appropriate support and resources to thrive.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 111
SP-80 MONITORING
Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements
To ensure CDBG funds are used efficiently and in compliance with applicable regulations, the City provides technical assistance to all subrecipients at the beginning of each program year and monitors subrecipients throughout the program year.
Technical Assistance
To enhance compliance with federal program regulations, the City provides an annual Notice of F unding Availability workshop to review the Annual Action Plan goals, program requirements and available resources with potential applicants. After the Action Plan is approved, a mandatory subrecipient workshop is held to review program regulations in detail, to provide useful forms and resources for documenting compliance and to review the City’s compliance procedures and requirements.
Additionally, individualized technical assistance is provided on an as -needed basis throughout a program year.
Activity Monitoring
All activities are monitored, beginning with a detailed review upon receipt of an application to determine eligibility, conformance with a National Objective and conformance with a Plan goal. This review also examines the proposed use of funds, eligibility of the service area, eligibility of the intended beneficiaries and likelihood of compliance with other federal requirements such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the System for Award Management (SAM) debarment list, prevailing wage, Minority and Women Business Enterprise, Section 3 and federal acquisition and relocation regulations, as applicable.
Subrecipients are required to submit an audit and other documentation to establish their capacity, and any findings noted in the audit are revie wed with the applicant.
Eligible applications are then considered for funding. Once funded, desk monitoring includes ongoing review of required quarterly performance reports. For CDBG public service activities, an on-site monitoring is conducted at least once every two years or yearly, or more frequently as needed to ensure compliance. These reviews include both a fiscal and programmatic review of the subrecipient’s activities. The reviews
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 112
determine if the subrecipient is complying with the program regulati ons and City contract. Areas routinely reviewed include overall administration, financial systems, appropriateness of program expenditures, program delivery, client eligibility determination and documentation, reporting systems, and achievement toward achieving contractual goals. Following the monitoring visit, a written report is provided delineating the results of the review and any findings of non- compliance and the required corrective action. Subrecipients normally have 30 days to provide the City with corrective actions taken to address any noted findings. Individualized technical assistance is provided, as noted above as soon as compliance concerns are identified.
For CDBG capital projects, monitoring also includes compliance with regulatory agreement requirements and may include annual monitoring to ensure renter occupied units’ household income, rent and utility allowance comply with applicable limits pursuant to the affordability covenant.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 114
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan.
The City of Victorville is undertaking several initiatives to address homelessness and housing instability. In December 2021, the City announced it was awarded a $28 million Homekey award from the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the construction and operational suppo rt of its Wellness Center Campus. The campus is a critical component of the City’s strategy to reduce homelessness. Combining a low-barrier emergency shelter, recuperative care facility, medical clinic, interim housing, and wraparound support services. Con struction is expected to begin in 2022.
Discussion
The City of Victorville shares overall responsibility for meeting the priority needs identified in the Strategic Plan with many other organizations. The City is responsible for using CPD entitlement funds to address the needs of low- and moderate-income residents. Other City departments and organizations provide services to low - and moderate-income residents by utilizing funding from federal, state, local and private resources.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 118
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
Based on the Strategic Plan, the City is allocating 100 percent of its non-administrative CDBG investments for program year 2022-2023 to projects and activities that benefit low- and moderate -income people throughout the City. The primary obstacles to meeting the underserved needs of low- and moderate-income people include lack of funding from federal, state, and other local sources.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 128
Description
Target Date 6/30/2022
Estimate the
number and
type of families
that will benefit
Location
Description
Planned
Activities
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 130
AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS
Introduction
The City’s planned investment of CDBG, funds through the 2022-2023 Action Plan will address obstacles to fostering development of and maintaining existing affordable housing; evaluating and reducing lead-based paint hazards; reducing the number of families living in at or below the poverty line; developing institutional structure; and enhanced coordination among collaborative agencies and organizations.
Additionally, this section will identify obstacles to meeting underserved populations needs and propose action to overcome those obstacles.
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The primary obstacles to meeting the underserved needs of low - and moderate - income people include lack of funding from federal, state and other local sources, and the high cost of housing that is not affordable to low -income people. To address this obstacle, at least in part, the City is investing CDBG funds in local nonprofit organizations to address the public service needs of those who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or have incomes that are extremely low-, low-, or moderate.
The City will continue offering low -interest loans or emergency grants to low - and moderate-income Victorville homeowners using CDBG funds. The Residential Rehabilitation Program provides financing for home improvements necessary to ensure that residents can continue to live in quality housing that is already affordable to the occupants.
To address underserved needs, the City is allocating 100 percent of its non - administrative CDBG funds in Program Year 2022-2023 to projects and activities that benefit low- and moderate -income people or people presumed under HUD regulations to be low- and moderate-income.
The City will invest over $200,000 in Program Year 2022-2023 in support of ten unique local nonprofit organizations providing services to low - and mode rate-income households.
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing During the 202 2-2023 Program Year, the City will use CDBG funds to continue preserving and maintaining existing affordable housing through the Residential Rehabilitation and the Senior and Disabled Adult Home Repairs Programs . The City will continue to participate in the Apple Valley -Victorville HOM E Consortium, an effective way of providing more housing resources to residents. Specifically, the Consortium will support the City’s Senior Housing Repair Program with HOME funds in FY 2022-2023.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 131
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X) emphasizes prevention of childhood lead poisoning through housing -based approaches. To reduce lead -based paint hazards, the City of Victorville Residential Rehabilitation Program will conduct lead-based paint testing and risk assessments for each property assisted that was built prior to January 1, 1978, and will incorporate safe work practices or abatement into the scope of work as required to reduce lead -based paint hazards in accordance with 24 CFR Part 35.
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The implementation of CDBG activities meeting the goals established in the Consolidated Plan-Strategic Plan and this Action Plan will help to reduce the number of poverty-level families by:
• Supporting activities that increase the supply of housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income households;
• Supporting a continuum of housing and public service programs to prevent and eliminate homelessness;
• Supporting housing prese rvation programs that ensure low -income households have a safe, decent and appropriate place to live; and • Supporting public services through various nonprofits funded by CDBG that serve the community’s youth, seniors, families, veterans and residents with special needs.
The City will invest CDBG and HOME funds during the 2022 -2023 Program Year to address high priority needs identified in the Consolidated Plan including supportive services of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, human services, and housing programs. The City will also invest CDBG funds to address individuals and families with special needs.
To address incidences of homelessness City will use CDBG to finance life and safety upgrades and shelter operations for High Desert Homeless Services , additionally Consortium HOME funds will finance the development of additional transitional housing beds through Hughes Training and Development . To address the needs of those with special needs the City will direct CDBG funds to Rockn’ Our Disabilities nutritional support and arts and wellness programming targeted toward those with disabilities. To address the housing needs of the elderly and those with disabilities the City and the HOME Consortium will fund housing rehab pro gram targeted to these populations.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 132
The institutional delivery system in Victorville is best represented through the collaboration between local government and an outstanding set of nonprofit organizations that carry out a diverse array of human service programs to enrich the lives of residents. These relationships are collaborative—each organization partnering with the next to ensure that all Victorville residents have the support necessary to lead fulfilling lives. Affordable housing development and preservation activities will be carried out by the City in partnership with housing developers and contractors.
Guided by the Strategic Plan, public service activities will be carried out by nonprofit organizations and City d epartments to serve low - and moderate-income residents.
The City will collaborate across departments on city -owned public facilities improvements and will partner closely with nonprofit organizations receiving capital improvement funds to ensure their projects are delivered on time, within budget, and in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations.
Through technical assistance and the annual Notice of Funding Availability process commencing each November, the City continues to develop and expand local institutional structure by strengthening existing partnerships and leveraging the experience of organizations that previously have not participated in locally administered federal programs to expand the number of program offerings available to residents. The City consistently funds a variety of high-quality services that address underserved needs in Victorville.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
To enhance coordina tion between public and private housing and social service agencies, the City will welcome and encourage the participation of a wide variety of agencies and organizations that deliver housing and supportive services that add value to the lives of low- and moderate-income residents in Victorville.
Discussion
In the implementation of the 20 22-2023 Action Plan, the City will invest CDBG and HOME resources to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain affordable housing, reduce lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of poverty-level families, develop institutional structure, and enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies.
DRAFT Consolidated Plan VICTORVILLE 133
AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
In the implementation of programs and activities under the 202 2-2023 Action Plan, the City of Victorville will follow all HUD regulations concerning the use of program income, forms of investment, overall low- and moderate-income benefit for the CDBG program
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out.
1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 0
2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income: 0
Other CDBG Requirements
1. The amount of urgent need activities 0
2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low- and moderate-income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low- and moderate-income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00%
Discussion
In the implementation of programs and activities under the 20 22-2023 Action Plan, the City of Victorville will monitor all subrecipients for compliance with HUD regulations and provide technical assistance as nec essary to ensure successful implementation. During FY 2021-2022 eight activities did not spend their entire allocation making about $272,115 available to reallocate to eligible projects during FY 2022-2023.
Draft 2022 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice
This page is intentionally left blank.
VICTORVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Debra Jones
Mayor
Leslie Irving
Mayor Pro Tem
Elizabeth Becerra
Council Member
Blanca Gomez
Council Member
This page is intentionally left blank.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Fair Housing Issues ......................................................................................................................... 2 Apple Valley ............................................................................................................................... 2 Victorville ................................................................................................................................... 5 Demographic Summary .................................................................................................................. 8 Segregation/Integration ................................................................................................................. 16 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 16 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ............................................................... 26 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 26 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................ 28 Educational Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 28 Employment Opportunities ....................................................................................................... 32 Transportation Opportunities .................................................................................................... 42 Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities ....................................................................................... 49 Environmentally Healthy Neighborhood Opportunities ........................................................... 53 Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity ...................................................................... 57 Disproportionate Housing Needs .................................................................................................. 58 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 58
1 Executive Summary
The Town of Apple Valley was incorporated in 1988 and consists of 78 square miles. According to the 2020 Census, the population of the Town is approximately 76,000 people. The City of Victorville was incorporated in 1962 and encompasses 74 square miles. According to the 2020 Census, approximately 135,000 people live in the City. Since 1997, both cities have received an annual allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
In 2003, the Town of Apple Valley and City of Victorville formed the HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium (the “HOME Consortium”) in order to meet the threshold of obtaining HOME entitlement status with HUD. Both the City and the Town receive CDBG and HOME funding annually. For the purpose of this Assessment to Fair Housing (AFH), the Town of Apple Valley and the City of Victorville may be collectively referenced as “Communities” and “Jurisdictions”.
As Entitlement Jurisdictions, both the City and Town are required to prepare and adopt a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) to assist the Communities in identifying fair housing issues, contributing factors, and goals in order to affirmatively further fair housing. Below is a summary of the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and fair housing goals. Also included is an overview of the process and analysis used to identify the fair housing issues and to reach the goals.
To conduct the Analysis of Impediments for Apple Valley and Victorville, the Jurisdictions gathered and analyzed data for each jurisdiction and the region. The region is defined as the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area, which comprises Riverside County and San Bernardino County. The data utilized are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), HUD’s AFFH Data and Mapping Tool, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board, and stakeholder surveys conducted as part of the Con Plan process. The data are generally from the most recent available years, with the exception of the ACS data, which are from the 2013-2017 estimates in order to align with the data utilized in the Con Plan.
Analyzed data topics include:
• Demographic
• Housing
• Segregation/ Integration
• Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty • Disparities in Access to Opportunity
4 Mexican origin compared to other National Origin groups, or families with children compared to other types of families, indicating that these groups have less access to neighborhoods with employment opportunities (see Map 8 and Map 9).
• Access to transportation:
o Native Americans living below the poverty line experience the least access to public transit and the highest transportation costs of any group (see Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity).
• Exposure to poverty:
o While all residents have relatively high exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods, the following groups are most likely to live in neighborhoods with relatively high exposure to poverty (this is related to the fact that these groups disproportionately reside in the R/ECAP area):
Hispanic and Black residents (see Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity).
Mexican-born residents and families with children (see Map 12).
Housing Issues
• According to Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board, the majority of fair housing complaints received in the jurisdiction are related to residents with a disability seeking reasonable accommodations (see Table 1 – Housing Discrimination Cases by Protected Class, 2011-2021).
• Over half of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they use more than 30% of their income to pay for housing-related costs. The percentage of all renters who are cost burdened is decreasing, however the number of cost-burdened renters is increasing (see Table 4 – Housing Trends).
• Native American, Hispanic, and Black households are significantly less likely than White, Non-Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander households to own their own homes (see Table 11 – Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity).
Possible Future Fair Housing Concerns:
• A small but increasing proportion of the population has limited English proficiency. The main language spoken among those who speak English “less than very well” is Spanish (see Table 2 – Demographics, Table 3 – Demographic Trends, and Table 6 - Language Spoken at Home).
• The population is aging. The proportion of the population that is over age 65 is increasing (see Table 3 – Demographic Trends).
• According to the Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index, while racial/ethnic segregation in Apple Valley remains low, it has been increasing since 1990, especially between White and Black residents (see Table 5 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends).
5 Victorville
Overview
According to the data analysis, all Victorville residents, regardless of protected class status, have relatively low access to high-performing schools, relatively low access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, and relatively high exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods. However, there is evidence that different protected class groups face specific challenges regarding access to opportunities and exposure to adverse community factors. For example:
• Native Americans, particularly those living below the poverty line, appear to be least successful in accessing employment in Victorville. According to ACS data, Native Americans have the lowest labor force participation rate and the highest unemployment rate of any group.
• Asian/Pacific Islander residents have slightly less access to public transit and face slightly higher transportation costs, which may be related to the fact that more residents of Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, and Korean origin live outside the areas with the best access to public transit and the lowest costs, than live inside those areas. • Hispanic residents, residents born in Mexico, and families with children disproportionately reside in racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), which HUD defines as Census tracts that meet both of the following criteria:
a non-White population of 50 percent or more, and a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or a poverty rate that is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
Segregation
• Mexican-born residents appear to be the predominant foreign-born group in the city’s central neighborhoods, while there appear to be higher concentrations of Asian-born residents in the southeastern Census tracts.
Access to Opportunities and Exposure to Adverse Community Factors • R/ECAPs:
o Census tracts 0098 and 0099.05, along the eastern edge of the jurisdiction, are classified as R/ECAPs, as are Census tracts 0091.17 and 0091.16, which are partially within northern Victorville (see Map 1). Hispanic residents, residents born in Mexico, and families with children disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs (see Table 2 - Demographics and Table 7 – R/ECAP Demographics). • Employment opportunities:
o Native Americans, and particularly those living below the poverty line, may be least successful in accessing employment in Victorville: Native Americans have the lowest Labor Market Index value of any group, and Native Americans below
6 the poverty line have the lowest Jobs Proximity Index value of any group (see Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity).
• Access to transportation:
o Asian and Pacific Islander residents have slightly less access to public transit and face slightly higher transportation costs than other groups (see Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity). This disparity may be related to the fact that, as shown on Map 10 and Map 11, a larger number of residents of Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, and Korean origin live outside the areas with the best access to public transit and the lowest costs, than live inside those areas (see Map 10 and Map 11).
• Exposure to poverty:
o While all residents have relatively high exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods, Asian and Pacific Islander residents living below the poverty line have the highest exposure to poverty (see Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity).
Housing Issues
• According to Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board, the majority of fair housing complaints received in the jurisdiction are related to residents with a disability seeking reasonable accommodations (see Table 1 – Housing Discrimination Cases by Protected Class, 2011-2021).
• Over half of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they use more than 30% of their income to pay for housing-related costs. The percentage of all renters who are cost burdened is decreasing, however the number of cost-burdened renters is increasing (see Table 4 – Housing Trends).
• Black households are significantly less likely than other households to own their own homes. Hispanic and Native American households are also less likely than White, Non- Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander households to be homeowners (see Table 11 – Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity).
