Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-2016 CDBG Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Final Report FY2012-2016 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Final Report April 26, 2012 City of Temecula FY2012-216 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Prepared for City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com Table of Contents CITY OF TEMECULA i I. Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis Section Summary ................................................................................................. ....................... I–1 City Demographics ...................................................................................................................... I–2 Household Characteristics ........................................................................................................... I–8 Income ................................................................................ ..................................................... I–10 Employment............................................................................................................................. I–14 Housing Profile .......................................................................................................................... I–17 Housing Affordability ............................ ..................................................................................... I–19 II. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Input Findings ..................................................... ............................................................................... II–1 Stakeholder Survey Participant Profile ........................................................................... .............. II–2 Resident Survey Participant Profile .............................................................................................. II–3 Resident Perspectives on Housing in Temecula ........................................................................... II–6 Temecula Housing and Community Development Needs ........................................................ II–11 Fair Housing ............................................................................................................................. II–15 III. Strategic Plan IV. Year One Action Plan V. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Protected Class Concentrations .................................................................................................. V–3 Public Input .............................................................................................................................. V–10 Housing and Land Use Policy Review ........................................................................................ V–14 Affordable Development .................................................................................. ........................ V–20 Fair Lending Analysis ................................................................................................................ V–21 Complaints and Legal Review ................................................................................................... V–26 Fair Housing Impediments, Recommendations and Action Plan ....................... ........................ V–30 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Fair Housing Action Plan .......................................... V–31 Appendices Appendices A. Citizen Participation Plan ..................................................................................................... A–1 B. CDBG Service Application ............................................................ ....................................... B–1 C. HUD Needs Tables and Required Forms ............................................................................... C–1 D. Open-Ended Survey Reponses and Public Comments ........................................................ D–1 SECTION I. Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis SECTION I. Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis This section begins with an overview of demographics in Temecula, including population levels, economic and household characteristics and employment of residents to set the context of the Consolidated Plan. The housing market analysis discusses the conditions of housing in the city in terms of supply, demand, condition, and cost and affordability. The housing market analysis contains the information required for the Consolidated Plan by Section 91.210 of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development’s (HUD) Consolidated Plan regulations (housing market analysis). Section Summary 􀂠 Temecula experienced strong population growth (73%) from 2000 to 2010. On average the city gained approximately 4,200 residents each year, reaching 100,097 in 2010. Most Temecula residents (57%) are non-Hispanic white. The city has a lower proportion of Hispanic residents than Riverside County and the state of California as a whole. 􀂠 Overall, the City of Temecula is relatively young, well educated and affluent. Even so, the poverty rate of Temecula doubled between 2000 and 2010, from 7 percent to 14 percent— perhaps reflective of the economic downturn. 􀂠 Of Temecula’s 42,540 employed residents, 53 percent work outside Riverside County. Fortythree percent commute to jobs in Los Angeles, Orange or San Diego counties. 􀂠 Between 2000 and 2010 median rent and median home value in Temecula increased faster than resident incomes. Thus, both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past decade. 􀂠 Temecula’s median rent in 2010 was relatively high at $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city’s renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. Forty-three percent of Temecula residents (33% of renters) can afford the city’s 2010 median home value of $289,800. 􀂠 There is a shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula—45 percent of all renter households—earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 units affordable to these renters (11% of all rental units) leaving a gap of 3,177 units. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 1 City Demographics Population. According to the 2010 Census, the City of Temecula has 100,097 residents and accounts for 5 percent of Riverside County’s population. Since 1990 Temecula’s population has grown steadily at a compound annual growth rate of 6.8 percent through 2010. The Western Riverside Council of Governments projects continued population growth through 2020 but at a much lower rate. Figure I-1. Population Trend, City of Temecula, 2000-2010 Source: California State demographer and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). 1990 27,099 2000 57,716 113% 7.9% 2005 78,808 37% 6.4% 2010 100,097 27% 4.9% 2020 projection 112,242 12% 1.2% Percent Total Growth from Previous Period Compound Annual Growth Rate from Population Previous Period Race and ethnicity. It should be noted that Census data on race and ethnic identification vary with how people choose to identify themselves. The U.S. Census Bureau treats race and ethnicity separately: the Bureau does not classify Hispanic/Latino as a race, but but rather as an identification of origin and ethnicity. The 2010 Census changed the race question slightly, which may have encouraged respondents to check more than one racial category. According to the Census, in both 2000 and 2010 over 95 percent of Hispanic residents identified their race as White, Some Other Race or Two or More Races. In 2010, the largest racial group in Temecula was white (71%), followed by Asian (at a much lower 10%). The slight majority of Temecula residents (57%) were non-Hispanic white and approximately one-quarter were of Hispanic origin. Figure I-2 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of Temecula in 2000 and 2010. PAGE 2, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Figure I-2. Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 Census. Total population 57,716 100 100,097 100 Race American Indian and Alaska Native 497 0.9% 1,079 1.1% Asian 2,728 4.7% 9,765 9.8% Black or African American 1,974 3.4% 4,132 4.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 174 0.3% 368 0.4% White 45,555 78.9% 70,880 70.8% Some Other Race 4,276 7.4% 7,928 7.9% Two or More Races 2,512 4.4% 5,945 5.9% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 10,974 19.0% 24,727 24.7% Non-Hispanic White 40,007 69.3% 57,246 57.2% Number Percent Number Percent 2000 2010 The population proportion of all minority groups increased in between 2000 and 2010, while the non-Hispanic white population proportion dropped from 69 percent to 57 percent. One of the key components of a demographic analysis is an examination of the concentration of racial and ethnic minorities within a jurisdiction to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, minority concentrations are a reflection of preferences—e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and friends of the same race/ethnicities or where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater to them. In other cases, minority populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily influence where minorities live, to the extent that there are economic disparities among persons of different races and ethnicities. According to HUD, an area of racial and ethnic concentration (also called a “minority impacted area”) is defined as where the percentage of persons in a particular race or ethnic group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category for the city as a whole. Using the above definition of concentration, block groups in Temecula have a concentration if the following exists: 􀂠 A non-Hispanic white population proportion of 77 percent and more; 􀂠 A Hispanic population proportion of 45 percent and more; 􀂠 An Asian population proportion of 30 percent and more; and 􀂠 A black or African American population proportion of 24 percent and more. Figure I-3 shows the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents within each block group in the city. There are no block groups within city boundaries that are 77 percent or more non-Hispanic white; however one block group immediately east of Temecula is non-Hispanic white-concentrated. