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%.