Possible Future Fair Housing Concerns:
• An increasing proportion of the population has limited English proficiency. The main language spoken among those who speak English “less than very well” is Spanish (see Table 2 – Demographic, Table 3 – Demographic Trends, and Table 6 - Language Spoken at Home).
Fair Housing Goals
Many of the fair housing issues summarized above are largely driven by private market forces over which the Community Development programs have limited control. However, both Apple
7 Valley and Victorville are firmly committed to promoting access to fair housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing through all of their programs and activities.
To promote fair housing, the following goals have been established for Apple Valley and Victorville.
Goal Program Marketing
Description Both jurisdictions shall ensure that all HUD-funded programs are marketed in high poverty areas within their jurisdiction in manners that will be accessible to residents to ensure that low-income residents and high poverty neighborhoods have best access to all program activities.
Evaluation To evaluate this goal, each jurisdiction shall maintain documentation showing that it marketed programs in areas of high poverty and conducted such marketing in a way that clearly communicated the program to the residents in those areas.
Goal Target Non-Housing Activities in Areas of High Poverty Description Both jurisdictions shall use CDBG funds to carry out non-housing activities (such as public works, public services, and economic development) in areas of high poverty. This may include carrying out activities citywide, but promoting services in those areas or electing to target activities in these areas.
Evaluation To evaluate this goal, each jurisdiction shall report in the CAPER how its activities promoted anti-poverty goals and objectives.
Goal Monitor and Apply for Federal and State Funding to Increase Community Development and Housing Activities
Description Both jurisdictions shall actively monitor new funding opportunities for additional community development and affordable housing activities. Unless there is specific justification not to apply, the jurisdictions shall apply for these funding streams.
Evaluation To evaluate this goal, each jurisdiction shall maintain a log of new Federal and State funding streams that are available to promote affordable housing and community development.
Goal Promote Fair Housing Education for Tenants and Homebuyers Description Both jurisdictions shall fund and promote fair housing training for tenants, homebuyers and potential homebuyers to ensure that residents are fully informed of their rights as it relates to housing.
Evaluation Maintain records of number of trainings conducted and training participants.
Goal Promote Fair Housing Education for Landlords and Realtors
8 Description Both jurisdictions shall fund and promote fair housing training for landlords and realtors to ensure that they understand the fair housing requirements and rights of tenants and homebuyers. .
Evaluation Maintain records of number of trainings conducted and training participants.
Goal Maintain Fair Housing Resources on Website
Description In collaboration with the fair housing provider for the jurisdiction, maintain a page on the jurisdiction website that provides access to fair housing resources and documents. Further, collaborate with the fair housing provider to promote trainings and other fair housing related events.
Evaluation Review and update webpage resources annually with support from fair housing provider and maintain documentation of promoting all trainings and events carried out by the fair housing provider in the jurisdiction.
Goal Maintain Housing and Community Development Resources List
Description Establish and maintain a list of all housing and community development resources that is updated annually. This list may include services such as grant or loan programs for reasonable modifications and access to programs such as Meals on Wheels.
Evaluation Review and update list on an annual basis.
Demographic Summary
Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region and describe trends over time (since 1990).
Table 2 – Demographics, shows demographic information for the populations of Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region. The region is defined as the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area, which comprises Riverside County and San Bernardino County.
Table 3 – Demographic Trends, shows similar data over time, going back to 1990.
Race/Ethnicity:
Apple Valley: As shown in Table 2, Apple Valley is a majority White, non-Hispanic jurisdiction. Just over half of Apple Valley’s population is White, non-Hispanic, approximately 35% are Hispanic, 7.7% are Black, and 3% are Asian or Pacific Islander. Over the past 30 years, Apple Valley has become less White. This trend has been driven by the growth of the Hispanic population, shown in Table 3.
9 Victorville: Victorville is a majority-minority city. Fifty-five percent of the population is Hispanic, 15% is Black, almost 4% is Asian or Pacific Islander, and 22% is White, Non- Hispanic. Over the past 30 years, Victorville’s population has increased due primarily to the growth of the Hispanic and Black populations. In 1990, the city was two-thirds White, Non- Hispanic. Since then, the White population has declined while the Black population more than quadrupled and the Hispanic population grew six-fold.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region: Apple Valley is a majority White, Non- Hispanic jurisdiction in a majority-minority region. Apple Valley has a much smaller percentage of Hispanic residents than either Victorville or the region. Victorville’s population, which is 55% Hispanic, looks more like the region, however, Victorville has a higher percentage of Black residents than either the region or Apple Valley. Both Apple Valley and Victorville have a smaller proportion of Asian or Pacific Islander residents than the region. Over the past 30 years, all three geographies have experienced population growth driven in part by increasing numbers of Hispanic residents. In Victorville and the region, the White, Non-Hispanic population also declined over this period, while in Apple Valley, the number of White, Non-Hispanic residents increased. As a result of these trends, Victorville and the region became majority Hispanic.
Apple Valley, in comparison, continues to be majority White, Non-Hispanic.
National Origin
Apple Valley: As shown in Table 2, the main country of origin for the foreign-born population in Apple Valley is Mexico. Residents born in Mexico comprise 3.34% of the population.
Residents from El Salvador and the Philippines each represent approximately 0.87% of the population of Apple Valley. Over the past 30 years, the foreign-born population in Apple Valley has grown from 5.55% of the population to over 9%.
Victorville: As shown in Table 2, the main country of origin for the foreign-born population in Victorville is Mexico, followed by El Salvador and the Philippines. Just over 10% of the population was born in Mexico. Over the past 30 years, the foreign-born population in Victorville has grown from about 10% of the population to nearly 18%.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region: The main country of origin for the foreign-born population in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region is Mexico. El Salvador and the Philippines are the second and third most common nations of origin for the foreign-born population in all three areas. In all three geographies, the proportion of the population that is foreign-born has been increasing over the past 30 years, as shown in Table 3. Table 2 and Table 3 also show that Apple Valley has had, and continues to have, a relatively small proportion of foreign-born residents when compared to both Victorville and the region. In the most current year shown in Table 3 (2017), 9.29% of Apple Valley residents were born outside the U.S., compared to 17.74% of Victorville residents and 21.37% of the regional population.
Limited English Proficiency
Apple Valley:
10 As shown in Table 2, the most common language spoken among those who speak English “less than very well” in Apple Valley is Spanish.1 Over 3% of Apple Valley’s population has limited English proficiency (LEP) and uses Spanish as their primary language at home. The proportion of the population that speak English “less than very well” has been increasing over the past 30 years, as shown in Table 3.
Victorville:
The most common language spoken among those who speak English “less than very well” in Victorville is Spanish. Over 10% of Victorville’s population has limited English proficiency (LEP) and uses Spanish as their primary language at home. The proportion of the population that speak English “less than very well” has been increasing over the past 30 years, as shown in Table
3. Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
As shown in Table 2, the most common language spoken among those who speak English “less than very well” in Apple Valley, Victorville. and the region is Spanish. Apple Valley has a smaller proportion of residents that have limited English proficiency (LEP) and use Spanish as their primary language at home, compared to Victorville and the region. In all three geographies, the proportion of the population that speak English “less than very well” has been increasing over the past 30 years, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 also shows that Apple Valley has a smaller proportion of LEP residents than either Victorville or the region, and Victorville has a slightly smaller proportion of LEP residents than the region. For the most current year shown in Table 3 (2017), 4.91% of Apple Valley residents, 12.22% of Victorville residents, and 15% of the region’s residents had limited English proficiency.
Disability
Apple Valley:
As shown in Table 2, the most common types of disabilities in Apple Valley are ambulatory difficulties (8.72% of the population has an ambulatory difficulty), followed by independent living difficulties (6.17% of the population) and cognitive difficulties (5.34% of the population).
Victorville:
The most common types of disabilities in Victorville are ambulatory difficulties (5.56% of the population has an ambulatory difficulty), followed by independent living difficulties (4.37% of the population) and cognitive difficulties (4.36% of the population).
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
The most significant disability types in all three geographies are the same: ambulatory, independent living, and cognitive difficulties. However, Apple Valley has higher rates of individuals living with disabilities than either Victorville or the region. Table 1 – Housing
1 The ACS does not provide 5-year estimates for all languages spoken by the population that speaks English “less than very well” after the 2011-2015 dataset. Instead, for later years, data is provided for those who speak Spanish, Other Indo-European languages, Asian and Pacific Islander languages, and Other languages. There are 1-year estimates through 2019 that provide more specificity regarding languages spoken, but these estimates are not available for Apple Valley. For this reason, Table 2 uses the AFFH data provided by HUD, which is from the 2011- 2015 ACS, with the exception of data for Spanish speakers, which is taken from the 2013-2017 ACS table S1601.
12 declining in Apple Valley and the region, and increasing in Victorville, while the opposite is true for the population aged 65 years and older in all three places.
Family Type
Apple Valley:
As shown in Table 2, in Apple Valley, the percentage of all family households that have children under the age of 18 living with them is 41.07%.
Victorville:
As shown in Table 2, in Victorville, the percentage of all family households that have children under the age of 18 living with them is 52.05%.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
As shown in Table 2, Victorville has a higher proportion of families with children than the region, and the region has a higher proportion of families with children than Apple Valley. In all three geographies, the proportion of families that have children is lower than it was in 1990, as shown in Table 3.
13 Describe housing patterns in the jurisdiction and region, including tenure, cost burden, and the location of renters and owners.
Tenure
Table 4 – Housing Trends, below, shows data on housing tenure and cost burden for Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region. These data are from the 2008-2012 and 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Apple Valley:
In Apple Valley, the number of housing units increased by about 1,000 units, from 22,975 to 23,911, due entirely to an increase in rental housing units. The number and share of owner- occupied housing units declined over this period, however, the majority of housing remains owner-occupied (64.81% of units were owner-occupied in 2017).
Victorville:
In Victorville, the number of housing units increased by about 1,500 units, from 31,186 to 32,629, due entirely to an increase in rental housing units. The number and share of owner- occupied housing units declined over this period. While the majority of housing remains owner- occupied (53.54% of units were owner-occupied in 2017), if these trends continue, rental housing will soon comprise the majority of housing in the city.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
In all three geographies, the total number of housing units is increasing, and most of the housing remains owner-occupied. Over the five-year period between 2012 and 2017, however, the number and share of owner-occupied housing decreased in all three places. Victorville has a higher share of rental housing units compared to Apple Valley and the region. Of all three places, Apple Valley has the highest homeownership rate.
Cost Burden
Apple Valley:
As of 2017, over half of renters (53.03%) in Apple Valley were cost-burdened, meaning they used more than 30% of their monthly income to pay for housing-related costs. Among
14 homeowners, slightly less than 1/3 were cost-burdened. Over the five-year period between 2012 and 2017, the number and percentage of homeowners who were cost-burdened declined. Over the same period, the number of cost-burdened renters increased slightly, however the percentage of all renters who are cost-burdened declined, due to the larger increase in the total number of renters.
Victorville:
As of 2017, over half of renters (57.16%) in Victorville were cost-burdened. Among homeowners, about 1/3 were cost-burdened. Over the five-year period between 2012 and 2017, the number and percentage of homeowners who were cost-burdened declined. Over the same period, the number of cost-burdened renters increased, however the percentage of all renters who are cost-burdened declined, due to the larger increase in the total number of renters.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
In all three geographies, over half of all renters in were cost-burdened in 2017. Victorville had the highest rate of cost-burden among renters, followed by the region. Apple Valley renters were the least likely to be cost-burdened. In all three geographies, about 1/3 of homeowners were cost- burdened in 2017. Over the five-year period between 2012-2017, trends were similar across all three geographies: the number and percentage of cost-burdened homeowners decreased, perhaps reflecting the recovery from the Great Recession; and the percentage of renters who were cost- burdened decreased, however, the number of cost-burdened renter households increased.
Map 16 – Housing Tenure includes two maps showing the distribution of renter households in Apple Valley/Victorville and the region. The darker shaded areas have a higher proportion of renter households. The map of Apple Valley/Victorville shows a high concentration of renter households in two Census tracts in Apple Valley: 0097.16 in the center of the jurisdiction and 0097.10 in the southeast part of the jurisdiction. In Victorville, the Census tracts in the southeast part of the city have high concentrations of renters, as does the portion of Census tract 0091.16 that is inside Victorville’s northwest boundary. In the region, there are concentrations of renters in the southwest, as well as in Census tracts in the central and northern part of the region.
15 16
Segregation/Integration
Analysis
Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region.
Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of segregation. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990).
Table 5 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends shows how segregated or integrated various racial/ethnic groups are in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region using a Dissimilarity Index, which is calculated using data from the 2010 Decennial Census. The Dissimilarity Index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is commonly used for assessing residential segregation between two groups. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation), values between 40 and 54 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.
Apple Valley:
As Table 5 shows, Apple Valley has relatively high levels of integration among White and Black, White and Hispanic, and White and Asian/Pacific Islander residents. Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents are the most integrated according to this metric, while Black and White residents are the least integrated. While integration is relatively high, over the past 30 years, Apple Valley has become more segregated, with segregation levels between Black and White residents increasing the most of any group.
Victorville:
Table 5 shows Victorville has relatively high levels of integration among the various race/ethnic groups. In Victorville, Hispanic and White residents are the most integrated and Black and White residents are the least integrated, according to this metric. Similar to Apple Valley, over the past 30 years, segregation levels have increased slightly overall. Segregation between Hispanic and White residents and between Asian or Pacific Islander and White residents increased, while segregation between Black and White residents decreased.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Apple Valley and Victorville, compared to the region, are more integrated than the surrounding jurisdictions and county. The Dissimilarity Index values show moderate levels of segregation between race/ethnic groups in the region, with Black and White residents experiencing the highest degree of segregation. Over the last few decades, as all three geographies have become less White and more Hispanic (as shown in Table 5), they have also become more segregated overall.
17 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. Discuss how patterns of segregation have changed over time (since 1990).
Map 1 – Race/Ethnicity shows the distribution of various racial/ethnic groups in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region—each dot represents 75 people, and the various racial/ethnic groups are represented by different colored dots. Map 2 – Race/Ethnicity Trends shows the same distribution at three different points in the past: 1990, 2000, and 2010. In these maps there are no apparent concentrations or separation of colored dots within Apple Valley or Victorville, indicating that residents of different racial/ethnic groups within each jurisdiction experience high levels of residential integration and have for the past few decades. However, the maps do clearly show the higher numbers of Hispanic and Black residents (represented by blue and green dots, respectively) in Victorville compared to Apple Valley, as well as the increase in Hispanic residents in Victorville over the past 30 years.
In the region, by comparison, Map 1 shows some areas of racial/ethnic concentration that align with the dissimilarity indices showing higher levels of segregation in the region than in Apple Valley or Victorville. While the maps are somewhat hard to read at this scale, there are areas on Map 1 where orange dots (representing White, Non-Hispanic residents) are clustered with few people of other racial/ethnic groups present. Map 2 shows the changing demographics over time, with an increasing number of Hispanic residents, represented by blue dots on the map, concentrated in certain parts of the region.
18 19
20 21
Map 3 – National Origin shows the distribution of foreign-born residents in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region. On the maps, each dot represents 75 people, and the different colored
22 dots represent different countries of birth, for the 5 most populous groups of foreign-born residents. In Apple Valley, Mexican-born residents are present throughout the jurisdiction, however, in the Census tracts in the center of the jurisdiction they are the only foreign-born population group present. In Victorville, Mexican-born residents and residents born in the various Asian countries listed on the map are present throughout the city. However, Mexican- born residents appear to be the predominant foreign-born group in the city’s central neighborhoods, while there appear to be higher concentrations of Asian-born residents in the southeastern Census tracts. In the region, there are concentrations of residents born in Mexico in certain areas, as indicated by the dense concentrations of orange dots.
23 According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (ACS), shown in Table 6 - Language Spoken at Home, below, 19.4% of Apple Valley residents over the age of 5 speak a language other than English at home, including 5.9% that speak English less than “very well”. Of those who speak English less than “very well”, the largest group is of those that speak Spanish: 4.5% of Apple Valley’s population has limited English proficiency and speaks Spanish at home.