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 3 Figure I-3. Percent of Non-Hispanic White Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Figure I-4 shows the percentage of persons of Hispanic descent by block group in Temecula. As the map demonstrates, there no block groups in the city with Hispanic concentrations. Figure I-4. Percent of Hispanic/Latino Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 4, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Figure I-5 shows the proportion of Asian residents by block group in the city. There is one block group in the southwestern portion of the city with a concentration of Asian residents. Figure I-5. Percent of Asian Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Figure I-6 shows the proportion of African Americans by block group in the city. There are no block groups with concentrations of African Americans. Figure I-6. Percent of Population that is African American, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 5 Citizenship status. According to the 2010 ACS, the vast majority of Temecula residents—86 percent—are U.S. citizens born in the United States or born abroad to American parents. Eight percent were born outside of the U.S. and are now citizens; 6 percent are not U.S. citizens. This is much lower than Riverside County, where approximately 13 percent of residents are not U.S. citizens and California as a whole, where 15 percent of residents are not U.S. citizens. Age. The median age of the residents in the City of Temecula was 31.3 years in 2000. In 2010, the median age was 33.4, a two-year increase from 2000. Both the city and county (33.7 years) had lower median ages than the state, which was 35.2 years, according to the 2010 Census. The median age of the Hispanic population of Temecula is 25.6—12 years younger than the non-Hispanic white population (37.5). In Riverside County, the median age is 25.4 for Hispanic residents and 46.1 for non-Hispanic white residents. The Census divides the population into a series of age categories or “cohorts”. Figure I-7 presents the distribution of the population by age in Temecula, as well as the growth rate between 2000 and 2010. Under 5 years 5,115 9% 7,053 7% 38% 5 to 17 years 14,917 26% 23,637 24% 58% 18 to 24 years 4,486 8% 9,317 9% 108% 25 to 34 years 7,811 14% 12,003 12% 54% 35 to 44 years 11,392 20% 15,866 16% 39% 45 to 54 years 6,717 12% 15,686 16% 134% 55 to 64 years 3,183 6% 8,730 9% 174% 65 to 74 years 2,526 4% 4,482 4% 77% 75 years and over 1,569 3% 3,323 3% 112% Percent Change Since 2000 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Figure I-7. Distribution of Population by Age, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 Census. The age cohorts with the fastest growth between 2000 and 2010 were adults aged 55 to 64 (“baby boomers”) and 45 to 54. This is followed by those aged 75 years and older and then young adults (18 to 24). Like many communities across the U.S., Temecula has an aging population which may impact community composition, social service provision and housing needs and preferences in the near future. PAGE 6, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Persons with disabilities. The 2000 Census reported that 13 percent of Temecula residents had a disability. By 2010, the percent of residents with a disability had dropped to 10 percent. The prevalence of disability decreased in each age cohort between 2000 and 2010, most dramatically in residents aged 18-34 (12% in 2000 to 5% in 2010). Figure I-8. Disability by Age Cohort, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Age Cohort Under 5 years 1 61 2% 2% 5 to 17 years 1 ,609 7% 17% 18 to 34 years 1,089 5% 12% 35 to 64 years 3,745 10% 40% 65 to 74 years 1 ,256 36% 13% 75 years and over 1 ,514 47% 16% Total 9,374 9% 100% Percent with Disabilities Percent of Age Estimate Group The likelihood of disability increases with age and thus the distribution of disabilities is typically a function of a city’s age profile. Of the 9,374 persons with disabilities in Temecula, 30 percent were seniors, up from 26 percent in 2000. Figure I-9 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities in Temecula by by block group as of 2000, the latest date of availability. A block group is concentrated when 33 percent of residents in a block group have a disability (based on the 2000 Census disability proportion for the city). There are no block groups with concentrations of persons with disabilities. However, the map indicates that block groups in the center of Temecula have a higher proportion of persons with disabilities. Figure I-9. Percent of Population with Disabilities, City of Temecula, 2000 Source: U.S. Census 2000 and BBC Research & Consulting. The 2010 ACS estimates the presence of persons with disabilities in the workforce. Of persons with disabilities who are working age (18 to 64), about half were not in the labor force, 37 percent were employed and 12 percent were unemployed. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 7 Household Characteristics As discussed previously, Temecula has experienced significant population growth since 1990. Growth in the number of households in Temecula was similar, doubling between 1990 and 2000 and increasing by another 74 percent the following decade. By 2010, there were 31,800 households in Temecula. Household size. The average household size (3.15) in Temecula did not change between 2000 and 2010. As is typical, the average household size of renters in Temecula is slightly smaller (3.07) than the average household size of owners (3.18). Large households, defined by the Census as having five or more persons in a household, made up 18 percent of the total occupied households in 2010. The proportion of large households has not changed substantially since 2000, but the share of renter occupied households with five or more persons increased from14 percent to 19 percent. Large households can have unique housing needs because of the limited housing stock to serve them—especially rental housing stock—as well as landlords’ lack of support and understanding of familial status protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act. The map in Figure I-10 examines the location of large households within the city. Concentrated block groups are those in which large households make up more than 38 percent of total households. Although there are no concentrated block groups in Temecula, block groups on the outskirts of the city tend to have higher percentages of large households. Figure I-10. Percentage of Large Households by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 8, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Familial status. In 2010, half of all households in Temecula were families with children. Of these 15,806 households with children, 77 percent were husband-wife families and 23 percent were single parent households. Figure I-11 displays the city’s 2010 household composition. Figure I-11. Household Composition, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not appear to aggregate correctly. Source: 2010 Census. Total households 31,781 100% Nonfamily households 5,955 19% Family households 25,826 81% Husband-wife families 20,483 64% With children 12,141 38% Without children 8,342 26% Female householder, no husband present 3,763 12% With children 2,632 8% Without children 1,131 4% Male householder, no wife present 1,580 5% With children 1,033 3% Without children 547 2% Number Percent Single parent households—especially those with single mothers—have some of the highest rates of poverty in most communities. As such, they have needs for social services (child care, transportation) and affordable housing. Familial status is also a protected class under fair housing law and, in many communities, one of the most common reasons for fair housing complaints. Single parent households are therefore vulnerable to fair housing discrimination and often have fewer choices in the housing market because of their lower income levels. Approximately 8 percent of all households in Temecula are female-headed households with children. Based on the same definition of concentration as in the racial and ethnicity maps, Figure I-12 shows that there are no concentrations of female-headed households with children in the city. Figure I-12. Percentage of Female-Headed Households with Children by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 9 PAGE 10, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Subfamilies. The Census also reports data on “subfamilies,” which are defined as married-couple, mother-child or father-child families who reside with relatives. Subfamily relationships are thought to have increased with the downturn in the housing market, as families double-up to achieve greater affordability or because they have lost their homes to foreclosure. In 2010, there were 740 subfamilies and 2,469 persons in subfamilies in the City of Temecula, representing 2.5 percent of the total population. Most of the subfamilies (72%) consisted of married couple sub-families; the remaining 28 percent were single-parent subfamilies. Linguistically isolated. The ACS 2005-2009 five-year estimates provide the most recent linguistic isolation data for the City of Temecula. Linguistically isolated households are defined as households where no member of the household 14 years and older speaks English only or speaks English “very well.” In Temecula, 1,006 households were linguistically isolated in 2005-2009, or 3.5 percent of all households in the city. Most of the city’s linguistically isolated households (57%) were Spanishspeaking households; 34 percent were Asian and Pacific Island speaking households. Income The median household income for the City of Temecula was $70,194 in 2010—higher than both Riverside County and the state of California. Figure I-13 shows the median household income for 2000, 2005 and 2010. The figure provides actual year dollar amounts and the dollar amounts adjusted for inflation. Although income levels have increased in dollar amount, actual purchasing power has declined since 2000. Figure I-13 Median Household Income, 2000, City of Temecula, 2005 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census, 2005 American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey and BBC Research & Consulting. For many of its low and moderate income housing grant programs, including Community Development Block Grants, HUD classifies households by the Area Median Income (AMI).1 HUD does not report an AMI for the City of Temecula, so income classifications are made according to the county-wide AMI. According to HUD, the AMI for Riverside County in 2011 was $62,500 (based on a household size of four). The following classifications use AMI to define income levels according to HUD’s categorization: 􀂠 Extremely low—30 percent and less of AMI ($18,750 and less); 􀂠 Very low—31 to 50 percent of AMI ($18,751 to $31,250); 1 This may also be referred to as Median Family Income or MFI. Temecula $ 59,516 $ 67,903 $ 70,194 18% Riverside County $ 42,887 $ 52,253 $ 54,296 27% California $ 47,493 $ 53,629 $ 57,708 22% Adjusted for inflation (shown in 2010 dollars) Temecula $ 75,365 $ 75,815 $ 70,194 -6.9% Riverside County $ 54,308 $ 58,341 $ 54,296 0.0% California $ 60,140 $ 59,878 $ 57,708 -4.0% 2000 2005 2010 2000-2010 􀂠 Low and moderate—51 to 80 percent of AMI ($31,251 to $50,000); 􀂠 Above low and moderate—80 percent and above of AMI (more than $50,000); Figure I-14 shows the percentage of Temecula families within each AMI category. The largest proportion of families in Temecula—69 percent—were considered “above low and moderate income,” earning more than $50,000. These families would likely not qualify for HUD-funded programs. Eleven percent of families have “extremely low” income and the remaining 20 percent of families were evenly split between the “very low” and “low and moderate” HUD categories. Figure I-14. Distribution of Families by Income Category, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: HUD, American Community Survey and BBC Research & Consulting. Extremely low (30 % HUD AMI) (10.5%) Very low (50% HUD AMI) (9.8%) Low and moderate (80% HUD AMI) (10.3%) Above 80% HUD AMI (69.4%) Low Income and poverty. Figure I-15 shows the proportion of very low income households (earning less than $25,000) by block group. Approximately 19 percent of all households in Temecula earn less than $25,000, so block groups in which more than 39 percent of households are low income are considered to have low income concentrations. Low income households tend to be concentrated immediately west of I-15. Low income households are also concentrated just outside the western boundary of Temecula. The two block groups just east of I-15 with 19 to 39 percent low income households also had a high percentage of female-headed households with children. Figure I-15. Percent of Low Income Households, City of Temecula, 2009 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 11 In 2000, 7 percent of Temecula’s population, or 3,864 people, were living below the poverty level. This was substantially lower than the rest of Riverside County, the state of California and the U.S. as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010 the poverty rate in Temecula doubled to 14 percent (14,020 people). Despite this large increase, the poverty level in Temecula remained below that of Riverside County, California and the U.S., as shown in Figure I-16. Figure I-16. Poverty Rate, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. US CA Riverside County Temecula 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 6.7% 14.0% 14.2% 16.3% 14.2% 15.8% 12.4%15.3% 2000 2010 100% A comparison of poverty rates by age cohort shows a higher incidence of poverty for the city’s children: 23 percent of children under five years old and 17 percent of children five to 17 years lived in poverty in 2010. The poverty rate for seniors in Temecula is an extremely low 1 percent. Seniors were the only age category where poverty did not increase during the past decade. Figure I-17. Poverty by Age Cohort, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Overall 7% 3,864 14% 14,020 Under 5 years 10% 540 23% 1,791 5 to 17 6% 927 17% 4,015 18 to 34 years 10% 1,273 19% 4,365 35 to 64 years 5% 996 10% 3,803 65 years and over 3% 128 1% 46 Percent Living in Poverty Percent Living in Poverty People Living in Poverty People Living in Poverty 2000 2010 Homelessness. Riverside County conducts an annual Point in Time (PIT) Count of homeless individuals. The most recently published PIT, conducted in January of 2011, reports homeless tabulations for Riverside County and a total number of homeless persons located in Temecula. Since homeless subpopulations were not provided for Temecula in the PIT, the homeless population of Temecula was assumed to have the same characteristics as Riverside County as a whole. For example, since 3 percent of the total homeless population was located in Temecula, 3 percent of the chronically homeless were also assumed to be located in Temecula. Since there is not a homeless shelter in Temecula, the entire homeless population of Temecula is assumed to be unsheltered. PAGE 12, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 13 According to the 2011 PIT, there were 162 people who were homeless in Temecula. An estimated 148 of these people were individuals and 14 were persons in families with children. Sixty-six were estimated to be chronically homeless.2 Figure I-18 displays the estimated number of homeless individuals in Temecula by subpopulation, gender, race and ethnicity. The gender, race and ethnicity estimates are based on responses to a survey conducted in conjunction with the PIT. Figure I-18. Homeless Population of Temecula, 2011 Source: Riverside County January 2011 Point-in-Time Count Report. In addition to those who have experienced homelessness in the past or are captured in a point-in-time estimate of current homelessness, many residents in Temecula are at risk of future homelessness because they cannot afford their current apartment or home, or are living in temporary situations. A lower bound estimate of the city’s population of persons at risk of homelessness can be calculated using HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from 2000. The CHAS data provide estimates of severe cost-burden and housing need for low income households with various characteristics. In general, households with the highest risk factors for homelessness tend to have the lowest incomes and have trouble paying their housing costs. They are also more likely to be renters and have limited social supports. Figure I-19 shows, the estimated number of persons at risk of homelessness by household category for the City of Temecula. 2 The number of people within each homeless subpopulation is provided in the Strategic Plan (Section IV), consistent with HUD requirements. Homeless Individuals 148 91% Persons in Homeless Family Units 14 9% Total 162 Homeless Subpopulations Chronically Homeless 66 41% Severely Mentally Ill 48 30% Chronic Substance Abuse 75 46% Veterans 23 14% Persons with HIV/AIDS 5 3% Victims of Domestic Violence 19 12% Youth (Under 18 years of age) 3 2% Gender Male 96 59% Female 62 38% Unknown 5 3% Race and Ethnicity White/Caucasian 73 45% Hispanic/Latino 44 27% Black/African American 31 19% Other 15 9% Total Percent Figure I-19. At-Risk of Homelessness: Extremely Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened Households, Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research and Consulting, 2000 and 2010 Census and SOCDS CHAS database. Elderly 95 24 119 Small Families 267 178 444 Large Families 121 57 178 Other Households 190 5 196 Total 673 264 937 Renters Owners Total at Risk of Homelessness Employment This section presents key employment statistics for Temecula, including educational attainment levels, commuting statistics, major employers, unemployment rates and earnings. Employment statistics are helpful in evaluating housing needs as they provide an indicator of the economic health of an area and indicate what type of housing will be needed to serve potential new workers and residents. Educational attainment. According to the ACS, in 2010, approximately 9 percent of Temecula residents had less than a high school or graduate equivalency degree (GED). This percentage is substantially lower than both Riverside County and the State of California, where 21 percent and 19 percent, respectively, did not graduate from high school or earn a GED. Nearly one-third of the residents in Temecula have a bachelors or graduate degree. In Riverside County, the percentage of residents with a bachelors or graduate degree is much lower at approximately 20 percent. Figures I-20 and I-21 display the educational attainment of Riverside County and Temecula residents. Figure I-20. Educational Attainment, Riverside County, 2010 Figure I-21. Educational Attainment, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Riverside County estimates include Temecula Residents Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Less than high school graduate (21.2%) High school graduate (includes equivalency) (25.1%) Some college, associate's degree (33.4%) Bachelor's degree (13.3%) Graduate degree (7.0%) Less than high school graduate (8.4%) High