In Victorville, 38.4% of residents over the age of 5 speak a language other than English at home, including 13.9% that speak English less than “very well”. Of those who speak English less than “very well”, the largest group is of those that speak Spanish: 11.6% of Victorville’s population has limited English proficiency and speaks Spanish at home.
24 Map 4 - LEP shows the distribution of residents in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region with Limited English Proficiency. On the maps, each dot represents 75 people, and the different colored dots represent languages spoken by individuals who speak English “less than very well,” for the 5 most common languages spoken by residents with limited English proficiency (LEP). In Apple Valley and Victorville, Spanish speakers appear to be distributed throughout the jurisdictions, while Tagalog speakers appear to live in Census tracts on the western edge of each jurisdiction. In the region, Spanish speakers seem to be concentrated in certain areas as shown by the groupings of orange dots.
25 Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas.
The analysis above shows that Apple Valley and Victorville residents of various race/ethnicity, national origin, and LEP groups generally experience relatively high levels of residential integration across the jurisdiction. The only noticeable exception in Apple Valley is Census tract 0097.16, in the center of the jurisdiction, where the only foreign-born residents are those who were born in Mexico.
Discuss whether there are any demographic trends, policies, or practices that could lead to higher segregation in the jurisdiction in the future.
According to the above analysis, Apple Valley and Victorville have become more diverse over the past few decades and there is reason to believe this trend will continue. Over the same period, segregation in Apple Valley has increased and may continue to do so as the jurisdiction diversifies further. In Victorville, segregation between Hispanic and White, and between Asian or Pacific Islander and White residents, has also increased over this period. These trends may continue if the city’s demographics continue to change. Both Apple Valley and Victorville actively evaluate policies to limit policies that may directly or inadvertently result in segregation within the jurisdictions.
26 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of
Poverty
Analysis
Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of R/ECAP tracts within the jurisdiction.
HUD defines racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) as Census tracts that meet both of the following criteria:
• a non-White population of 50 percent or more, and
• a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or a poverty rate that is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
As shown in Map 1, below, in Apple Valley, Census tract 0097.16, in the center of the jurisdiction, is classified as a R/ECAP—this is shown by the pink outline. In Victorville, Census tracts 0098 and 0099.05, along the eastern edge of the jurisdiction, are classified as R/ECAPs.
Additionally, Census tracts 0091.17 and 0091.16, which are partially within northern Victorville, are also classified as R/ECAPs.
Which protected classes disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs compared to the jurisdiction and region?
27 Table 7 – R/ECAP Demographics, includes details on the race/ethn icity, family type, and national origin of residents living in R/ECAPs in Apple Valley , Victorville, and the region.
By comparing the demographic data in Table 2 - Demographics (on page 12) to Table 7, below, we can identify which protected class groups disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs— generally speaking, if the percentage of a particular class living in R/ECAPs is higher than the percentage of the total population they represent, we can say they disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs. For example, in Apple Valley, Black residents only make up 7.7% of the jurisdiction’s total population, yet 15.33% of the R/ECAP population is Black. This indicates that Black residents of Apple Valley disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs. Additionally, in Apple Valley, families with children and residents born in Mexico also disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs. In Victorville, Hispanic residents, residents born in Mexico, and families with children disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs. In the region, Black and H ispanic residents, Mexican -born residents, and families with children disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs.
Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time (since 1990).
According to Map 2 (on pages 19 -21), which shows demographics in Apple Valley , Victorville, and the region at three different points in time (1990, 2000, and 2010), there were no R/ECAPs in Apple Valley or Victorville in 1990, but in 2000, tract 0098 in Victorville was classified as a R/ECAP . According to Map 1 (on page 26) , in 2010, tract 0098 in
28 Victorville was still a R/ECAP and three more tracts in the city were classified as R/ECAPs.
In Apple Valley, Census tract 0097.16 was classified as a R/ECAP in 2010.2 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Educational Opportunities
Describe any disparities in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status.
Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity includes a School Proficiency Index, which measures the proximity various racial/ethnic groups have, based on where they live, to neighborhoods with high-performing schools. School proficiency is measured using school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams. The index is based on a range of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating better proximity to high-performing schools.
Apple Valley:
In Apple Valley, there is some disparity in access to high-performing schools by race/ethnicity.
Asian/Pacific Islander residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods with high-performing schools (with an index value of 43.44), followed by White residents (41.45), Native American residents (38.99), and Hispanic residents (37.35). Black residents are least likely to live in neighborhoods with high-performing schools, with an index value of 36.35. In general, index values for all residents are relatively low, indicating access to high-performing schools is a problem for the entire jurisdiction. For the population living below the poverty line, access to high-performing schools is even more limited. Except for Native American residents living below the poverty line, who have the highest index value of any group, all other race/ethnic groups living below the poverty line have less access to high-performing schools. Black and Hispanic residents living below the poverty line have the least access, with index values of 29.28 and 29.56, respectively.
Victorville:
In Victorville, there are small disparities in access to high-performing schools by race/ethnicity.
White, Non-Hispanic residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods with high-performing schools (with an index value of 20.95), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander residents (20.07), Hispanic residents (19.4), Black residents (19.33), and Native American residents (16.47), who have the least access. The population below the poverty line has similar levels of access to high- performing schools, though Asian/Pacific Islander residents living below the poverty line have the best access of any group (23.63).
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
2 The 2010 version of Map 2 does not show any R/ECAPs in Apple Valley. The discrepancy between R/ECAPs shown on Map 2 and Map 1 is due to the fact that HUD uses different sources of data for these maps. More information about the data used for these maps can be found online at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf
29 In the region, there are much wider disparities in the school proficiency index across racial/ethnic groups and for the population below the poverty line. Black and Hispanic residents below the poverty line have the lowest index values (25.68 and 26.74, respectively), meaning they are least likely to live in neighborhoods with high-performing schools. White and Asian/Pacific Islander residents above the poverty line have the highest index values (46.63 and
51.51, respectively) meaning they are most likely to live in neighborhoods with high-performing schools.
Compared to the region, Apple Valley’s White and Asian/Pacific Islander residents have slightly worse access to high-performing schools, while Apple Valley’s Black, Hispanic, and Native American residents have slightly better access. This also means that there is slightly less disparity in access based on race/ethnicity in Apple Valley, as compared to the region
In Victorville, in comparison both Apple Valley and the region, residents have less access to high-performing schools: However, in Victorville, there are fewer disparities by race/ethnicity as compared to the region and Apple Valley.
30 Describe the relationship between the residency patterns of racial/ethnic, national origin, and family status groups and their proximity to proficient schools.
Map 7 – Demographics and School Proficiency is a series of three maps showing the School Proficiency Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type.
The maps are shaded according to school proximity index values. The darker shaded areas are those with higher index values, indicating the presence of higher performing schools in those areas.
Apple Valley:
There are differences in school performance based on geography, with neighborhoods in the southwest of the jurisdiction having the highest performing schools, and the more central neighborhoods having the least access to high-performing schools.
The first map shows that residents of different racial/ethnic groups, represented by different colored dots, seem to be evenly distributed across Apple Valley, with no visible concentrations in areas with better or worse access to high-performing schools. The second map shows that the areas with least access to high-performing schools, which are in the center of the jurisdiction, are home to residents originally from Mexico. The other national origin groups reside in areas with better access to high-performing schools. This indicates that residents born in Mexico may have less access to high-performing schools than other groups.
The third map shows where families with children live in relation to areas with high-performing schools. The size of the circles on the map indicates the percentage of families in the area that have children living with them. The map shows that the areas with the least access to high- performing schools (in the R/ECAP in the center of the jurisdiction) also have the highest proportion of families with children (shown by the relatively large circles).
Victorville:
In Victorville, there are also differences in school performance based on geography. Census tracts in the southeast have darker shading than the rest of the city, indicating higher performing schools.
The first two maps show that residents of different racial/ethnic groups and different national origins, represented by different colored dots, do not seem to be concentrated in areas with better or worse access to high-performing schools. Similarly, the third map shows that larger circles, indicating higher proportions of families with children, do not seem to be clustered in areas with either higher or lower performing schools. All this indicates that Victorville residents of different races/ethnicities, national origins, and family types have similar levels of access to high- performing schools.
31 32
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? Both Apple Valley and Victorville school districts strive to create and promote proficient schools across their districts. The school districts
From the above analysis, it appears that, in Apple Valley, Black and Hispanic residents living below the poverty line, as well as residents born in Mexico and families with children are more likely than other residents to live in areas with lower-performing schools, indicating that these protected class groups are least successful in accessing proficient schools. In Victorville, compared to Apple Valley and the region, all residents, regardless of race/ethnicity, national origin, or family type, have relatively low access to high-performing schools.
Employment Opportunities
Describe any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected class groups.
Jobs Proximity
33 Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity includes a Jobs Proximity Index, which measures the physical distance between where Apple Valley and Victorville residents of different races/ethnicities live and the location of jobs. A higher index value indicates better access to employment opportunities.
Apple Valley:
In Apple Valley, access to employment opportunities is relatively low for all groups, and those living below the poverty line have less access to employment centers. There is some disparity in access to employment centers by race/ethnicity, with Asian/Pacific most likely to live near employment centers (index value of 26.91) and Hispanic residents least likely to live near employment centers (index value of 19.57).
Victorville:
In Victorville, access to employment opportunities varies slightly by race/ethnicity. Native American residents have the best access to employment centers (with an index value of 50.68) and Asian/Pacific Islanders have the least access (index value of 34.16). For all race/ethnic groups except Native Americans, populations living below the poverty line has better access to employment centers.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
In both Victorville and the region, residents of all races/ethnicities, including those living below the poverty line (except for Native Americans living below the poverty line in Victorville), have better access to employment centers than residents of Apple Valley. In the region, there are also disparities in access to employment centers based on race/ethnicity. Black residents living below the poverty line have the least access to employment centers (with an index value of 41.83) and Asian/Pacific Islander residents living below the poverty line have the greatest access (with an index value of 57.38).
Labor Market
Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity also includes a Labor Market Index, which measures the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. A higher index value indicates that residents live in a neighborhood with higher labor force participation and human capital.
Apple Valley:
Table 8 shows that Apple Valley residents generally live in neighborhoods with low labor force participation and human capital, as indicated by the relatively low index values for all race/ethnic groups. Black and Hispanic residents living below the poverty line are least likely to live in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital: they have index values of just 8.26 and 8.66, respectively. Asian/Pacific Islander residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital: they have an index value of 19.83, which is still relatively low.
Victorville:
34 Table 8 shows that Victorville residents generally live in neighborhoods with low labor force participation and human capital, as indicated by the relatively low index values for all race/ethnic groups. Asian/Pacific Islander residents are most likely to live in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital (with an index value of 14.63) and Native American residents are least likely to (index value of 8.94). Except for Native Americans, populations living below the poverty line are even less likely to live in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
The population of Victorville, in comparison to Apple Valley and the region, has relatively low access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital. Apple Valley residents lag the region’s residents on this index: overall the region’s residents have better access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital than both Victorville and Apple Valley. In the region, there are significant disparities in access based on race/ethnicity.
Black and Hispanic residents living below the poverty line have the least access of any group to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital (with index values of
16.85) and Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the most access (with an index value of 57.38).
How does a person’s place of residence affect their ability to obtain a job?
Map 8 – Demographics and Job Proximity is a series of three maps showing the Jobs Proximity Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type. On these maps, the areas with darker shading have higher index values, which means they are closer to areas of employment.
Apple Valley:
The maps show the northern part of Apple Valley has better proximity to jobs centers, meaning residents that live in those areas are closer to employment opportunities. Because Apple Valley is well integrated by race/ethnicity, there does not appear to be any major difference in proximity to job opportunities by race/ethnicity on the first map. However, on the second and third maps show, in the areas with the best access to employment centers there are relatively few residents of Mexican origin and families with children.
Victorville:
The maps show Census tracts in the southeast and northwest of Victorville have some of the highest jobs proximity index values, meaning residents that live in those areas are closer to employment opportunities. Because Victorville is relatively well integrated by race/ethnicity, there does not appear to be any major difference in proximity to job opportunities by race/ethnicity on the first map. Similarly, the second and third maps show that residents of different national origins and families with children are also fairly well distributed across the areas with better access to jobs.
35 36
Map 9 – Demographics and Labor Market is a series of three maps showing the Labor Market Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type. On these maps, the areas with darker shading have higher index values, which means they have higher labor force participation and human capital.
Apple Valley:
The maps show that the northern part of Apple Valley and a Census tract on the western edge have the highest levels of labor force participation and human capital, relative to other parts of the jurisdiction. Similar to Map 8, there does not appear to be any concentration of specific race/ethnic groups in areas with higher or lower index values, however there are relatively few residents of Mexican origin and families with children in the areas with the highest levels of labor force participation and human capital.
Victorville:
The maps show that all parts of Victorville have relatively low labor market index values—there is no dark shading on the map. Certain areas of the city do have slightly higher index values, including the sparsely populated northernmost Census tract, and two Census tracts in the southwest. Similar to Map 8, there do not appear to be any concentrations of protected class groups in specific areas with higher or lower levels of labor force participation and human capital.
37 38
Which racial/ethnic, national origin, or family status groups are least successful in accessing employment?
Table 9 – Labor Force Participation and Unemployment, below, shows 2013-2017 American Community Survey data on labor force participation rates and unemployment rates for the overall population and by race/ethnicity, disability status, and sex, in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region. The graph below, titled COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Unemployment Rate, shows the monthly unemployment rate for Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region in 2020 and 2021, demonstrating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment.
Apple Valley:
According to Table 9, in Apple Valley, Hispanic residents have the highest labor force participation rate (60.8%) and Black residents have the lowest (39.3%). There are also wide disparities in the unemployment rate. Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the lowest unemployment rate (8.17%), while Hispanic and Native American residents have significantly higher unemployment rates (15.2% and 19.9%, respectively). Persons living with a disability are less likely to participate in the labor force and are more likely to be unemployed than the population as a whole. Finally, women in Apple Valley are more likely to be unemployed than men.
According to Table 8, Black and Hispanic residents in Apple Valley who are living below the poverty line are least likely to live in neighborhoods with high labor force participation and
39 human capital. Additionally, Map 8 and Map 9 show that Apple Valley residents born in Mexico and families with children are less likely to live in areas with good access to job centers, high labor force participation, and high levels of human capital.
Victorville:
According to Table 9, in Victorville, Native Americans have the lowest labor force participation rate (31.7%) and the highest unemployment rate of any group (25.8%). Among other race/ethnic groups, labor force participation is nearly the same, however there are large disparities in the unemployment rates. Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the lowest unemployment rate (7.41%), followed by White residents (11.4%), Hispanic residents (15.3%), and Black residents (15.9%). Persons living with a disability are less likely to participate in the labor force and are more likely to be unemployed than the population as a whole.
According to Table 8, Native Americans have the lowest Labor Market Index value of any group, and Native Americans below the poverty line have the lowest Jobs Proximity Index value of any group. This indicates that Native Americans, and particularly those living below the poverty line, may be least successful in accessing employment in Victorville.
As shown in the graph below, during the economic shutdown initiated in response to COVID-19, unemployment in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region increased dramatically. Victorville, in comparison to Apple Valley and the region, started off with a higher unemployment rate, reached a higher peak level of unemployment (17% in April 2020), and has maintained a higher unemployment level since then. While the unemployment rate in the region reached a higher level in April 2020 than the unemployment rate in Apple Valley (peaking at 15.2% in the region compared to 13.4% in Apple Valley), employment in the region has recovered at a faster rate than in Apple Valley. Since October 2020 the region has maintained a lower unemployment rate than Apple Valley.
40 It is very likely the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated racial/ethnic and gender-based unemployment disparities in Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region. While data at a local level is not yet available, national trends show wide disparities in job losses by race/ethnicity and sex.
According to the Congressional Research Service,3 across the U.S., women at every age group experienced higher increases in unemployment during the pandemic than men. The same was true for Black and Hispanic workers in comparison to White and Asian workers. The charts below show the disparities in peak unemployment rates during the pandemic by age/sex, race, and ethnicity.
3 Falk, G., Romero, P., Nicchitta, I., & Nyhof, E. (2021, August 20). Unemployment Rates During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved December 4, 2021 , from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R46554
41 42
Transportation Opportunities
Describe any disparities in access to transportation based on place of residence, cost, or other transportation related factors.
Access to Public Transit
Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity includes a Transit Index, which measures the likelihood that residents utilize public transportation. Higher index values indicate better access to public transit in a neighborhood. Map 10 – Demographics and Transit Trips is a series of three maps showing the Transit Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type. On these maps, the areas with darker shading have higher index values, which means they are areas with better access to public transit.
Apple Valley:
As Table 8 shows, Apple Valley residents of different races/ethnicities have comparable access to public transit. Index values range from a low of 30.24 for Asian/Pacific Islanders to a high of
36.48 for Black residents. For the population below the poverty line, access to public transit is generally better, with higher index values for all groups except for Native Americans living below the poverty line, who have the lowest index value in the jurisdiction: 18.01.
As Map 10 shows, residents in the R/ECAP Census tract in the center of the jurisdiction have the best access to public transit in Apple Valley. As described previously, Apple Valley residents experience a relatively high level of residential integration across races/ethnicities, therefore Map 10 shows that there is no significant concentration of specific racial/ethnic groups in neighborhoods with greater or lesser access to public transit. However, of all national origin groups, only residents of Mexican origin live in the R/ECAP area, indicating they have better access to public transit than other national origin groups. Similarly, the R/ECAP area has a high concentration of families with children (shown by the relatively large dots on the third map), indicating those families with children have relatively good access to transit.
43 Victorville:
As Table 8 shows, Victorville residents of different races/ethnicities have comparable access to public transit. Index values range from a low of 27.12 for Asian/Pacific Islanders to a high of
29.92 for Black residents. For the population below the poverty line, access to public transit is generally better, with higher index values for all groups except for Black residents living below the poverty line.
As Map 10 shows, Census tracts in the center of the city and in the north have the best access to public transit in Victorville (shown by the darker shading). As the first map shows, residents of different races/ethnicities are evenly distributed across the city, therefore there are no visible disparities in access to public transit by race/ethnicity. On the second map, however, which shows the distribution of residents of various national origins, there appear to be relatively few residents of Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, or Korean origin, compared to those of Mexican origin, in the Census tracts with the most access to public transit. This indicates that Victorville residents born in these Asian countries may be less able to access public transit than other groups. Finally, the third map, which shows the distribution of families with children, does not appear to show any concentration of families with children in areas with high or low access to public transit.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Residents in Apple Valley generally have better access to public transit compared to their counterparts in Victorville. In the region, all racial/ethnic groups have better access to public transit compared to both Apple Valley and Victorville. In the region, Native Americans have the least access, with an index value of 47.70, and Asian/Pacific Islanders have the greatest access, with in index value of 55.92. Access to public transit is generally even higher for the population living below the poverty line, with Asian/Pacific Islanders living below the poverty having the highest index value (58.72).
44 45
Transportation Costs
Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity also includes a Low Transportation Cost Index, which measures the cost of transportation in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate lower transportation costs. Transportation costs may be low in a neighborhood due to better access to public transportation, or to the density of housing, services, and employment, or to other reasons. Map 11 – Demographics and Low Transportation Cost is a series of three maps showing the Low Transportation Cost Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type. On these maps, the areas with darker shading have higher index values, which means they are areas with lower transportation costs.
Apple Valley:
As Table 8 shows, transportation costs are comparable for all racial/ethnic groups in Apple Valley. Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the highest costs, with an index value of 38, and Black residents have the lowest costs, with an index value of 40. For residents living below the poverty line, transportation costs are generally lower, with higher index values for all groups except Native Americans, who have the lowest index value in the jurisdiction: 34.19.
Map 11 shows that residents in the R/ECAP Census tract in the center of the jurisdiction have lower transportation costs than residents in other areas. The even distribution of colored dots on the first map indicates that there is no concentration of specific racial/ethnic groups in neighborhoods with higher or lower transportation costs. The second map shows that, of the various national origin groups in Apple Valley, only residents born in Mexico live in the
46 R/ECAP area. The third map shows that there is a high concentration of families with children in the R/ECAP (shown by the relatively large dot sizes in that area). These maps indicate that residents born in Mexico and families with children benefit from living in an area with lower transportation costs.
Victorville:
As Table 8 shows, transportation costs are comparable for all racial/ethnic groups in Victorville.
Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the highest costs, with an index value of 35.92, and Native American residents have the lowest costs, with an index value of 39.06. For residents living below the poverty line, transportation costs are generally lower, with higher index values for all groups except Native Americans, who have the lowest index value in the jurisdiction: 29.21.
Map 11 shows that residents living in the Census tracts in the center of the city—the area with the darkest shading—have the lowest transportation costs. Similar to Map 10, there does not appear to be a concentration of particular race/ethnic groups, or families with children, in areas with higher or lower transportation costs. However, the Census tracts shaded the darkest do appear to be areas with relatively few residents of Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, and Korean origin, indicating those groups may face higher transportation costs relative to others.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Residents in Apple Valley and Victorville have very similar levels of access to neighborhoods with low transportation costs. In the region, index values are slightly higher for all groups compared to Apple Valley and Victorville, indicating lower transportation costs overall for residents in the region. There are no large disparities by race/ethnicity. The lowest index value is
42.13 (for White, Non-Hispanic residents) and the highest index value is 46.31 (for Hispanic residents). For the population below the poverty line, index values are higher for all racial/ethnic groups. Hispanic residents living below the poverty line have the highest index value (49.70) and White, Non-Hispanic residents living below the poverty line have the lowest index value (45.70).
47 48
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?
In general, different race/ethnic groups in Apple Valley have similar levels of access to public transportation and experience similar transportation costs. The exception is Native Americans living below the poverty line, who experience the least access to public transit and the highest transportation costs of any group. Residents of Mexican origin and families with children who live in the R/ECAP area in the center of the jurisdiction appear to have relatively good access to public transit and relatively low transportation costs.
Similarly, in Victorville, different race/ethnic groups have broadly similar levels of access to public transportation and experience similar transportation costs. However, Asian/Pacific Islander residents have slightly less access to public transit and face slightly higher transportation costs. This disparity may be related to the fact that, as shown on Map 10 and Map 11, a larger number of residents of Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, and Korean origin live outside the areas with the best access to public transit and the lowest costs, than live inside those areas.
Describe how the jurisdictions’ 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.
49 The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) establishes and maintains bus routes throughout the high desert communities. VVTA maintains routes that serve all communities within the region and evaluates its routes to ensure they are the most effective routes to serve the high desert communities. VVTA complements its regular bus route with programs such as its van pool program to offer subsidies to van pools for commuters traveling together.
Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities
Describe any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.
Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity includes a Low Poverty Index, which measures the level of poverty in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
Apple Valley:
In Apple Valley, all residents have relatively high exposure to poverty. Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the lowest exposure to poverty (with an index value of 42.92), followed by White residents (39.3). Hispanic and Black residents have the highest exposure to poverty, with index values of 31.95 and 32.29, respectively. Residents living below the poverty line generally have higher exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods. The exception is Native American residents living below the poverty line, who are slightly less likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods than the overall Native American population in Apple Valley.
Victorville:
In Victorville, all residents have relatively high exposure to poverty. Asian/Pacific Islander residents have the lowest exposure to poverty (with an index value of 24.31), followed by White residents (23.43). Hispanic, Black, and Native American residents have the highest exposure to poverty, with index values of 21.57, 21.16, and 20.78, respectively. Residents living below the poverty line generally have higher exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods. In fact, Asian/Pacific Islander residents living below the poverty line have the highest exposure to poverty, with an index value of 15.92. The exception is Native American residents living below the poverty line, who are the least likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods of any group.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Victorville residents are more likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods than Apple Valley residents. Disparities in which race/ethnic groups are more likely to be exposed to poverty are similar in both places. Regionwide, residents are generally less likely to live in neighborhoods where they are exposed to poverty than either Apple Valley or Victorville, however the disparities in index values by race/ethnicity are larger. In the region, Hispanic residents have the highest exposure to poverty, with an index value of 36.39. Asia/Pacific Islander residents have the lowest exposure to poverty, with an index value of 58.83. The population living below the poverty line in the region is even more likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods, with index values significantly lower than the overall population.
50 Index values for the population below the poverty line range from 24.29 for Hispanic residents to
41.94 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
What role does a person’s place of residence play in their exposure to poverty?
Map 12 – Demographics and Poverty is a series of three maps showing the Low Poverty Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type. On these maps, the areas with darker shading have higher index values, which means they are areas with less exposure to poverty.
Apple Valley:
Map 12 shows that residents in neighborhoods in the northern and southeastern parts of Apple Valley have less exposure to poverty, and residents in the R/ECAP area in the center of the jurisdiction have the highest exposure to poverty. While racial/ethnic groups seem to be relatively evenly distributed across areas with both higher and lower exposure to poverty, the second and third maps show that there are relatively few residents of Mexican origin or families with children in the darkest shaded areas in the north compared to the R/ECAP area. This indicates that Mexican-born residents and families with children are more likely than other groups to be exposed to poverty in the neighborhoods where they live.
Victorville:
In Victorville, Map 12 shows that residents in the Census tracts in the central and eastern part of the city (including the two R/ECAPs) and in the R/ECAP in the northwest, are the most likely to be exposed to poverty in their neighborhoods. Given the even distribution of race/ethnic groups and families with children across the jurisdiction, there is no apparent concentration of specific race/ethnic groups or of families with children in those areas with more or less exposure to poverty. The second map in the series, which shows where residents of different national origins live, does show that there are relatively few residents of Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, or Korean origin in those Census tracts with the highest exposure to poverty, compared to other parts of the city. This indicates that those populations are less likely to be exposed to poverty than other national origin groups.
51 52
Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most affected by these poverty indicators?
Table 10 – Poverty by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin, below, shows data from the 2013- 2017 American Community Survey on poverty rates by race/ethnicity and national origin.
Apple Valley:
In Apple Valley, according to the above analysis, Black and Hispanic residents are more likely to live in neighborhoods with relatively high exposure to poverty, as are residents of Mexican origin and families with children. According to Table 10, Native American residents have the highest poverty rate (31.49%), followed by Hispanic residents (24.2%), Black residents (24.07%), White residents (13.86%), and Asian/Pacific Islander residents, who have the lowest poverty rate (6.31%). Foreign-born residents of Apple Valley are less likely than native-born resident to live below the poverty line, with a poverty rate of 14.53% compared to 18.49% for native-born residents.
Victorville:
In Victorville, the above analysis indicates that all residents have a relatively high exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods. However, the analysis also indicates that Asian/Pacific Islander residents have a slightly lower risk of exposure to poverty. According to Table 10, Black residents have the highest poverty rate (32.56%), followed by Native American residents (29.58%), Hispanic residents (25.42%), Asian/Pacific Islander residents (14.43%), and White
53 residents, who have the lowest poverty rate (14.3%). Foreign-born residents of Victorville are slightly more likely than native-born resident to live below the poverty line.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Apple Valley has a slightly higher poverty rate overall (18.12%) than the region (16.82%), and Victorville has a highest rate (23.26%) of all three. In the region, there are similar disparities in poverty to Apple Valley and Victorville, with Native American, Black, and Hispanic residents more likely to live below the poverty line than Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents. In the region, like in Victorville, foreign-born residents are more likely to live below the poverty line than native-born residents.
Describe how the jurisdictions’ and region’s policies affect the ability of protected class groups to access low poverty areas.
Apple Valley:
The Town of Apple Valley relies upon the availability of Housing Choice Vouchers provided through the Housing Authority. Unfortunately, the waitlist for Apple Valley is rarely open. Further, federal funding for other housing programs is limited compared to private, market pressures on housing in the Town.
Victorville:
Access to lower poverty areas is limited to residents in Victorville because of the limited opportunities in labor, transportation and education. Further, housing has become less affordable over the past ten years – putting greater poverty pressure on hous eholds throughout the City.
Victorville is limited in providing access to low poverty areas via limited Housing Choice Vouchers and limited other funding for affordable housing and tenant based rental assistance programs.
Environmentally Healthy Neighborhood Opportunities
Describe any disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups.
54 Table 8 – Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity includes an Environmental Health Index, which captures the potential exposure to harmful toxins in a neighborhood. Higher index values indicate less exposure to harmful toxins, and therefore better environmental quality, in a neighborhood. Map 13 – Demographics and Environmental Health is a series of three maps showing the Environmental Health Index and population distribution by race/ethnicity, national origin, and family type. On these maps, the areas with darker shading have higher index values, which means they are areas with less exposure to harmful toxins and therefore higher environmental quality.
Apple Valley:
As Table 8 shows, Apple Valley residents of all racial/ethnic groups, including those living below the poverty line, have relatively high access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods.
Index values for all groups in Apple Valley are in the mid-70s.
As Map 13 shows, areas in southeast Apple Valley have the highest index values, while areas in the north and northwest of the jurisdiction have the lowest index values (meaning residents in the north/northwest have less access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than those in the southeast). The maps also show that residents of different race/ethnic groups and national origins, and families with children, are evenly dispersed throughout the areas with better and worse access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, meaning there are no apparent disparities based on those protected classes.
Victorville:
As Table 8 shows, Victorville residents of all racial/ethnic groups have relatively high access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Index values for all groups in Victorville are in the high 60s. The population below the poverty line generally has slightly less access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods than the population as a whole: index values are in the mid 60s.
Map 13 shows that there is relatively uniform access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods across Victorville—most of the city has the same shading. The exceptions are one Census tract in the northwest, which has the high index value (i.e., is more environmentally healthy relative to other tracts), and two Census tracts in the center of the city—including one of the R/ECAPs— that have lower index values than other areas, meaning residents in those areas have less access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. The maps do not show any concentration of race/ethnic groups, national origin groups, or families with children in the areas with better or worse access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Residents of all races/ethnicities in both Apple Valley and Victorville experience relatively high access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, though Apple Valley residents have slightly better access than their counterparts in Victorville. In comparison, the population in the region has much less access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, and access varies significantly by race/ethnicity. Asian/Pacific Islander residents of the region have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods, with an index value of 35.12. Asian/Pacific Islander residents living below the poverty line are slightly worse off, with an index value of 34.87, the lowest of any population group in the region. Native American and White residents in the region
55 have the most access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods of any group, with index values of 49.9 and 48.02, respectively, though they still have less access than residents of Apple Valley and Victorville.
56 57
Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups have the least access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods?
The Environmental Health Index in Table 8 and Map 13 – Demographics and Environmental Health show that there is no significant disparity in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by race/ethnicity, national origin, or family status.
Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
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.
Apple Valley:
According to the above analysis, Apple Valley residents in general have relatively low access to high performing schools and employment opportunities, and relatively high exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods. However, the analysis indicates that Black and Hispanic residents (especially those living below the poverty line), residents of Mexican origin, and families with children, are least likely to live in neighborhoods with high performing schools, high labor force participation, and high levels of human capital. These groups are also more likely to live in neighborhoods where they are exposed to poverty.
These same challenges are all present in Census tract 0097.16, which is the R/ECAP tract located in the center of the jurisdiction. This part of the jurisdiction has relatively low performing schools, low levels of labor force participation and human capital, and high levels of poverty.
The analysis shows that Black residents, families with children, and residents born in Mexico disproportionately reside in this R/ECAP.
Victorville:
According to the above analysis, all Victorville residents, regardless of protected class status, have relatively low access to high-performing schools, relatively low access to neighborhoods with high labor force participation and human capital, and relatively high exposure to poverty in their neighborhoods. However, there is evidence that different protected class groups face specific challenges regarding access to opportunities and exposure to adverse community factors.