school graduate (includes equivalency) (21.9%) Some college, associate's degree (39.1%) Bachelor's degree (21.4%) Graduate degree (9.2%) PAGE 14, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Commuting. The City of Temecula is positioned on Interstate 15 between San Diego and Los Angeles, two of the largest economies in the state of California. As a result of this easy access to large employment markets, a high proportion of Temecula residents commute to jobs outside the community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, nearly onequarter of Temecula’s employed residents work in San Diego County and another 20 percent work in either Orange County or Los Angeles County. Forty-seven percent of Temecula’s employed residents work in Riverside County (see Figure I-22). Figure I-22. Place of Employment for City of Temecula Residents, 2009 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics All Other Locations San Bernardino County, CA Los Angeles County, CA Orange County, CA San Diego County, CA Riverside County, CA0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Residents 47.0% 23.5% 10.4% 9.3% 5.8% 4.0% Major employers. As of June 2010, Temecula’s major employers (more than 1,000 employees) included Abbott Laboratories, Temecula Valley Unified School District and Professional Hospital Supply. Figure I-23. Major Employers, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Temecula Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Major Employers Major Employers (continued) 1000+ Employees 100-249 Employees Abbott Laboratories Plant Equipment, Inc. Temecula Valley Unified School District Norm Reeves Auto Group/DCH Professional Hospital Supply FFF Enterprises Inc. 500-999 Employees Channell Commercial Corporation International Rectifier Dayton Hudson Corporation /Target Temecula Creek Inn 250-499 Employees Stater Brothers Macy’s Opto 22, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation Sears EMD Millipore f/k/a Chemi-Con Internat JC Penney Company Milgard Manufacturing Toyota of Temecula Valley Southwest Traders City of Temecula Rancho California Water District Home Depot Lowe’s Albertson’s CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 15 Unemployment. Before the economic downturn in late 2007, Temecula’s average unemployment rate was generally lower than the county, state and national rates. Along with most communities, Temecula’s unemployment rate rose sharply in 2008 and 2009. By the end of 2010, Temecula’s unemployment rate (10.1%) was higher than the U.S. rate, but still lower than in California (12.4%) and Riverside County (14.7%). As of September 2011, the unemployment rate (unadjusted) in Temecula had gone down to 9.6 percent. Figure I-24. Unemployment Rates, City of Temecula, Riverside County, State of California and the U.S., 1990 to 2010 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 02468 10 12 14 16 Unemployment RateCalifornia Riverside County Temecula US Note: Not seasonally adjusted. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Average wages. The wage data presented in the following figure identifies wages by occupation for residents of Temecula. According to the 2010 ACS, the median earnings for Temecula’s employed population (over the age of 16) are $37,137. This is higher than the median earnings for California ($33,016) and Riverside County ($30,795). The highest paying industries for Temecula residents were public administration, wholesale trade and manufacturing. Figure I-25. Median Earnings by Industry, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining $ 31,691 Construction $ 37,284 Manufacturing $ 61,006 Wholesale trade $ 70,065 Retail trade $ 16,535 Transportation and warehousing and utilities $ 37,200 Information $ 44,739 Finance and insurance $ 51,090 Real estate and rental and leasing $ 40,260 Professional, scientific, management and technical services $ 42,201 Administrative support and waste management services $ 28,073 Educational services $ 48,372 Health care and social assistance $ 31,401 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $ 14,865 Accommodation and food services $ 12,995 Other services, except public administration $ 20,130 Public administration $ 75,346 Overall Employed Population (16 years and older) $ 3 7,137 Median Earnings PAGE 16, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA As shown previously (in Figure I-23) Temecula Valley School District is one of the largest employers in Temecula. Median earnings for these employees in educational services are relatively high at $48,372 per year. However, there are also a large number of retail trade businesses in Temecula, which pay relatively low wages. Housing Profile The 2010 Census reports 34,004 housing units within city limits. This is 78 percent more housing units than in 2000, when the total number of units was estimated at 19,099. On average, the city added 906 new units per year between 2000 and 2010. Like many cities, the height of new construction occurred during the middle part of the last decade. Vacancy. According to the Census, 2,223 housing units, or 6.5 percent of the city’s housing stock, were vacant in 2010. As shown in Figure I-26, approximately 61 percent of vacant units were for rent or sale. Figure I-26. Vacancy Status, Housing Units, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census. For rent (34.0%) Rented, not occupied For sale (2.2%) only (27.2%) Sold, not occupied (5.1%) For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (12.3%) All other vacants (19.2%) Tenure. The Census estimates that 69 percent of occupied housing units in Temecula are owneroccupied and 31 percent are renter-occupied. The vast majority of owner-occupied units are single family detached homes; single family homes make up a larger proportion of rental units as well. Detached homes and other structures with few units, such as townhomes, condos and small apartment buildings are also an important part of the rental housing stock. The type of housing occupied by renters is shown in Figure I-27. Figure I-27. Types of Housing Occupied by Renters, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Single family, detached homes (37.0%) Townhomes, condos, duplexes, fourplexes (7.8%) Small apartment buildings (5 to 9 units) (24.0%) Large apartment buildings (10 or more units) (32.0%) CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 17 Age and lead-based paint hazards. Figure I-28 shows the distribution of residential units in the city by age. More than 30 percent of the city’s units are very new, built in the past 10 years. Only 8 percent of the city’s housing stock was built before 1980. Less than 1 percent of the city’s housing stock was built before 1940, when lead-based paint was most common. Another 1.2 percent of the city’s housing was built between 1940 and 1960, when leadbased paint was still used but the amount of lead in the paint was being reduced. Altogether, only 1.7 percent of Temecula’s housing stock was built in periods when lead-based paint was commonly used. Figure I-28. Age of Housing, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Year Built 2000 or later 9,811 31% 1990 to 1999 11,233 36% 1980 to 1989 7,606 24% 1960 to 1979 2,096 6.7% 1940 to 1959 366 1.2% 1939 or earlier 149 0.5% Total Units 31,261 Number of Units Percent of Units If (as HUD estimates), 90 percent of the pre-1940 units in Temecula are are at risk of containing leadbased paint, 80 percent of the units built between 1940 and 1960 are at risk, and 62 percent of units built between 1960 and 1979 are at risk, then as many as 1,726 Temecula housing units (6%) may contain lead paint. The estimated number of households with a lead-based paint hazard is displayed in Figure I-29. Of these units, an estimated 322 are occupied by low income households. Figure I-29. Estimated Households with Lead-Based Paint Risk, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: HUD-“Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing”, 2010 American Community Survey. 1939 or earlier 149 90% 134 1940 to 1960 366 80% 293 1960 to 1979 2,096 62% 1,300 Total 2,611 1,726 Year Housing Unit Was Built Estimated Percentage at Risk Estimated Number of Units at Risk Number of Housing Units The following map displays the number of low income housing units that may be at risk of leadbased paint hazards. All of the housing units identified on the map were built in the years before leadbased paint was banned from usage and are very low income households (earning less than $25,000). The area with the greatest risk of lead-based paint hazards for low income households is in the western portion of the city. PAGE 18, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 19 Figure I-30. Estimated Number of Households with Lead-Based Paint Risk by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: Claritas, 2010, BBC Research & Consulting. The California Department of Public Health maintains data on the number of children screened for high rates of lead. In Riverside County, 47,000 children were screen in 2009 and 83 were found to have elevated levels, for an incidence rate of .2 percent; 2,300 were found to have lead exposure. 