For example:
• Native Americans, particularly those living below the poverty line, appear to be least successful in accessing employment in Victorville. According to ACS data, Native Americans have the lowest labor force participation rate and the highest unemployment rate of any group.
• Asian/Pacific Islander residents have slightly less access to public transit and face slightly higher transportation costs, which may be related to the fact that more residents of
58 Filipino, Indian, Vietnamese, and Korean origin live outside the areas with the best access to public transit and the lowest costs, than live inside those areas. • Hispanic residents, residents born in Mexico, and families with children disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Analysis
Which groups 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?
For the 2022 Consolidated Plan (ConPlan), the Apple Valley-Victorville HOME Consortium analyzed 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data to determine if racial/ethnic groups at various income levels disproportionately experience any of the following four housing problems:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household lacks a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator.
• Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household lacks hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower.
• Overcrowding: A household is considered overcrowded if there are more than 1.01 people per room.
• Cost burden: A household is considered cost burdened if the household pays more than 30 percent of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
According to the analysis in the ConPlan, at least one racial/ethnic group is disproportionately impacted by one or more of four housing problems in all income levels. Disproportionate impact means that a particular group is more likely to experience housing problems when compared to the population as a whole. As the chart below shows, among households in Apple Valley and Victorville that earn up to the area median income (0-100% of AMI), Black, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households are more likely than other households to experience at least one of the four housing problems listed above. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Black households, 100% of Pacific Islander households, and 77% of Hispanic households experience at least one housing problem.
In comparison, 63% of White households and 69% of Asian households experience at least one housing problem.
59 Sources: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, American Community Survey 2013- 2017 5- Year Estimates
The 2022 ConPlan also analyzes the disproportionate impact of severe housing problems by race/ethnicity. Similar to housing problems, severe housing problems are defined as:
• Lacks complete kitchen facilities: Household does not have a stove/oven and refrigerator. • Lacks complete plumbing facilities: Household does not have running water or modern toilets.
• Severe overcrowding: A household is considered severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 people per room.
• Severe cost burden: A household is considered severely cost burdened if the household pays more than 50 percent of its total income for housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
The chart below shows that, among Apple Valley and Victorville households that earn up to the area median income (0-100% of AMI), Hispanic households are more likely than others to experience at least one of the four severe housing problems listed above. Forty-six percent (46%) of Hispanic households experience at least one severe housing problem. In comparison, 31% of White households, 25% of Black households, 34% of Asian households, and 0% of Pacific Islander households experience at least one severe housing problem.
60 Sources: 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, American Community Survey 2013- 2017 5- Year Estimates
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?
Map 6 – Housing Problems is a series of maps showing concentrations of households experiencing one or more housing burdens and population distribution by race/ethnicity and national origin, for Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region. On these maps, areas with darker shading have a higher percentage of households experiencing at least one housing burden.
Housing burdens in this context are the following: cost burden, defined as paying more than 30% of income for monthly housing costs including utilities; overcrowding; lacking a complete kitchen; and lacking plumbing.
Apple Valley:
The maps show that the northern and southeastern parts of Apple Valley have higher concentrations of families experiencing one or more of these housing burdens, compared to other neighborhoods. Census tract 0097.10, in the southeast, has the highest concentration of households with housing burdens. In that area, 56.48% of households have at least one of the four housing burdens.
These maps also show there is no apparent concentration of specific racial/ethnic or national origin groups in the areas with high or low concentrations of housing burdens.
Victorville:
Map 6 shows that the southeastern part of Victorville has a higher concentration of families experiencing housing burdens than most other areas of the city. In these areas, which include two R/ECAPs, over 50% of families experience at least one housing burden. Census tract 0091.16, portions of which are in northwest Victorville, over 60% of families experience at least one housing burden. This Census tract is classified as a R/ECAP. The maps do not show any
61 concentrations of specific race/ethnic or national origin groups in the areas with more housing burdens.
Region:
In the region, there are high concentrations of families experiencing one or more of these housing burdens to the near west of Apple Valley/Victorville, as well as farther to the northwest and south. Based on the scale of these maps, it is difficult to determine whether there are specific racial/ethnic or national origin groups concentrated in the areas with more housing burdens.
62 63
64 Describe the differences in rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in the jurisdiction and region.
Table 11 – Homeownership and Rental Rates by Race/Ethnicity, below, shows the percentages of households that are renters and homeowners by race/ethnicity, for Apple Valley, Victorville, and the region.
Apple Valley:
In Apple Valley, 65% of all households own their home, however there are significant disparities by race/ethnicity. The homeownership rate for Asian/Pacific Islander residents in Apple Valley is highest, at 80%. White households have a comparable homeownership rate of 71%. However, only 54% of Native Americans and Hispanic households own their home. For Black households, the homeownership rate is even lower, at 49%.
Victorville:
In Victorville, 54% of all households own their home and there are significant disparities by race/ethnicity. The homeownership rate for Asian/Pacific Islander residents in Apple Valley is highest, at 73%. White, Non-Hispanic households have the second highest homeownership rate, at 62%. Hispanic and Native American households have significantly lower homeownership rates, of 55% and 58%, respectively. Black households have the lowest rate of homeownership in the city: only 29% of Black households own their home.
Comparison Across Jurisdictions and to the Region:
Victorville residents in general are less likely to own their own home than residents of Apple Valley. Similar disparities by race/ethnicity are present in both jurisdictions. Black households are least likely to own their home, and Asian/Pacific Islander households, followed by White, Non-Hispanic households, are most likely to be homeowners.
In the region, the overall homeownership rate (62%) is slightly lower than Apple Valley’s but higher than Victorville’s. Disparities by race/ethnicity are also present in the region and align with the disparities present in Apple Valley and Victorville. Homeownership rates for White and Asian/Pacific Islander households are highest in the region (71% and 70%, respectively.
Homeownership rates for Black households in the region are the lowest, at 42%, which is still significantly higher than the Black homeownership rate in Victorville. The homeownership rate for Native Americans households is 52% and for Hispanic households it is 56%.
CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT B
Citizen Participation Plan
CITY OF VICTORVILLE - CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
Amended: May 5, 2020 (Amendments Underlined)
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1997, the City of Victorville (the “City”) has received an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2003, the City formed a HOME Investment Partnership Program Consortium with the Town of Apple Valley (the “HOME Consortium”) in order to meet the threshold of obtaining HOME entitlement status with HUD. The City receives both CDBG and HOME funding annually.
As an Entitlement City, the City is required to prepare and adopt a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The Con Plan is a plan of three to five years in length, which reviews and considers the housing and community development needs of the City, establishes priorities for CDBG and HOME funds, creates and institutes an Annual Action Plan (AP) for meeting current and future needs, and identifies the City’s performance in meeting its annual goals through the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER).
The AFH replaces the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) to assist the City in identifying fair housing issues and related contributing factors to achieve comprehensive community development goals and affirmatively further fair housing. The Con Plan, A P Plan and AFH are also required to have a strategy for resident and citizen participation in the planning process. According to 24 CFR § 91.105 and as a condition of federal funding , the City must adopt and follow a Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) describing how the City will encourage participation from residents and citizens of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities and special needs to provide them with equal access in the development of the Con Plan, A P and AFH, and to ensure their issues and concerns are adequately addressed. Participation shall include community-based and regionally-based organizations that represent and assist protected class members and organizations that enforce fair housing laws.
II. PURPOSE OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
The purpose of the CPP is to provide the method and process by which the City’s Con Plan, AP and AFH processes will comply with the citizen participation requirements set forth by HUD pursuant to 24 CFR §
91.105 and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule (24 CFR §§ 5.150 through 5.180). This CPP states the process of soliciting the views and recommendations from the public, as well as the process for incorporating public comments and views into the objectives and outcomes developed in the Con Plan, AP, and AFH. This CPP and the participation process shall be implemented and monitored by the City’s Development Department.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF AFH, CON PLAN, AP, AND CAPER; SUBSEQUENT
REVISIONS AND SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS
Introductory Note. The citizen participation processes and procedures associated with each of the planning documents/reports discussed in this Section are detailed in Section V of this CPP and further described in tabular format on page 5 (the “Summary Table”).
2 Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). The AFH is required every five years prior to the preparation of the Con Plan. When preparing an AFH , the City will make HUD -provided data and other supplemental information available to interested citizens, residents, agencies and organizations in an effort to provide meaningful analyses of local fair housing conditions and issues. The City shall publish a notice announcing the availability of this data /information and requesting the views of the residents at a public hearing at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such hearing. In addition, prior to the City adopting and submitting the final AFH to HUD, at least one thirty (30) day public comment period will be provided (after publication of notice and the draft AFH) and a second public hearing will be noticed and held to obtain further citizen input. The City may choose to conduct this hearing in conjunction with one of the two required public hearings on the Con Plan.
AFH Revisions. Pursuant to 24 CFR §5.164, t he City shall consider an AFH previously accepted by HUD to require modification (“Revisions”) and re-submission to HUD in the following instances:
When the City’s circumstances change in a way that affects the information on which the AFH is based, to the extent that the analysis, the fair housing contributing factors, or the priorities and goals of the AFH are no longer applicable or reflect actual circumstances. Examples of changed circumstances include:
o Presidentially declared disasters affecting the City that significantly impact the steps the City may need to take to affirmatively further fair housing; o Significant changes in the City’s demographic;
o The occurrence of new significant contributing factors in the City’s jurisdiction o civil rights findings, determinations, settlements (including Voluntary Compliance Agreements) or court orders
Upon HUD’s written notification specifying a material change that requires the Revisions Revisions may not necessarily require the submission of an entirely new AFH. Revisions need only focus on the material change and appropriate adjustments to the analy ses, assessments, priorities, or goals.
AFH Revisions will be published and noticed for public comment and hearing (see Summary Table).
Consolidated Plan (C on Plan); Annual Action Plan (AP) . The Con Plan examines housing and community development needs, sets priorities for grant monies and establishes a strategic plan with specific measurable goals to address priority needs. Prior to adopting the Con Plan or AP, the City will make available to citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties:
The amount of assistance the City expects to receive; The range of activities that may be undertaken with such funds; The amount of funds proposed to be used for activities and the estimated benefit to low and moderate income persons; and
The City’s plans to minimize displacement of persons and what type of assistance will be made available to those persons displaced.
At least one (1) public hearing will be noticed and held during the development of the Con Plan and AP to receive public comment and incorporate citizen participation . In addition, a second public hearing regarding the contents of the Con Plan / AP will be noticed and conducted prior to the City’s adoption of these documents and submission to HUD. Notices of such public hearings will be published at least ten (10) days in advance or as specified in the Summary Table. At least thirty (30) days prior to adoption, copies of the proposed Con Plan, AP, and any Substantial Amendments (defined below) will be published by the City (made available for publ ic review) and a thirty (30) day public comment period will be noticed and provided. The City Manager or their designee may allow adjustments to public noticing, public hearing, and publishing requirements in conjunction with applicable waivers provided by HUD.
3 CAPER. At least fifteen (15) days prior to submission to HUD, copies of the CAPER will published and a like period of public comment will be noticed and provided.
Substantial Amendments . The occurrence of any of the following circumstances shal l require a modification of the Con Plan or AP (“Substantial Amendment”), which shall be noticed, heard, published for comment and adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section V of this CPP, as applicable:
A significant shift is proposed in allocation priorities, or a substantial change in the method of distributing funds;
An activity not included in the AP is proposed for funding; To use funds, including program income, not previously described in the Annual Action Plan; An activity included in the AP is proposed for elimination; The amount allocated to any activity is proposed to be increased or decreased from the amount described in the AP by more than 25%; or
Change in the location of the activity, target area, beneficiaries, eligibility c riteria, or general scope from that described in the AP.
IV. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS – OPPORTUNITIES AND PARTICIPATION Citizen Participation. Citizens and residents should be afforded the maximum feasible opportunity to :
provide input on housing and community development needs; address issues/problems affecting low- and moderate- income persons; learn about various programs available and the expected amount of assistance provided/allowed by each opportunity; develop local project proposals; give input to project selections and funding distributions; and participate in the implementation of funded activities. The procedures in this Section are designed to encourage persons of low and moderate income, particularly those per sons residing in slum and blighted and other City- targeted revitalization areas ; minorities; non-English speaking persons ; persons with disabilities ; persons with HIV/AIDS and their families ; and homeless persons to participate in the planning, implementat ion and assessment of the documents and reports described in this CPP . The City Manager or their designee may allow adjustments to the Public Participation process in conjunction with applicable waivers provided by HUD.
Organizational Participation. In developing and implementing the Con Plan and AFH, the City shall encourage participation of local and regional institutions and government agencies; public housing authorities, adjoining cities; Continuums of Care; and other organizations (including businesses, developers, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations, and community- based and faith- based organizations). In conjunction with consultation with public housing authorities, the City shall further encourage the residents of public and assisted housing developments, including their resident advisory boards, councils or management corporations, to participate in the development and implementation of the Con Plan and AFH. In addition to conducting required public hearings and providing public comment periods, the City will encourage citizen and organizational participation by conducting surveys, community outreach meetings, forming focus groups and engaging in other outreach processes. The City Manager or their designee may allow adjustments to the Organizational Participation process in conjunction with applicable waivers provided by HUD.
V. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS – PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES
Public Hearings and Comment Periods . Public hearings provide citizens, residents and organiz ations with opportunities to make oral and/or written comments on community needs and on the various planning documents described herein. Public hearings and other meetings shall be held at times and in locations convenient to potential and actual program beneficiaries. Providing time periods during which citizens, residents and other members of the public are given the opportunity to submit written and oral comments on draft documents published by the City (“Comment Period(s)”) , further facilitates
4 community input and feedback. The requirements for publishing notices of public hearings and Comment Periods, as well as publication of draft documents , are detailed below and further explained in the Summary Table.
Noticing Public Hearings . To ensure citizens, residents, and organizations are advised in advance of opportunities to attend and participate in public hearings, all public hearing notices shall adhere to the following unless otherwise waived by HUD and approved by the City Manager or their designee. Be published at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date (unless the public hearing notice is combined with a thirty (30) day public comment notice, in which case notice will be published at least thirty (30) days prior to the close of the public comment period and the date of the public hearing as further described in Noticing Public Comment Periods, below. Be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation (as legal notices and/or display ads)
Be prepared in a language other than English when a significant number of non- English residents can reasonably expected to participate
Include the time, date and place of the hearing, a descript ion of the subject/purpose of the hearing, and where associated documents (if applicable) are posted or may otherwise be obtained Include information on how to request special accommodations Be posted on the City’s website ( https://www.victorvilleca.gov/government/legally-required- postings) on or before the date of publication
Be subject to the provision of additional forms of notice, including: posting and/or distributing notices at community locations such as the public library, hospitals, other public agency locations, specified locations at Victorville City Hall and in targe t neighborhoods; sending electronic mail to the EDDHD’s list of interested persons; and creation and distribution of supplemental flyers and/or mailers
Noticing Public Comment Periods . Comment Periods may be included in public hearing notices (provided the applicable advance comment period is accounted for). Comment Period notices shall adhere to the following unless otherwise waived by HUD and approved by the City Manager or their designee.
Be published prior to the commencement date of the applicable Comment Period Be published, prepared and posted in the manner provided for Noticing Public Hearings, above In cases where a public hearing is noticed in conjunction with a required Comment Period, provide for a Comment Period that ends prior to the date of the public hearing Include the time, date and place of any associated public hearing and how to request reasonable accommodations
Include the beginning and ending dates of the Comment Period; how and where comments may be submitted; a brief description of the subject matter/purpose of the document or item on which comment is being sought; a summary of the item or content of the documents; how/where full copies of any document(s) may be obtained; and the date the City Council will consider the approval of the item or document(s)
Be posted on the City’s website, various locations in and around City Hall, and in such other places as specified in Noticing Public Hearings, above
Publication of Draft Planning Documents . Notices of public hearings and Comment Periods shall contain summaries of the contents of any draft documents being provided for public review and comment (e.g., the AFH, Con Plan, AP and Revisions or Substantial Amendments). All such draft documents will be made available to members of the public “published” by the City by providing copies on its website, at City Hall, and in such other places as shall be specified in each applicable public hearing or Comment Period notice. Such notices will also contain instructions on how the public may request such documents in alternative formats for persons with disabilities.
5 Technical Assistance. Development Department staff will meet with groups or individuals representative of persons of low - and moderate -income upon request to provide them with technical assistance in commenting on the AFH, identifying specific needs, and/or developing/preparing project proposal applications for programs covered by the Con Plan.
6 Summary Table
Publication of Notices of Public Hearings and Comment Periods Document Publication of Public Hearing (PH) and
Comment Period (CP) Notices†
Minimum Number of
Public Hearings; Timing†
Comment
Period (CP)†
Con Plan /AP
PH Notice - At least 10 days†† prior to PH date
CP Notice - At least 30 days prior to date set
for close of CP and after draft(s) published. If
combined with PH Notice, CP Notice
publication must occur at least 30 days prior to
both the close of the CP and the PH date.
PH Notice - At least 10 days prior to PH date
(if noticed separately after earlier publication of
CP Notice)
First Hearing:
Prior to drafting Con
Plan/AP
Second Hearing:
After publication of Con
Plan/AP draft and close of
CP
N/A
30 days
Substantial
Amendments
to Con Plan /
AP
CP Notice - At least 30 days prior to date set
for close of CP and after draft(s) published. If
combined with PH Notice, CP Notice
publication must occur at least 30 days prior to
both the close of the CP and the PH date.
PH Notice - At least 10 days prior to PH date
(if noticed separately after earlier publication of
CP Notice)
One Hearing:
After publication of
Substantial Amendments
and close of CP
30 days
AFH
PH Notice - At least 10 days prior to PH date
CP Notice - At least 30 days prior to date set
for close of CP and after draft(s) published. If
combined with PH Notice, CP Notice
publication must occur at least 30 days prior to
both the close of the CP and the PH date.
PH Notice - At least 10 days prior to PH date
(if noticed separately after earlier publication of
CP Notice)
First Hearing:
After publication of HUD-
provided and other data
Second Hearing:
After publication of AFH
draft and close of CP (may
be combined with second
Con Plan hearing after
initial adoption of AFH)
N/A
30 days
AFH
Revisions
CP Notice - At least 30 days prior to date set
for close of CP and after draft(s) published. If
combined with PH Notice, CP Notice
publication must occur at least 30 days prior to
both the close of the CP and the PH date.
PH Notice - At least 10 days prior to PH date
(if noticed separately after earlier publication of
CP Notice)
One Hearing:
After publication of draft
Revisions and close of CP
30 days
CAPER
CP Notice - At least 15 days prior to CP close
Not required
15 days
† All required noticing requirements, mandatory public hearings, and comment periods can be adjusted in accordance with any waivers provided by HUD, as approved by the City Manager or their designee. †† All references days in this Summary table refer to calendar days
7 Consideration of Public Comments/Views. Prior to adopting the AFH, Con Plan, AP, CAPER and/or Revisions or Substantial Amendments, the City will consider any comments/view received from citizens and residents ( individuals or groups representing their interests) in writing during Comment Periods, or orally during public hearing(s). Such comments/views shall be summarized and attached to the final versions of the AFH, Con Plan, AP, any Revisions or Substantial Amendments, and the CAPE R as applicable.
Questions and Complaints. Development Department staff will answer all questions received from residents or their representative groups in the manner in which the questions were posed ( e.g., verbal responses to verbal requests, written responses to written requests). Written complaints and grievances received from residents or their representative groups relating to the Con Plan, AP, CAPER, AFH, and/or any Substantial Amendments or Revisions , shall be substantively responded to by Development Department staff within fifteen (15) working days of receipt, where practicable.
Access to / Availability of Records . The City will provide residents of the community, public agencies and other interested parties with reasonable and timely access to the AFH, Con Plan, AP, CAPER, CPP, all Substantial Amendments or Revisions, and information/records related to these documents (including the use of assistance under the CDBG and HOME programs for the preceding five (5) years) by:
Maintaining copies at City Hall for public inspection and m aking a reasonable number of copies (paper or electronic) of the AFH , Con Plan and CPP available to residents and other groups that request them free of charge
Making copies of other documents and records available in accordance with the California Public Records Act (direct costs of duplication may apply) Posting these documents and related information on the City’s website Maintaining copies of the final versions of the AFH, Con Plan, AP, CAPER and CPP on the City’s website, at City Hall and at the City’s Public Library Providing such documents and records in an accessible format for persons with disabilities, upon forty-eight (48) hours’ advance request
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Accessibility. In compliance with the ADA, if special assistance to participate in public hearings and/or community or consultation meetings is needed, individuals should contact Development Department staff forty-eight ( 48) hours prior to the meeting or public hearing to ensure that the City will be able to make reasonable arrangements. Examples of assistance provided may include the following:
Auxiliary aids and services to communicate with people who have communication disabilities, such as providing a qualified reader; providing information on large print; or providing an audio recording of printed information for individuals who are blind, have vision loss, or are deaf-blind.
A “qualified” reader means someone who is able to read effectively, accurately, and impartially, using any necessary specialized vocabulary;
For people who are de af, have hearing loss, or are deaf -blind, the City may provide a qualified notetaker; a qualified sign language interpreter; written materials; or a printed script of a stock speech (such as given on a museum or historic house tour). A “qualified” interpre ter means someone who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively ( i.e., understanding what the person with the disability is saying) and expressively (i.e., having the skill needed to convey information back to that person) using any necessary specialized vocabulary.
In addition, persons with disabilities may bring a “companion” to assist them. The term “companion” includes any family member, friend, or associate of a person who is an appropriate person with whom the City should communicate. Public hearings and other m eetings shall be held in areas that are handicap accessible and other accommodations shall be made upon request as noted above.
8 HUD Waivers. Should HUD temporarily suspend/adjust/waive any of the required noticing, comment or participation processes discussed herein regarding the development , review, or amendment of applicable assessments/plans, the City Manager or their designee may approve the application of any such waiver based upon a unique circumstance such as natural disaster, national emergency, state emergency, local emergency, major disaster declaration, etc. that necessitates the use of the waiver provided.
Review, Amendment and Availability of Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) . Prior to its adoption by the City Council, this CCP was made available for public review and comment and at least one public hearing was held. Future Substantial Amendments to the CPP will utilize the public hearing and Comment Period associated with the adoption of Substantial Amendments to the Con Plan.
Amended: May 5, 2020 (Amendments Underlined)
9 Community & Regionally Based Organizations
CHC California Housing Consortium
National Crime Prevention Council
National Coalition for the Homeless
Shelter Network
Latin-American Association
NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People- California Branch NARF Native American Rights Fund
NOMAR National Organization for Mexican-American Rights Big Brothers Big Sisters
California Coalition for Youth
California Youth Advocacy Network
Americans United for Life
California Public Health Association – North
Department of Employment & Human Services
Department of Behavioral Health – San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership High Desert Homeless Services, Inc.
Victor Valley Domestic Violence, Inc.
Moses House Ministries
Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino
San Bernardino Sexual Assault Servicies
Victor Valley Community Services Council
CITY COUNCIL
ATTACHMENT C
2024-2025
CDBG/HOME Allocations
Item Number: 2
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: March 4, 2025
Submitted By:
Carmen Cun, Finance Director / City Treasurer
Subject:
Payroll Demand Schedule No. 6A
Recommendation:
That the City Council and Board of Directors ratify Payroll Demand Schedule No. 6A for Payroll Period November 22, 2024, through December 6, 2024, in the amount of $2,376,147.35 covering Check Nos. 34396 through 34411, including Vendor checks.
Please note employee Check No. 34397 has a Live Check and an EFT. Also included are Advice Nos. 322013 through 322564, per adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (period covering July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025).
Fiscal Impact:
A total fiscal impact of $2,376,147.35 is authorized with this action. The attached report details the payments by check numbers.
Discussion:
I hereby certify that the claims or demands covered by the attached list of warrants have been audited as to the accuracy and availability of funds for payment thereof and that said claims or demands are accurate and the funds are available for payment thereof.
Attachments: A. Payroll Report PPE 120624
Attachment A
Payroll Report PPE 120624
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 1 of 16 12/13/2024 Total Net
$371.05
$399.03
$1,164.58
$644.10
$2,703.73
$1,772.00
$944.40
$1,215.10
$745.92
$5.00
$67.00
$100.00
$50.00
$50.00
$422.31
$175.00
10,829.22
Checks
City of Victorville
City Council Payroll Report
Payroll Period Beginning: November 22, 2024 through December 06, 2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date
34396 3466 12/13/2024
34397 3940 12/13/2024
34398 3943 12/13/2024
34399 3944 12/13/2024
34400 3853 12/13/2024
34401 3942 12/13/2024
34402 3939 12/13/2024
34403 3791 12/13/2024
34404 3678 12/13/2024
34405 240 12/13/2024
34406 1182 12/13/2024
34407 1182 12/13/2024
34408 1182 12/13/2024
34409 1182 12/13/2024
34410 13491 12/13/2024
34411 18154 12/13/2024
Checks Total
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 2 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
34397 3940 12/13/2024 $399.03
322013 3396 12/13/2024 $2,360.14
322014 1099 12/13/2024 $1,121.31
322015 3243 12/13/2024 $5,713.12
322016 2115 12/13/2024 $5,985.49
322017 3502 12/13/2024 $2,733.32
322018 3142 12/13/2024 $1,810.03
322019 3640 12/13/2024 $2,022.40
322020 3527 12/13/2024 $2,144.50
322021 3297 12/13/2024 $754.67
322022 3551 12/13/2024 $677.43
322023 3458 12/13/2024 $343.38
322024 3229 12/13/2024 $5,268.12
322025 3290 12/13/2024 $2,331.27
322026 1064 12/13/2024 $7,393.74
322027 3467 12/13/2024 $2,447.78
322028 3909 12/13/2024 $2,060.37
322029 1706 12/13/2024 $4,328.37
322030 2395 12/13/2024 $4,221.41
322031 3764 12/13/2024 $2,579.86
322032 2211 12/13/2024 $5,671.26
322033 3747 12/13/2024 $1,996.86
322034 3625 12/13/2024 $1,605.86
322035 2624 12/13/2024 $2,933.41
322036 3043 12/13/2024 $2,388.74
322037 3403 12/13/2024 $2,096.47
322038 1748 12/13/2024 $2,530.47
322039 3848 12/13/2024 $1,765.87
322040 3913 12/13/2024 $2,133.33
322041 3019 12/13/2024 $5,116.27
322042 3638 12/13/2024 $5,100.35
322043 3561 12/13/2024 $2,683.61
322044 3920 12/13/2024 $2,298.66
322045 3630 12/13/2024 $2,026.12
322046 2366 12/13/2024 $1,954.45
322047 2603 12/13/2024 $1,876.39
322048 3750 12/13/2024 $2,197.64
322049 3835 12/13/2024 $2,263.36
322050 3521 12/13/2024 $2,674.83
322051 2093 12/13/2024 $1,649.00
322052 2019 12/13/2024 $2,745.87
322053 3753 12/13/2024 $2,857.04
322054 3915 12/13/2024 $4,254.79
322055 3917 12/13/2024 $2,056.19
Advices
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 3 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322056 3744 12/13/2024 $2,478.39
322057 2606 12/13/2024 $2,442.46
322058 3660 12/13/2024 $1,693.96
322059 3914 12/13/2024 $2,287.64
322060 1635 12/13/2024 $13,466.98
322061 3327 12/13/2024 $2,393.88
322062 3752 12/13/2024 $2,228.75
322063 3912 12/13/2024 $1,666.44
322064 3911 12/13/2024 $1,949.13
322065 2618 12/13/2024 $2,399.97
322066 3845 12/13/2024 $3,416.29
322067 2619 12/13/2024 $2,440.85
322068 2491 12/13/2024 $2,379.91
322069 2235 12/13/2024 $1,438.32
322070 3916 12/13/2024 $2,464.60
322071 3889 12/13/2024 $1,758.89
322072 3045 12/13/2024 $2,440.07
322073 3755 12/13/2024 $2,055.11
322074 3608 12/13/2024 $4,110.13
322075 3758 12/13/2024 $3,486.72
322076 3817 12/13/2024 $1,924.27
322077 3362 12/13/2024 $2,490.30
322078 2297 12/13/2024 $2,202.16
322079 2232 12/13/2024 $2,806.60
322080 1957 12/13/2024 $2,946.25
322081 3809 12/13/2024 $1,761.67
322082 3246 12/13/2024 $3,609.17
322083 2042 12/13/2024 $5,148.81
322084 3714 12/13/2024 $2,002.71
322085 3742 12/13/2024 $2,127.11
322086 3849 12/13/2024 $3,983.27
322087 3863 12/13/2024 $2,061.37
322088 3879 12/13/2024 $2,082.63
322089 3846 12/13/2024 $3,815.77
322090 3697 12/13/2024 $5,589.82
322091 3868 12/13/2024 $3,068.52
322092 2102 12/13/2024 $3,418.37
322093 2233 12/13/2024 $4,614.66
322094 3653 12/13/2024 $2,493.55
322095 3865 12/13/2024 $1,916.82
322096 2032 12/13/2024 $3,681.35
322097 3869 12/13/2024 $2,022.91
322098 3499 12/13/2024 $2,587.70
322099 3924 12/13/2024 $3,520.06
322100 3867 12/13/2024 $2,115.35
322101 2323 12/13/2024 $3,626.90
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 4 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322102 1767 12/13/2024 $2,892.39
322103 3508 12/13/2024 $2,496.70
322104 3740 12/13/2024 $1,667.80
322105 2225 12/13/2024 $4,402.32
322106 3544 12/13/2024 $2,187.82
322107 3221 12/13/2024 $2,725.21
322108 3627 12/13/2024 $3,236.22
322109 3757 12/13/2024 $3,657.95
322110 1533 12/13/2024 $2,353.35
322111 2833 12/13/2024 $2,409.00
322112 3700 12/13/2024 $2,246.83
322113 3652 12/13/2024 $2,387.81
322114 1426 12/13/2024 $1,232.69
322115 3703 12/13/2024 $2,286.24
322116 2254 12/13/2024 $3,101.61
322117 3618 12/13/2024 $2,242.38
322118 3354 12/13/2024 $3,972.51
322119 3623 12/13/2024 $1,472.47
322120 3400 12/13/2024 $2,865.50
322121 3547 12/13/2024 $1,324.19
322122 3933 12/13/2024 $1,142.27
322123 3673 12/13/2024 $1,350.06
322124 3702 12/13/2024 $2,149.28
322125 2742 12/13/2024 $2,926.17
322126 3934 12/13/2024 $4,348.10
322127 3746 12/13/2024 $2,142.03
322128 3089 12/13/2024 $3,432.16
322129 3641 12/13/2024 $2,071.56
322130 3672 12/13/2024 $1,472.47
322131 3854 12/13/2024 $2,473.75
322132 3634 12/13/2024 $2,975.48
322133 3805 12/13/2024 $2,266.43
322134 2249 12/13/2024 $5,051.51
322135 3650 12/13/2024 $1,737.16
322136 3938 12/13/2024 $912.06
322137 3876 12/13/2024 $2,603.76
322138 3663 12/13/2024 $1,801.70
322139 3541 12/13/2024 $3,663.25
322140 2499 12/13/2024 $3,869.48
322141 3379 12/13/2024 $3,208.55
322142 3694 12/13/2024 $2,649.88
322143 3737 12/13/2024 $2,576.23
322144 2105 12/13/2024 $4,975.30
322145 3474 12/13/2024 $2,952.87
322146 2515 12/13/2024 $3,146.52
322147 3636 12/13/2024 $2,810.60
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 5 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322148 2679 12/13/2024 $2,771.19
322149 3490 12/13/2024 $2,658.08
322150 3475 12/13/2024 $2,670.41