3 Substandard condition. The Census defines severely substandard housing as housing units that are lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities and are not intended primarily for recreational use (e.g., a casita used like a cabin). According to the 2010 ACS, 60 housing units in Temecula lack complete plumbing and 47 units lack complete kitchens. Assuming no overlap between units without plumbing and units without kitchens, as many as 107 units in the city could be in severely substandard condition. These units represent 0.3 percent of the occupied housing stock. Of the 107 substandard housing units, 56 percent were owner occupied and 44 percent were renter occupied. Overcrowding. For the purposes of the Consolidated Plan, overcrowding is defined as a housing unit with more than 1.0 person per room in a housing unit. In 2000, 7 percent of units were overcrowded. According to the ACS, in 2010 that number dropped to 4 percent, or 1,184 units. Nine percent of Hispanic households are overcrowded compared with 2 percent of non-Hispanic white households. Housing Affordability This section discusses housing affordability in the City of Temecula, both housing to rent and housing to buy. 3 Blood lead levels greater than or equal to 9.5 micrograms per deciliter (sg/dL) are considered elevated. Blood lead levels 4.5 to <9.5 sg/dL indicate lead exposure. PAGE 20, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Affordability defined. In the housing industry, housing affordability is commonly defined in terms of the proportion of household income that is used to pay housing costs. Housing is “affordable” if no more than 30 percent of a household’s monthly income is needed for rent, mortgage payments and utilities. When the proportion of household income needed to pay housing costs exceeds 30 percent, a household is considered “cost burdened.” Rental housing. The 2010 median rent in Temecula, including utilities, was $1,252, according to the ACS.4 To afford the city’s median rent and average utilities and not be cost burdened, a renter would need to earn $50,080. Only 36 percent of the city’s renters can afford to pay the median rent and utilities. In 2000, Temecula’s median rent was $846. The median rent in 2010 is $406 per month higher than in 2000. To afford this increase, renters in the city would need to earn $16,240 more per year. Renter incomes increased in the decade—but by just $2,664. Therefore, renters have lost purchasing power in the city’s rental market during the past 10 years. HUD maintains data on fair market rents (FMR) by bedroom size (the FMRs include utility costs, except for telephones). As shown by Figure I-31, FMRs for two-bedroom apartments in Riverside County increased steadily between 2000 and 2008 and have since leveled off. The total increase in fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment between 2000 and 2010 was $499 per month. This is somewhat higher than the overall increase in Temecula’s median rent reported by the ACS ($406 per month). Figure I-31 Trends in Fair Market Rents for Two-Bedroom Apartments, City of Temecula, 2000 to 2012 Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. Figure I-32 shows the 2010 FMRs by bedroom size and calculates the affordability of each size. Fewer than half of Temecula households can afford an apartment with more than one bedroom. The figure also compares the percentage of renters who could afford the FMR by size in 2010 to 2005. By this measure all rental units have decreased in affordability relative to renter incomes. 4 The median rent is the price point at which half of renters pay less and half pay more. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $609 $621 $656 $690 $729 $752 $911 $974 $1,142 $1,125 $1,108 $1,144 $1,149 Figure I-32. Fair Market Rents and Affordability by Bedroom Size, City of Temecula, 2010 Fair Market Rent (FMR) $ 8 54 $ 940 $ 1,108 $ 1,559 $ 1,818 How much a renter needs to earn to afford FMR $ 34,160 $ 37,600 $ 44,320 $ 62,360 $ 72,720 Percent of renters who can afford FMR (2010) 55.4% 51.9% 45.1% 28.6% 19.6% Percent of renters who can afford FMR (2005) 74.7% 70.0% 63.1% 44.2% 33.2% Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bedrooms Three Bedrooms Four Bedrooms Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2010 American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey and BBC Research & Consulting. Housing to buy. The median value of owner-occupied homes in Temecula was $289,800 in 2010 according to the ACS. Although this is up from the median value of $190,100 in 2000, it is substantially lower than the 2007 median value of $468,000. Like many growing cities in the U.S., Temecula saw a dramatic increase in home prices in the middle part of the past decade and then a sharp decline as the housing bubble burst. In Temecula, home values decreased by 38 percent between 2007 and 2010. Figure I-33 displays median home values in 2000 and 2005-2010. Figure I-33. Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units, City of Temecula, 2000 to 2010 Note: Comparable data are not available for the city in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Source: 2000 Census, 2005-2010 American Community Survey. 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $190,100 $457,900 $458,800 $468,000 $381,200 $304,700 $289,800 Between 2000 and 2010, the median home value increased by $99,700. Homeowners would need to earn approximately $26,880 more per year in 2010 than in 2000 to afford the median-valued home. In actuality, the median household income for homeowners in the city increased by $16,995. Therefore, like renters, owners lost purchasing power in the city during the past decade. In addition, owners who purchased during the middle part of the decade have likely lost equity in their homes. Gaps analysis. The following following analysis examines housing need across all income levels to identify mismatches in supply and demand for renter households in Temecula. It reports the results of a modeling effort called a gaps analysis, which compares housing affordability for households at different income levels to the supply of rental units affordable at these income levels. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 21 PAGE 22, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA Instead of estimating the type of housing each household in the city would prefer, income is used as a proxy, as income is the most important factor in accessing housing. The calculation to determine what is “affordable” to the various income groups assumes the following: 􀂠 First, households cannot pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. (Households cannot be cost burdened). 􀂠 Second, housing costs are adjusted to include utility payments. The model is based on gross rent, which includes utility payments. 􀂠 In addition, the gaps model also assumes a 7 percent vacancy rate for rental units, based on the 2010 rental vacancy rate. The model also excludes households who are not paying cash rent (e.g., they are caretakers, nannies and are living in their rental units rent free as exchange for certain services) and uses a total household number from the 2008-2010 ACS.5 The analysis compares the number of renter households in Temecula in 2008-2010, their income levels, the maximum monthly housing payment they could afford, and the number of units in the market that were affordable to them. The “gaps” columns show the difference between the number of renter households and the number of rental units affordable to them. Negative numbers (in parentheses) indicate a shortage of units at the specific income level; positive units indicate an excess of units. Specifically, the gap analysis in Figure I-36a (pg. 24) shows the following: 􀂠 In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula—45 percent of all renter households—earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 affordable units—11 percent of all rental units— available to households in this income range, leaving a shortage of approximately 3,177 rental units for these low income households. Of the rental households facing this gap, 38 percent earned less than $15,000 and 62 percent earned between $15,000 and $35,000. 􀂠 In contrast, there is a large surplus of units affordable for renter households earning earning more than $35,000 per year. Thirty-seven percent of Temecula households earn between $35,000 and $75,000 but 68 percent of rental units in the city cater to this income range—a surplus of 3,423 units. There is also a surplus of affordable units available to households earning $75,000 or more. Figure I-34 displays the rental market mismatch graphically. Figure I-34. Rental Market Mismatch, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. 5 The 2010 Census reports 31,261 households; the 2008-2010 ACS showed 30,543. Because we could not obtain income distributions or tenure from the 2010 Census at the time the gaps model was prepared, 2008-2010 ACS is used in the model. Less than $19,000 $20,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or more 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 2,225 267 2,067 848 1,434 2,900 2,048 4,005 1,665 2,141 Renter Households Rental Units Available Cost burden. An examination of cost burdened households—those who pay more than 30 percent of their incomes in housing cost—helps identify which households have the greatest needs and how housing affordability has changed over time. Cost burdened households may be cutting back on necessary household expenses because of housing costs; they might also be at risk of eviction or foreclosure. According to the 2010 ACS, cost burden is very high among renters in Temecula: 63 percent of renters pay more than 30 percent of their household income in housing costs; and 40 percent pay 50 percent or more (“severely” cost burdened). For owners, about half face cost burden and 23 percent face severe cost burden. Figure I-35 shows cost burden for Temecula renters and owners. Figure I-35. Cost Burdened Households, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Renters Cost Burdened 2,011 43% 5,930 63% Severely Cost Burdened 1,000 21% 3,756 40% Owners Cost Burdened 4,519 36% 11,124 52% Severely Cost Burdened 1,168 9% 4,855 23% 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Figure I-36a. Housing Supply and Demand Comparisons, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. Income Range Less than $5,000 195 2% $ 125 0 0% (195) $5,000 to $9,999 771 8% $ 250 0 0% (771) $10,000 to $14,999 673 7% $ 375 104 1% (569) $15,000 to $19,999 585 6% $ 500 163 2% (423) $20,000 to $24,999 1,037 11% $ 625 133 1% (904) $25,000 to $34,999 1,030 11% $ 875 715 7% (315) $35,000 to $49,999 1,434 15% $ 1,250 2,900 29% 1,466 $50,000 to $74,999 2,048 22% $ 1,875 4,005 39% 1,957 $75,000 or more 1,665 18% $ 2,500 2,141 21% 476 Total 9,440 100% 10,161 100% 721 Number Percent Number Percent Renters Rental Units Maximum Affordable Rent, Including Utilities Rental Gap CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION I, PAGE 23 Figure I-36b. Housing Supply and Demand Comparisons by MFI, City of Temecula, 2010 0% to 30% of AMI $18,750 2,079 22% $ 469 -(2,079) 31% to 50% of AMI $31,250 1,827 19% $ 781 566 (1,261) 51% to 80% of AMI $50,000 1,820 19% $ 1,250 549 (1,271) 100% of AMI $62,500 1,024 11% $ 1,563 5,317 4,292 101% to 120% of AMI $75,000 1,024 11% $ 1,875 1,589 564 121% to 150% of AMI $93,750 370 4% $ 2,344 (0) (370) More than 150% of AMI 1,295 14% $ 2,344 2,141 846 Total 9,440 100% 10,161 721 Percent Area Median Income Category Renters Maximum Affordable Rent, Including Utilities Income Cutoff Number of Rental Units Rental Number Gap Note: HUD median family income = $62,500 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 24, SECTION I CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Input SECTION II. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Input This section summarizes and presents the results of public participation in the development of the Temecula Five-year Consolidated Plan and AI. Temecula recognizes that input from residents and stakeholders is vital to fully understand the city’s housing and community development needs. To this end, the Consolidated Plan and AI were developed with a strong emphasis on community input. Specifically, 􀂠 The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. Notices for the community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the city’s website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. 􀂠 On November 17, 2011, the City of Temecula held a technical assistance meeting to provide assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. 􀂠 Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011, through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. 􀂠 The draft Consolidated Plan was published in the local newspaper to notice the 30-day public comment review period beginning on March 1, 2012. 􀂠 A public hearing was held on April 10, 2012 to accept comments on the Draft Consolidated Plan. The meeting was held at City Hall, which is accessible to persons with disabilities. The City Council meeting was noticed in the local newspaper for 14 days. Findings 􀂠 Residents responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, health care facilities, and street/alley improvements as top community needs. 􀂠 Stakeholders responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing as top community needs. 􀂠 Public meeting attendees prioritized improving bike path linkages, supportive services to single mothers and upgrading the Boys & Girls Club facility as top needs. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 1 CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 2 􀂠 Most residents are very satisfied with their current housing. Those who are unsatisfied cite the need for repairs, high HOA fees, traffic and foreclosures in the neighborhood as reasons for their dissatisfaction. 􀂠 Nearly 50 percent of homeowners responding to the survey owe more on their home than it is currently worth. Slightly more than one in ten are very concerned about their home going into foreclosure. 􀂠 One in ten residents had tried to find affordable housing in Temecula without success, and one in five had experienced difficulty trying to access public transit. 􀂠 Residents report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing; and the income levels of minority and female-headed households to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. 􀂠 The majority of residents feel that people people like them are welcome in Temecula. Those who did not feel welcome believe this results from their being single parents, mixed-race families or gay. 􀂠 Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real estate agents was the most common type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. Stakeholder Survey Participant Profile A total of 30 stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of interests responded to the stakeholder survey. All serve the city of Temecula and most serve all of Riverside County. The industries and professions represented include: 􀂠 Affordable housing provision; 􀂠 Child protective services; 􀂠 Fair housing; 􀂠 Foreclosure/loss mitigation prevention; 􀂠 Higher education; 􀂠 Homeless services; 􀂠 Landlord/tenant services; 􀂠 Lending; 􀂠 Manufacturing; 􀂠 Neighborhood stabilization; 􀂠 Rental property owners and managers; 􀂠 Residential development; 􀂠 Sales; 􀂠 Senior services; 􀂠 Services for low income residents; 􀂠 Services for single mothers; 􀂠 Social services; and 􀂠 Youth development. Participating stakeholders serve a variety of populations in Temecula, including; 􀂠 Elderly; 􀂠 Families on CalWorks cash assistance; 􀂠 Immigrants; 􀂠 Low income individuals; 􀂠 Persons with a developmental disability; 􀂠 Persons and families who are homeless; 􀂠 Persons with HIV/AIDS; 􀂠 Persons with a mental illness; 􀂠 Persons with a physical disability; 􀂠 Persons with substance abuse/addiction; 􀂠 Victims of domestic violence; 􀂠 Single mothers; and 􀂠 Youth. Stakeholders responded to a series of questions regarding community needs and fair housing. Their responses are discussed throughout this section. Resident Survey Participant Profile A total of 176 Temecula residents responded to the resident survey. In addition to responding to questions about community needs and fair housing choice, respondents provided information about themselves and their household. Children. Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the resident survey have children under the age of 18 living in their home. Households with children are slightly over-represented in the resident survey. Figure II-1. Children Under Age 18 Note: N=158. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Household size. The average household size of resident survey respondents was 3.3. As shown in Figure II-2, households of all sizes responded to the survey. The survey respondent household size aligns closely to Census data. Yes (62%) No (38%) CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 3 Figure II-2. Household Size Note: n=158. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. One Two Three Four Five Six or more 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5% 23% 25% 32% 11% 4% 100% Household Members CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 4 Employment. Figure II-3 presents the employment status of the primary household earner. Among the primary earners in respondents’ households, 12 percent are retired and 5 percent are unemployed. Figure II-3. Primary Earner Employment Status Note: n=159. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes, employed (83%) No, unemployed (5%) Retired (12%) Income. Figure II-4 depicts the household income of resident survey respondents. Slightly less than one in ten earn less than $35,000 per year and one in four earn between $50,000 and $75,000. Figure II-4. Household Income Note: n=151. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Less than $35,000 $35,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $75,000 $75,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 or more 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 8% 8% 24% 26% 34% 100% Race/ethnicity. As shown in Figure II-5, while the vast majority of respondents identified themselves as White, more than one in ten respondents identified their race or ethnicity ethnicity as Hispanic. Because the survey question did not separate race and ethnicity like the Census does, the results cannot be directly compared. However, it appears that Whites were slightly over-represented and, Hispanics slightly under-represented, in the survey. Figure II-5. Race/Ethnicity Note: n=158. Numbers add to greater than 100 percent due to multiple response. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Pacific Islander Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Multi-racial Hispanic or Latino White0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 88% 11% 7% 3% 3% 3% CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 5 CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 6 Tenure. More than four in five respondents to the resident survey own their homes. As shown in Figure II-6, 17 percent are renters. Homeowners are somewhat over-represented among survey respondents. Figure II-6. Housing Tenure Note: n=175. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Disability. One in ten respondents indicated that a member of their household has a disability. Figure II-7. Disability Status Note: n=156. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Those households with a member with a disability were asked whether or not their current home met the needs of the disabled member of the household. One respondent indicated that their home did not meet the needs of the member with a disability, and stated, “Not designed for wheel-chaired members.” Resident Perspectives on Housing in Temecula Residents shared their perspectives on housing in Temecula, including topics specific to homeowners and renters. Current housing. Residents rated their level of satisfaction with their current housing situation. Those that were dissatisfied cited the reasons for their dissatisfaction. Residents also responded to questions related to what they would like to change about their current living situation. Satisfaction. Respondents to the resident survey are very satisfied with their current housing, as shown in Figure II-8. Nearly one in four are extremely satisfied with their housing. The average satisfaction rating was 7 on a scale from 0 to 9. Rent (17%) Own (83%) Yes, physical disability (6%) Yes, mental disability (3%) Yes, both mental and physical disability (1%) No (90%) Figure II-8. Housing Satisfaction Note: n=175. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 01234567890% 10% 20% 30% 40% 24%26% 23% 14% 7% 2% 1% 1%2% 1% Extremely satisfied 100% Average: 7 Extremely dissatisfied Reasons for dissatisfaction. Those few residents dissatisfied with their current housing situation cited a number of reasons for their dissatisfaction. These included: 􀂠 Traffic; 􀂠 The need to repair or update their home; 􀂠 High HOA dues; 􀂠 High taxes; and 􀂠 Poor workmanship or materials on their home; 􀂠 Depressed property values. 􀂠 High number of foreclosures in the neighborhood; While the complete list of resident comments is included in Appendix D to the Consolidated Plan, the following are representative of residents’ concerns: 􀂠 “Foreclosures in area have gone up leaving empty lots.” 􀂠 “HOA costs are too high.” 􀂠 “I can't safely walk or ride my bike anywhere nearby, other than a bike trail that has no destination.” 􀂠 “Materials are substandard and shoddy construction.” 􀂠 “Neighborhood has too many rentals now.” 􀂠 “Neighborhood upkeep has decreased with decline in home values.” 􀂠 “Needs lots of maintenance.” 􀂠 “Needs work I can't afford to do.” 􀂠 “Upside down on loan, therefore cannot make improvements to bring value up.” 􀂠 “Traffic in general.” CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 7 Desired change to living situation. Half of the residents who responded to the survey would not change their current living situation. As shown in Figure II-9, slightly more than one in ten would like to buy a home and approximately one in ten would like to sell their home. Slightly more than one in ten would live in a different part of Temecula. Figure II-9. Desired Change to Current Living Situation Note: n=173. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Responses in the other category were broad and ranged from moving to a larger or smaller house and moving away from traffic noise, to the impact of a down market on home prices. 􀂠 “I would decrease the traffic noise behind my house.” 􀂠 “I would like a better interest rate and lower HOA dues.” 􀂠 “I would like a smaller home.” 􀂠 “I would like to see more cultured and non-xenophobic residents.” 􀂠 “Large number of rentals and foreclosures bringing down house prices.” 􀂠 “More bike paths, better walkability, more parks with water (lakes, ponds), more dog parks.” 􀂠 “Wish it was closer for commuting to Orange County.” Desired place to move within Temecula. Those residents who want to move within Temecula (12% overall) named the parts of Temecula or other areas they would like to move to. These areas include: 􀂠 Chardonnay Hills; 􀂠 Crowne Hill; 􀂠 Meadowview; 􀂠 Morgan Hill; 􀂠 Old Town; 􀂠 Paloma del Sol; 􀂠 Paseo del Sol; 􀂠 Santiago Estates; 􀂠 South Temecula; and 􀂠 Wine country. Other I would like to live in a different community other than Temecula I own a home, and would like to sell I would live in a different part of Temecula I currently rent, but would like to buy I wouldn’t change anything about my current living situation0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 50% 12% 12% 9% 5% 13% 100% CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 8 Homeowners. Homeowners responded to questions about the value of their mortgage compared to the value of their home and their concerns about foreclosure. Home values. Among homeowners, nearly 50 percent report that they owe more money on their home than it is currently worth. Figure II-10. Do you owe more on your home than it is worth? Note: n=140. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (45%) No (51%) I don't know (4%) Foreclosure concerns. Most homeowners are not very concerned about their home going into foreclosure. But, more than one in ten are very concerned about their potential for foreclosure, as shown in Figure II-11. Figure II-11. Degree of Foreclosure Concern Note: n=140. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 01234567890% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 8% 3% 1%3%6% 2%4%8%11% 54% Extremely concerned 100% Average: 2 Not at allconcerned Renters. Renters responded to questions about the ease of finding affordable rental units in Temecula and their their interest in homeownership. Ease of finding affordable rental unit. For renters, the relative ease of finding an affordable rental unit varied widely as shown in Figure II-12. Overall, the average ease of finding a unit was 5 on a scale from 0 to 9. About one in five renters had a difficult time finding a unit while one-third found it to be very easy. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 9 Figure II-12. Ease of Finding a Rental Unit Note: n=29. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 01234567890% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 7% 14% 10% 10% 24% 0% 7% 17% 7% 3% Extremely easy Average: 4.9 100% Extremely difficult Reasons why renters have not purchased a home. Figure II-13 depicts the reasons why renters have not yet purchased a home. Lack of down payment, inability to pay a mortgage and poor credit were cited as reasons for not purchasing by at least one in five renters. Figure II-13. Reasons for Not Purchasing a Home Note: n=31. Numbers add to greater than 100 percent due to multiple response. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. I plan to move to another city Doesn’t apply; I do not want to buy a home I cannot find something I want to buy I cannot afford maintenance costs associated with home ownership I have poor credit I cannot afford a mortgage Other I do not have enough money for a down payment0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 32% 26% 19% 19% 10% 10% 10% 7% 100% CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 10 Responses in the other category mentioned the impact of cash investors, delays associated with buying properties in foreclosure and a lack of suitable loan products. 􀂠 “Every time that we put an offer on a home we lose to some investor that offers all cash.” 􀂠 “I did own a house in Temecula at one time...But lost it like many others in Temecula...Now we rent in Temecula.” 􀂠 “The majority of homes I'm interested in purchasing are short sale, foreclosure or bank owned, making the process very long and arduous.” 􀂠 “The mortgage industry is hopelessly corrupt and there are no instruments available other than outright cash purchase and that isn't feasible at current high prices.” Temecula Housing and Community Development Needs Residents and stakeholders selected up to three community needs in seven different categories, ranging from community facilities to housing. Public meeting participants discussed community needs and engaged in needs prioritization exercises. Community facilities. With regard to community facilities, residents and stakeholders responding to the survey identified health care facilities, park and recreational facilities and youth centers as top community needs. Figure II-14 presents the community facility needs identified by residents and stakeholders in order of greatest to least importance. Figure II-14. Community Facility Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Community Facility Needs Health Care Facilities 103 15 Park & Recreational Facilities 73 8 Youth Centers 72 15 Community Centers 48 13 Fire Stations & Equipment 45 3 Senior Centers 36 10 Child Care Centers 28 11 Libraries 24 1 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Public meeting attendees discussed a range of community facility needs, including improving the Boys & Girls Club facility and upgrading Rotary Park in the Pujol neighborhood. Comments from public meeting attendees include: 􀂠 “Boys & Girls Club on Pujol is old.” 􀂠 “Parks in Old Town are old; there’s a quality difference. Rotary Park is an example.” 􀂠 “Senior facilities exist, but demand is high.” CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 11 Infrastructure. Street and alley improvements were the top infrastructure need identified by both residents and stakeholders, followed by street lighting and sidewalk improvements. Few identified ADA improvements as a need, as shown in Figure II-15. Figure II-15. Infrastructure Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Infrastructure Needs Street/Alley Improvement 94 13 Street Lighting 72 11 Sidewalk Improvements 57 11 Drainage Improvement 44 11 Water/Sewer Improvement 32 7 ADA Improvments 8 5 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Special needs. Figure II-16 presents residents’ and stakeholders’ assessment of special needs in Temecula. Services for persons experiencing homelessness, to promote family self-sufficiency and to aid neglected or abused children were the top three needs identified by residents and stakeholders. Figure II-16. Special Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Special Needs Homeless Shelters/Services 61 21 Family Self-Sufficiency Service 58 14 Neglected/Abused Children Center 56 11 Centers/Services for Disabled 40 8 Domestic Violence Services 34 10 Substance Abuse Services 24 8 Accessibility Improvements 11 2 HIV/AIDS Centers & Services 5 1 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Community services. As shown in Figure II-17, health services, youth activities and transportation services were the top three community services needs identified by residents. Stakeholders’ assessments of needs were similar. One public meeting attendee stated a need for, “Health care and services at schools, such as food distribution and clothes.” Figure II-17. Community Services Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Community Services Health Services 76 11 Youth Activities 75 15 Transportation Services 62 12 Anti-Crime Programs 58 7 