322151 2181 12/13/2024 $5,288.36
322152 3353 12/13/2024 $2,902.18
322153 3735 12/13/2024 $2,925.55
322154 3930 12/13/2024 $1,269.64
322155 3880 12/13/2024 $1,401.20
322156 3542 12/13/2024 $3,103.07
322157 3731 12/13/2024 $2,407.89
322158 1955 12/13/2024 $3,414.67
322159 3719 12/13/2024 $2,245.24
322160 1632 12/13/2024 $2,408.36
322161 3941 12/13/2024 $502.00
322162 3736 12/13/2024 $2,894.08
322163 3692 12/13/2024 $2,667.93
322164 3147 12/13/2024 $3,226.10
322165 3881 12/13/2024 $1,228.73
322166 3732 12/13/2024 $2,894.43
322167 3148 12/13/2024 $2,805.88
322168 3808 12/13/2024 $4,048.33
322169 3195 12/13/2024 $2,256.10
322170 3884 12/13/2024 $1,228.73
322171 3626 12/13/2024 $2,589.74
322172 3602 12/13/2024 $3,483.28
322173 3112 12/13/2024 $1,954.59
322174 1970 12/13/2024 $2,525.52
322175 3185 12/13/2024 $2,537.20
322176 1520 12/13/2024 $12,528.92
322177 2605 12/13/2024 $2,347.93
322178 3505 12/13/2024 $5,843.57
322179 2540 12/13/2024 $8,080.49
322180 2377 12/13/2024 $2,806.54
322181 1079 12/13/2024 $2,695.57
322182 2259 12/13/2024 $3,930.78
322183 2312 12/13/2024 $2,379.22
322184 3510 12/13/2024 $2,657.69
322185 3637 12/13/2024 $2,726.07
322186 3628 12/13/2024 $2,426.87
322187 3068 12/13/2024 $2,098.13
322188 3633 12/13/2024 $2,894.49
322189 3129 12/13/2024 $3,575.31
322190 3816 12/13/2024 $2,954.26
322191 1998 12/13/2024 $2,966.48
322192 2111 12/13/2024 $2,438.11
322193 3543 12/13/2024 $2,093.96
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 6 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322194 3303 12/13/2024 $4,056.48
322195 3802 12/13/2024 $2,702.22
322196 3558 12/13/2024 $2,864.82
322197 1655 12/13/2024 $6,683.48
322198 3361 12/13/2024 $2,553.69
322199 3285 12/13/2024 $2,965.37
322200 1529 12/13/2024 $1,996.05
322201 3346 12/13/2024 $2,197.49
322202 1776 12/13/2024 $3,260.74
322203 2600 12/13/2024 $2,700.66
322204 3192 12/13/2024 $2,156.22
322205 2655 12/13/2024 $1,720.49
322206 3393 12/13/2024 $2,054.78
322207 3749 12/13/2024 $1,957.13
322208 2798 12/13/2024 $2,490.45
322209 2522 12/13/2024 $1,755.91
322210 3265 12/13/2024 $2,143.03
322211 2339 12/13/2024 $2,252.59
322212 3878 12/13/2024 $3,360.80
322213 1503 12/13/2024 $3,192.29
322214 2505 12/13/2024 $3,321.36
322215 3113 12/13/2024 $2,003.33
322216 3273 12/13/2024 $2,310.95
322217 1497 12/13/2024 $3,285.75
322218 3537 12/13/2024 $3,047.07
322219 2192 12/13/2024 $1,885.23
322220 3513 12/13/2024 $2,305.96
322221 3685 12/13/2024 $1,814.31
322222 2034 12/13/2024 $2,307.31
322223 3380 12/13/2024 $2,467.72
322224 3852 12/13/2024 $1,445.32
322225 3051 12/13/2024 $2,707.17
322226 1750 12/13/2024 $2,399.31
322227 2770 12/13/2024 $1,963.08
322228 2228 12/13/2024 $4,086.53
322229 3827 12/13/2024 $3,254.59
322230 3726 12/13/2024 $2,105.87
322231 3748 12/13/2024 $2,349.65
322232 3101 12/13/2024 $2,708.38
322233 3335 12/13/2024 $2,297.90
322234 3284 12/13/2024 $2,814.49
322235 3840 12/13/2024 $2,383.58
322236 3621 12/13/2024 $1,807.93
322237 2248 12/13/2024 $2,038.86
322238 3622 12/13/2024 $1,955.26
322239 1588 12/13/2024 $2,236.07
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 7 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322240 3788 12/13/2024 $1,677.84
322241 2189 12/13/2024 $2,633.41
322242 3560 12/13/2024 $1,887.95
322243 3509 12/13/2024 $1,989.25
322244 3226 12/13/2024 $1,693.53
322245 1121 12/13/2024 $2,588.54
322246 3149 12/13/2024 $2,354.08
322247 1865 12/13/2024 $2,247.37
322248 3479 12/13/2024 $1,796.44
322249 1723 12/13/2024 $2,146.41
322250 3296 12/13/2024 $2,563.70
322251 3707 12/13/2024 $1,981.96
322252 2531 12/13/2024 $3,059.65
322253 1513 12/13/2024 $1,817.13
322254 3283 12/13/2024 $3,318.25
322255 2118 12/13/2024 $1,258.35
322256 3387 12/13/2024 $1,804.24
322257 3330 12/13/2024 $2,224.28
322258 2681 12/13/2024 $3,960.11
322259 1612 12/13/2024 $2,244.91
322260 3610 12/13/2024 $1,818.71
322261 3277 12/13/2024 $2,197.58
322262 3287 12/13/2024 $2,102.46
322263 3037 12/13/2024 $2,298.82
322264 1449 12/13/2024 $3,572.06
322265 2677 12/13/2024 $5,606.88
322266 3688 12/13/2024 $1,831.36
322267 3341 12/13/2024 $2,074.22
322268 1137 12/13/2024 $2,691.48
322269 2383 12/13/2024 $2,024.72
322270 3687 12/13/2024 $1,721.30
322271 3130 12/13/2024 $1,895.48
322272 2489 12/13/2024 $1,723.79
322273 3733 12/13/2024 $1,749.45
322274 3624 12/13/2024 $2,334.88
322275 3139 12/13/2024 $1,714.66
322276 3099 12/13/2024 $3,012.65
322277 2696 12/13/2024 $4,381.10
322278 3536 12/13/2024 $2,968.38
322279 3722 12/13/2024 $1,987.15
322280 1254 12/13/2024 $2,086.63
322281 3187 12/13/2024 $811.64
322282 3804 12/13/2024 $2,559.90
322283 2368 12/13/2024 $2,212.26
322284 3100 12/13/2024 $3,076.19
322285 3796 12/13/2024 $1,632.29
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 8 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322286 1338 12/13/2024 $6,698.88
322287 2229 12/13/2024 $1,878.82
322288 1049 12/13/2024 $2,405.73
322289 3586 12/13/2024 $2,136.41
322290 1506 12/13/2024 $2,007.11
322291 3004 12/13/2024 $2,281.99
322292 1932 12/13/2024 $1,988.10
322293 3279 12/13/2024 $1,975.50
322294 2460 12/13/2024 $2,058.09
322295 3874 12/13/2024 $1,893.44
322296 3671 12/13/2024 $2,124.46
322297 2732 12/13/2024 $1,870.20
322298 3338 12/13/2024 $1,690.74
322299 2552 12/13/2024 $2,239.93
322300 2476 12/13/2024 $3,711.87
322301 2279 12/13/2024 $2,488.05
322302 3515 12/13/2024 $6,110.73
322303 3092 12/13/2024 $3,155.38
322304 3836 12/13/2024 $2,123.81
322305 3138 12/13/2024 $3,265.53
322306 3146 12/13/2024 $3,028.20
322307 2590 12/13/2024 $2,398.69
322308 2748 12/13/2024 $2,043.04
322309 3709 12/13/2024 $2,837.97
322310 2669 12/13/2024 $3,426.81
322311 2623 12/13/2024 $2,073.15
322312 2637 12/13/2024 $2,347.16
322313 2638 12/13/2024 $2,884.36
322314 3803 12/13/2024 $2,103.01
322315 3109 12/13/2024 $2,815.07
322316 2671 12/13/2024 $2,999.04
322317 2593 12/13/2024 $2,773.57
322318 3328 12/13/2024 $2,509.45
322319 3461 12/13/2024 $2,025.90
322320 2626 12/13/2024 $1,866.11
322321 3937 12/13/2024 $2,022.60
322322 3038 12/13/2024 $2,931.02
322323 3052 12/13/2024 $1,996.16
322324 2290 12/13/2024 $2,054.38
322325 3716 12/13/2024 $1,946.80
322326 3110 12/13/2024 $2,780.34
322327 2641 12/13/2024 $2,017.47
322328 2612 12/13/2024 $2,512.72
322329 3698 12/13/2024 $1,536.86
322330 2642 12/13/2024 $3,807.39
322331 3705 12/13/2024 $2,414.43
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 9 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322332 3331 12/13/2024 $1,746.94
322333 2674 12/13/2024 $2,119.82
322334 3231 12/13/2024 $2,455.24
322335 3228 12/13/2024 $3,612.29
322336 2628 12/13/2024 $2,669.33
322337 2630 12/13/2024 $2,627.20
322338 3182 12/13/2024 $2,803.70
322339 2599 12/13/2024 $2,320.18
322340 2683 12/13/2024 $2,246.12
322341 2753 12/13/2024 $2,655.18
322342 2610 12/13/2024 $3,662.52
322343 3323 12/13/2024 $1,880.34
322344 1389 12/13/2024 $3,999.11
322345 2808 12/13/2024 $1,984.42
322346 2646 12/13/2024 $3,888.84
322347 3617 12/13/2024 $2,672.99
322348 2524 12/13/2024 $2,876.73
322349 2686 12/13/2024 $2,264.49
322350 2193 12/13/2024 $2,314.92
322351 3322 12/13/2024 $2,730.21
322352 3629 12/13/2024 $2,697.38
322353 3230 12/13/2024 $3,540.01
322354 2038 12/13/2024 $1,740.93
322355 2678 12/13/2024 $4,019.99
322356 3240 12/13/2024 $2,673.08
322357 3743 12/13/2024 $1,904.89
322358 3215 12/13/2024 $2,872.25
322359 3140 12/13/2024 $2,327.54
322360 3035 12/13/2024 $1,953.26
322361 3651 12/13/2024 $2,317.69
322362 3769 12/13/2024 $474.03
322363 3299 12/13/2024 $2,024.60
322364 3765 12/13/2024 $167.31
322365 1853 12/13/2024 $2,881.92
322366 3729 12/13/2024 $1,704.95
322367 2343 12/13/2024 $1,561.28
322368 3821 12/13/2024 $1,283.27
322369 3497 12/13/2024 $1,804.83
322370 3503 12/13/2024 $3,025.70
322371 3105 12/13/2024 $2,573.35
322372 3579 12/13/2024 $987.80
322373 3386 12/13/2024 $2,675.25
322374 3925 12/13/2024 $1,390.67
322375 3792 12/13/2024 $1,078.78
322376 3191 12/13/2024 $2,364.02
322377 3931 12/13/2024 $1,980.69
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 10 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322378 3922 12/13/2024 $1,617.77
322379 2488 12/13/2024 $1,021.56
322380 3496 12/13/2024 $1,270.06
322381 3120 12/13/2024 $1,038.84
322382 3778 12/13/2024 $306.73
322383 3482 12/13/2024 $1,925.73
322384 3611 12/13/2024 $1,298.11
322385 3724 12/13/2024 $853.42
322386 3011 12/13/2024 $2,055.66
322387 3768 12/13/2024 $274.86
322388 3580 12/13/2024 $1,569.51
322389 3873 12/13/2024 $1,922.12
322390 3270 12/13/2024 $2,021.55
322391 3263 12/13/2024 $1,966.86
322392 3795 12/13/2024 $1,243.42
322393 3252 12/13/2024 $2,726.97
322394 3295 12/13/2024 $1,965.97
322395 3257 12/13/2024 $2,123.61
322396 3184 12/13/2024 $4,031.90
322397 3927 12/13/2024 $1,390.67
322398 3070 12/13/2024 $1,288.80
322399 3657 12/13/2024 $979.40
322400 3689 12/13/2024 $1,810.79
322401 3288 12/13/2024 $1,890.06
322402 3767 12/13/2024 $358.51
322403 1866 12/13/2024 $3,016.23
322404 3572 12/13/2024 $1,457.09
322405 3664 12/13/2024 $768.04
322406 3936 12/13/2024 $514.74
322407 3772 12/13/2024 $239.00
322408 3766 12/13/2024 $366.47
322409 3918 12/13/2024 $855.17
322410 3822 12/13/2024 $1,283.27
322411 1282 12/13/2024 $3,550.86
322412 3481 12/13/2024 $2,025.67
322413 2379 12/13/2024 $2,853.65
322414 3655 12/13/2024 $907.96
322415 3813 12/13/2024 $853.44
322416 3656 12/13/2024 $803.92
322417 3789 12/13/2024 $4,538.63
322418 3793 12/13/2024 $1,283.27
322419 3903 12/13/2024 $207.14
322420 3775 12/13/2024 $111.53
322421 2478 12/13/2024 $1,138.22
322422 3919 12/13/2024 $851.81
322423 3882 12/13/2024 $1,283.27
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 11 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322424 1287 12/13/2024 $7,989.01
322425 3929 12/13/2024 $1,365.08
322426 3727 12/13/2024 $2,233.41
322427 2711 12/13/2024 $1,996.28
322428 3900 12/13/2024 $250.96
322429 3798 12/13/2024 $1,078.74
322430 3258 12/13/2024 $2,059.10
322431 3259 12/13/2024 $1,685.73
322432 3573 12/13/2024 $1,841.76
322433 3507 12/13/2024 $2,462.58
322434 3790 12/13/2024 $1,055.90
322435 3531 12/13/2024 $3,629.47
322436 3814 12/13/2024 $1,020.86
322437 3639 12/13/2024 $1,722.56
322438 3895 12/13/2024 $215.10
322439 3587 12/13/2024 $864.84
322440 3901 12/13/2024 $71.70
322441 3669 12/13/2024 $88.47
322442 3029 12/13/2024 $1,959.95
322443 3190 12/13/2024 $3,019.89
322444 1959 12/13/2024 $3,236.45
322445 3250 12/13/2024 $1,818.02
322446 3824 12/13/2024 $1,351.44
322447 3812 12/13/2024 $815.16
322448 3609 12/13/2024 $1,158.68
322449 3770 12/13/2024 $394.37
322450 3794 12/13/2024 $1,283.27
322451 3492 12/13/2024 $22.76
322452 3691 12/13/2024 $981.80
322453 3866 12/13/2024 $1,114.15
322454 3910 12/13/2024 $514.74
322455 3725 12/13/2024 $644.10
322456 3576 12/13/2024 $1,152.17
322457 3566 12/13/2024 $270.88
322458 3777 12/13/2024 $143.41
322459 3511 12/13/2024 $2,183.83
322460 3823 12/13/2024 $1,283.27
322461 3368 12/13/2024 $2,047.17
322462 2006 12/13/2024 $3,398.42
322463 3761 12/13/2024 $3,078.59
322464 2684 12/13/2024 $2,733.04
322465 3923 12/13/2024 $1,607.34
322466 3079 12/13/2024 $1,936.42
322467 1966 12/13/2024 $3,501.38
322468 3844 12/13/2024 $2,149.87
322469 3388 12/13/2024 $2,613.10
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 12 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322470 2355 12/13/2024 $2,459.63
322471 3696 12/13/2024 $2,849.16
322472 3500 12/13/2024 $3,642.50
322473 3620 12/13/2024 $1,698.43
322474 3654 12/13/2024 $1,864.23
322475 2039 12/13/2024 $1,947.68
322476 3838 12/13/2024 $2,135.02
322477 3281 12/13/2024 $3,014.75
322478 3550 12/13/2024 $2,822.93
322479 3348 12/13/2024 $1,936.24
322480 3862 12/13/2024 $1,716.58
322481 3807 12/13/2024 $2,644.21
322482 3081 12/13/2024 $2,639.21
322483 3523 12/13/2024 $4,626.06
322484 3271 12/13/2024 $1,869.44
322485 3017 12/13/2024 $4,961.37
322486 3883 12/13/2024 $1,348.35
322487 3512 12/13/2024 $2,461.30
322488 2027 12/13/2024 $3,610.99
322489 2330 12/13/2024 $3,302.84
322490 2795 12/13/2024 $1,080.82
322491 3888 12/13/2024 $2,107.96
322492 3437 12/13/2024 $4,454.73
322493 3421 12/13/2024 $3,894.74
322494 3439 12/13/2024 $4,407.07
322495 3440 12/13/2024 $3,535.11
322496 3441 12/13/2024 $5,513.60
322497 3473 12/13/2024 $4,191.03
322498 3820 12/13/2024 $5,177.80
322499 3406 12/13/2024 $3,814.74
322500 3422 12/13/2024 $5,359.18
322501 3442 12/13/2024 $3,807.19
322502 3433 12/13/2024 $4,059.58
322503 3424 12/13/2024 $3,274.52
322504 3414 12/13/2024 $6,197.60
322505 3704 12/13/2024 $8,729.98
322506 3734 12/13/2024 $5,075.03
322507 3832 12/13/2024 $3,730.64
322508 3799 12/13/2024 $6,375.19
322509 3886 12/13/2024 $5,778.11
322510 3443 12/13/2024 $8,253.94
322511 3600 12/13/2024 $4,803.92
322512 3711 12/13/2024 $6,639.40
322513 3928 12/13/2024 $3,988.04
322514 3715 12/13/2024 $6,871.20
322515 3444 12/13/2024 $3,256.08
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 13 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322516 3583 12/13/2024 $7,470.10
322517 3594 12/13/2024 $4,927.71
322518 3935 12/13/2024 $2,604.38
322519 3409 12/13/2024 $4,972.11
322520 3856 12/13/2024 $4,579.39
322521 3426 12/13/2024 $7,609.29
322522 3860 12/13/2024 $2,748.55
322523 3642 12/13/2024 $2,419.87
322524 3584 12/13/2024 $2,088.38
322525 3538 12/13/2024 $2,161.04
322526 3410 12/13/2024 $4,940.01
322527 3828 12/13/2024 $4,459.93
322528 3447 12/13/2024 $4,011.51
322529 3427 12/13/2024 $4,505.01
322530 3411 12/13/2024 $7,502.52
322531 3448 12/13/2024 $3,135.97
322532 3833 12/13/2024 $5,365.66
322533 3518 12/13/2024 $1,847.78
322534 3449 12/13/2024 $6,000.42
322535 3428 12/13/2024 $4,871.44
322536 3858 12/13/2024 $3,005.10
322537 3429 12/13/2024 $4,445.11
322538 3451 12/13/2024 $4,065.55
322539 3595 12/13/2024 $3,336.12
322540 3430 12/13/2024 $3,549.19
322541 3452 12/13/2024 $4,041.68
322542 3417 12/13/2024 $2,750.61
322543 3085 12/13/2024 $2,242.71
322544 3431 12/13/2024 $4,285.76
322545 3242 12/13/2024 $3,089.78
322546 3857 12/13/2024 $2,189.57
322547 3419 12/13/2024 $3,543.77
322548 3524 12/13/2024 $4,760.89
322549 3412 12/13/2024 $4,729.29
322550 3829 12/13/2024 $3,993.79
322551 3420 12/13/2024 $5,924.18
322552 3921 12/13/2024 $4,145.52
322553 3435 12/13/2024 $5,187.43
322554 3800 12/13/2024 $4,080.64
322555 3432 12/13/2024 $3,983.20
322556 3408 12/13/2024 $3,385.42
322557 3456 12/13/2024 $2,542.44
322558 3859 12/13/2024 $2,354.08
322559 3763 12/13/2024 $3,185.47
322560 3591 12/13/2024 $4,714.82
322561 3392 12/13/2024 $4,703.93
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 14 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Number Employee ID Check Date Total Net
Advices
322562 3855 12/13/2024 $4,283.37
322563 3831 12/13/2024 $2,675.81
322564 3434 12/13/2024 $4,203.78
Advices Total 1,492,780.96
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 15 of 16 12/13/2024 Check Date Total Gross
IRS 12/13/2024 $269,519.66
State Taxes 12/13/2024 $76,886.76
CASDU 12/13/2024 $3,882.63
Deferred Comp (457) 12/16/2024 $130,567.15
Deferred Comp (401a) 12/16/2024 $301.05
PERS 12/16/2024 $384,246.92
Confidential Garnishment 12/12/2024 $423.00
VV Firefighter's Union 12/12/2024 $6,710.00
Electronic Vendor Payments Total 872,537.17
Electronic Vendor Payments
Vendor
City of Victorville Council Payroll Report Page 16 of 16 12/13/2024 Item Number: 3
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: March 4, 2025
Submitted By:
Fredy Bonilla, City Engineer
Subject:
Reduction of Securities for Tract Map No. 17316
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Approve an 80-percent reduction in Water, Sewer, Drainage, Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD), and Street Faithful Performance Securities for Tract Map No. 17316; and
(2) Accept the completed Water, Sewer, Drainage, Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD), and Street Improvements.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
Strategic Plan Goal:
This item aligns with “Goal E Invest in Infrastructure” in the City of Victorville Strategic Plan 2023-2026. Although this is not a Capital Improvement Project, we apply the same strategy to private development projects as they are essential in meeting the community’s needs.
Background:
Tract Map No. 17316 (referred to as Tract 17316) is a 36-lot, single-family subdivision located at the northeast corner of Ottawa Street and Arrowhead Drive. On January 18, 2022, the City entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA), secured by improvement bonds, with Richmond American Homes, of Maryland Inc., a Maryland Corporation, to develop the tract. The conditions of approval for the tract required the developer to complete various infrastructure components, including Water, Sewer, Drainage, Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD), Street and Monumentation Improvements.
4 0
1 3
Discussion:
The developer has met the conditions of approval and has successful completed all the requirements for the Water, Sewer, Drainage, and Street Improvements. In addition to those improvements, the Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD) Improvement was placed on a 90-day plant establishment maintenance period, which ended on May 20, 2024.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve an 80-percent reduction of the Water, Sewer, Drainage, Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD) and Street Faithful Performance Securities in accordance with Victorville Municipal Code (VMC) Section 17.64.070(1), as well as accept the completed Water, Sewer, Drainage, Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD) and Street Improvements. The remaining 20-percent of the Faithful Performance Securities will be held for the one-year warranty period, in accordance with VMC Section 17.64.070(4) Staff is available to answer any questions Council may have.
Attachments: A. Vicinity Map
B. Securities Table
C. Existing Securities
Item Number: 4
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: March 4, 2025
Submitted By:
Fredy Bonilla, City Engineer
Subject:
Reduction of Securities for Tract Map No. 16720
Recommendation:
That the Honorable City Council:
(1) Approve a 20-percent release of the Street Faithful Performance Security for Tract Map No. 16720; and
(2) Accept the completed Street Improvements.
Fiscal Impact:
If approved, a reimbursement of $201,542.95 will be issued from the Engineering’s Deposit Trust Account No. 600-23130. Since it is a trust account, there will be no net fiscal impact to the budgeted Engineering Department accounts.
Strategic Plan Goal:
This item aligns with “Goal E Invest in Infrastructure” in the City of Victorville Strategic Plan 2023-2026. Although this is not a Capital Improvement Project, we apply the same strategy to private development projects as they are essential in meeting the community’s needs.
Background:
Tract Map No. 16720 (Tract 16720) is a 117-lot, single family subdivision, located at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Street and Mesa Linda Street. On July 7, 2020, the City Council approved a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (SIA) secured by cash with Victorville 105 Lots, LP, a California limited partnership managed by MHP Builders and known as Legacy Homes, for tract development. The conditions of approval for the tract required that the developer finalize various infrastructure components; those components being Water, Drainage, Sewer, Street, Landscaping Maintenance Assessment District (LMAD) and Monumentation Improvements.
4 0
1 4
Discussion:
At the regularly scheduled City Council meeting held on December 1, 2020, the City Council approved a 60-percent reduction of the Street Faithful Performance Security. The developer has met the conditions of approval and has successfully completed all requirements for Street Improvements.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve a 20-percent reduction of the Street Faithful Performance Security in accordance with Victorville Municipal Code (VMC) Section 17.64.070(1), as well as accept the completed Street Improvements. The remaining 20-percent of the Faithful Performance Security will be held for the one-year warranty period, in accordance with VMC Section 17.64.070(4).
Staff is available for any questions Council may have.
Attachments: A. Vicinity Map
B. Securities Table
C. Securities Deposit
Attachment B
Securities Table
Securities Table
Water, Drainage, Sewer, Street, LMAD & Monumentation Bond Totals:
Faithful Performance Security
Water Improvement Labor & Materials Security
Water Improvement
Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $11,220.00 Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $5,610.00 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Faithful Performance Security
Drainage Improvement Labor & Materials Security
Drainage Improvement
Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $4,620.00 Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $2,310.00 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Faithful Performance Security
Sewer Improvement Labor & Materials Security
Sewer Improvement
Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $25,498.83 Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $12,749.41 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Faithful Performance Security
Street Improvement Labor & Materials Security
Street Improvement
Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $1,007,714.76 Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $503,857.38 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $403,085.90 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $503,857.38 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $201,542.95 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $201,542.95 Amount of Security REMAINING: $503,857.38 Securities Table
Water, Sewer, Drainage, Street, LMAD & Monumentation Bond Totals:
Developer:
MHP Builders
1885 East California Avenue
Corona, Ca 92881
Faithful Performance Security
LMAD Improvement Labor & Materials Security
LMAD Improvement
Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $80,445.42 Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $40,222.71 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00 Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00
Faithful Performance Security
Monumentation Improvement
Amount of ORIGINAL Security: $39,970.13
Amount of Security CURRENTLY: $0.00
Amount of Security being REDUCED: $0.00
Amount of Security REMAINING: $0.00
Item Number: 5
City Council / Board of Directors
Consent Calendar
Meeting of: March 4, 2025
Submitted By:
Jennifer Thompson, City Clerk
Subject:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2454
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt, by second reading, Ordinance No. 2454, approving Amendment Case PLAN24-00023, an amendment to the Victorville Municipal Code with an environmental exemption to make various changes Citywide to Title 16 including but not limited to new and updated definitions, new land use allowances and standards related to thrift retail stores, revised landscape standards, and an update and clarification to tentative tract map approval periods.
Fiscal Impact:
Changes to a land use regulatory document do not result in a direct fiscal impact; however, the extended time allowance to record approved tentative tract maps included in this proposal will result in increased development impact fee collection and property tax revenue for the City as new housing development occurs.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Approval of Ordinance No. 2454 to allow for an amendment to Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code will enable the City to further fulfill the following Goals outlined in the 2023-2026 Strategic Plan:
•Goal C (Community and Economic Development) – The proposed Victorville Municipal Code amendment includes clarified landscaping standards and allowances to extend the approval period of single-family housing projects as well as allow a greater variety of retail uses in commercial zones. These proposed changes will assist the City in attracting new businesses to the community and support the economic vitality and preservation of the community as outlined in the Strategic Plan.
4 0
2 0
•Goal E (Invest in Infrastructure) – With the proposed amendments inclusion of extended approval periods for single-family housing projects, the possibility of associated roadway improvements is also extended, providing additional time for developers to complete roadway upgrades that may have otherwise been delayed or uncompleted.
Discussion:
At the Regular City Council meeting held on February 18, 2025, the City Council voted to introduce Ordinance No. 2454, approving Amendment Case PLAN24-00023, an amendment to the Victorville Municipal Code with an environmental exemption to make various changes Citywide to Title 16 including but not limited to new and updated definitions, new land use allowances and standards related to thrift retail stores, revised landscape standards, and an update and clarification to tentative tract map approval periods.
This ordinance is being presented for adoption and once adopted, will become effective April 3, 2025.
Attachments: A. Ordinance No. 2454
ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. 2454
ORDINANCE NO. 2454
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE APPROVING AMENDMENT CASE PLAN24-00023, AN AMENDMENT TO THE VICTORVILLE MUNICIPAL
CODE WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES CITYWIDE TO TITLE 16 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEW AND UPDATED DEFINITIONS, NEW
LAND USE ALLOWANCES AND STANDARDS RELATED TO THRIFT RETAIL STORES,
REVISED LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, AND AN UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION TO
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPROVAL PERIODS
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, the City of Victorville (City”) is authorized to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 65850 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City may adopt by ordinance regulations affecting: the use of buildings, structures and land; the location, height, bulk, and size of buildings and structures; the size of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces; and the intensity of land use; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 65850 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City has adopted Title 16, Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 16-2.01.010 of the Victorville Municipal Code, providing the authority to amend Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code and the various regulations, requirements, exceptions and guidelines located therein; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 65860 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City of Victorville Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to be consistent with the General Plan within reasonable time; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 16-2.01.020 of the Victorville Municipal Code, the City of Victorville Planning Department has initiated an amendment to the Victorville Municipal Code in order to modify Title 16 of the Victorville Municipal Code (the “Development Code”) in a manner consistent with State law and the Housing Element of the General Plan by updating land use allowances regarding retail thrift stores, increasing approval periods associated with tentative tract map approvals, updating and clarifying landscap ing standards and making other associated adjustments to the Development Code; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the Government Code, State of California and Section 16 -2.01.040 of a Victorville Municipal Code, the Victorville
Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8th, 2025, to hear arguments for and against the proposed amendments to the Development Code and; after hearing all testimony offered; the Victorville Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P -25-006, which recommended to the City Council the adoption of Municipal Code amendments specified in Planning Case No. PLAN24-00023; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Development Code amendments relating to thrift retail stores, landscaping, and tentative map approval periods will result in a more aesthetically pleasing community with more uniform and easily enforceable regulations, and will promote housing by allowing longer approval periods to facilitate housing development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments relating to thrift retail stores are necessary updates to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance into conformance with new state laws, and that the amendments will work to prevent adverse impacts to General Commercial Zones by instituting regulations associated with donation drop off locations and times, area of establishments dedicated to donation acceptance/processing, as well as enforcement of health and safety issues such as emergency egress and illegal dumping, which are permitted by state law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments relating to landscaping are necessary to clarify enforceable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance given the varying landscape standards adopted by the City of Victorville over time, and that the amendment will result in aesthetic improvements to the community and new development as mandated by the various development standards and design guidelines included in the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments relating to the extension of tentative map approval periods promote housing development and are compliant with the Housing Element of the General Plan and assist in working towards meeting the City’s regional housing needs allocation, and that application retroactively to recently approved tentative maps is appropriate for the reasons stated above; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that multiple definitions and standards will be updated with these amendments, which is pertinent in order to provide a Development Code that is clear, enforceable, and readable by the public and City staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds on their own independent judgment that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment inasmuch as the proposed amendment : is aimed at improving and
enhancing landscaping in accordance with the City’s water efficient landscaping ordi nance; will bring the Victorville Municipal Code into conformance with existing State law regarding thrift retail stores, which are required to be permitted anywhere similar new merchandise is permitted ; and will increase approval periods to promote housing development within the City, which is constantly working to meet is regional housing needs allocation as outlined in the Housing Element of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 7, Division I, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the Government Code of the State of California and Section 16-2.01.060 of the Victorville Municipal Code, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the City Council on the 18th day of February, 2025 to hear arguments for and against the code amendments, and after hearing all verbal and written testimony offered, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation and minutes, and after thoroughly reviewing and considering the code amendments, the City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the re maining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in their entirety.
Section 2. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.