Senior Activities 39 6 Child Care Services 34 12 Mental Health Services 25 9 Legal Services 21 6 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 12 Neighborhood services. Cleanup of abandoned lots and buildings, tree planting, and code enforcement were the top three neighborhood services needs identified by residents. As shown in Figure II-18, stakeholders prioritized trash and debris removal, cleanup of abandoned lots and buildings, tree planting and graffiti removal. Figure II-18. Neighborhood Services Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Neighborhood Services Cleanup of Abandoned Lots and Buildings 77 12 Tree Planting 73 10 Code Enforcement 71 5 Trash & Debris Removal 61 13 Graffiti Removal 52 10 Parking Facilities 24 8 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Businesses and jobs. Among the businesses and jobs needs, both residents and stakeholders strongly identified the need for job creation/retention. Resident also selected start-up business assistance and small business loans as community needs, as shown in Figure II-19. Stakeholders identified employment training and start-up business assistance as needs. Figure II-19. Businesses and Jobs Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Businesses & Jobs Job Creation/Retention 107 25 Start-up Business Assistance 75 12 Small Business Loans 62 10 Employment Training 55 17 Commercial/Industrial Rehabilitation 34 5 Façade Improvements 30 2 Business Mentoring 24 4 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Housing. As shown in Figure II-20, residents’ and stakeholders’ assessment of housing needs were similar, with one notable exception. The greatest number of residents selected energy efficient improvements as the top housing need while stakeholders identified affordable rental housing. Homeownership assistance and owner-occupied housing rehabilitation were the second and third top housing needs selected by both residents and stakeholders. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 13 Figure II-20. Housing Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Housing Energy Efficient Improvements 61 7 Homeownership Assistance 57 12 Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation 47 11 Senior Housing 40 5 Affordable Rental Housing 30 20 Housing for Foster Youth 24 5 Fair Housing Services 15 3 Rental Housing Rehabilitation 15 6 Housing for Disabled 12 2 Housing for Family Unification 9 3 Lead-based Paint Test/Abatement 7 0 ADA Improvements 4 0 Housing for Large Families 3 3 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Top needs. Figure II-21 summarizes the top needs, measured by number of votes, identified by residents and stakeholders. For residents, job creation/retention, health care facilities and street/alley improvements received the greatest number of votes. Among stakeholders, job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing were the top three needs. Figure II-21. Top Community Needs Need Need Job Creation/Retention 107 Job Creation/Retention 25 Health Care Facilities 103 Homeless Shelters/Services 21 Street/Alley Improvement 94 Affordable Rental Housing 20 Cleanup of Abandoned Lots and Buildings 77 Employment Training 17 Health Services 76 Health Care Facilities 15 Start-up Business Assistance 75 Youth Activities 15 Youth Activities 75 Youth Centers 15 Park & Recreational Facilities 73 Family Self-Sufficiency Service 14 Tree Planting 73 Community Centers 13 Street Lighting 72 Street/Alley Improvement 13 Youth Centers 72 Trash & Debris Removal 13 Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 14 Fair Housing Residents and stakeholders rated the relative seriousness of potential barriers to fair housing in Temecula. Due to their expertise, stakeholders evaluated a more comprehensive list of barriers. Potential barriers to fair housing—residents. As shown in Figure II-22, on average, most residents have not experienced barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. Income, concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas and a lack of affordable housing to purchase were the top three barriers, and these were a serious problem for 10 to 17 percent of residents. Figure II-22. Potential Fair Housing Barriers — Residents Housing provider refused to make reasonable accommodations for my disability Sellers of homes refused to show me their home I can’t find a real estate professional of the race, ethnicity, disability or gender I prefer My lender did not give me an appraisal of my home or property I did not get information about private mortgage insurance Real estate agents only showed me housing I could afford in certain neighborhoods My lender told me to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company I was given a subprime loan (higher interest rate than normal) I have poor credit Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing Lack of affordable housing to rent Restrictive covenants by builders, developers or homeowners associations Lack of affordable housing to purchase Concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas My income level 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 Serious barrier Avg. Rating 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 Not a barrier Note: n=148. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 15 In addition to rating the barriers shown in Figure II-22, several residents wrote in additional barriers. 􀂠 “We could not get rid of our smaller home in order to buy a larger home for our growing family. We are worried about maintaining our rental. We are way too upside-down to sell it.” 􀂠 “Lenders lent to people who couldn't afford the house they bought. Lenders lent/people borrowed beyond their means.” 􀂠 “Homes being FHA approved were hard to find.” 􀂠 “The inspector missed a lot of problems.” Potential barriers to fair housing—stakeholders. As noted above, stakeholders evaluated a comprehensive series of potential barriers to fair housing. Economic, demographic and housing factors. Figure II-23 depicts stakeholders’ ratings of economic, demographic and housing factors that could be barriers to fair housing. Income levels of minority and female-headed households had the highest average rating in this set of factors, at 6.3 on a scale from 0 to 9, where a rating of 9 indicates that the factor is a serious barrier. One stakeholder added developers financing infrastructure through Mello-Roos bonds as a potential barrier. Figure II-23. Economic, Demographic and Housing Factors — Stakeholders Lack of fair housing information in languages other than English Lack of representation of real estate professionals by persons of differing races, ethnicities, disabilities and gender Concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas Poor credit histories of minority borrowers Income levels of minority and female-headed households0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 Avg. Rating 6.3 5.9 3.6 3.3 5.8 Serious barrier Not a barrier Note: n=21. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 16 Land use, zoning and housing policies. Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and neighborhood objections to group homes for persons with disabilities were the most serious barriers associated with land use, zoning and housing policies, as shown in Figure II-24. Figure II-24. Land Use, Zoning and Housing Policies — Stakeholders Lack of adequate zoning for manufactured housing Limitations on density of housing Concentration of group homes in certain neighborhoods Restrictive covenants by builders, developers or homeowners associations Lack of accessible housing for persons with disabilities Neighborhood objections to group homes for persons with disabilities Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 Avg. Rating 6.6 5.7 4.4 3.6 4.7 4.9 3.9 Serious barrier Not a barrier Note: n=17. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Other stakeholder comments included: 􀂠 “We need more housing for low-income, but I feel the city has done a good job with the apartment units on Pujol St. and other apartment areas in Temecula. Also we have homes Habitat for Humanity built in town and could use more of them so families could own their own homes at a low payment.” 􀂠 “Builders putting Mello-Roos bonds on home buyers; high property taxes.” 􀂠 “Lack of transitional housing for the working poor.” CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 17 Capacity issues. Among capacity issues, a lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing was the most serious potential barrier, followed by a lack of fair housing knowledge on the part of small landlords, as shown in Figure II-25. Figure II-25. Capacity Issues — Stakeholders Limited capacity of a local organization devoted to fair housing investigation or testing Lack of knowledge among large landlords and or property managers regarding fair housing Lack of knowledge among lenders regarding fair housing Lack of knowledge among real estate agents regarding fair housing Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing Lack of knowledge among insurance industry representatives regarding fair housing Lack of knowledge among small landlords regarding fair housing Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 Avg. Rating 5.9 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.1 Serious barrier Not a barrier Note: n=15. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 18 Lending activities. The degree of seriousness of lending-related barriers to fair housing choice was very similar across all activities examined. As shown in Figure II-26, lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer was considered a serious barrier by more than 40 percent of stakeholders. Figure II-26. Lending Activities — Stakeholders Lenders offering prime customers subprime rates Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers Lenders targeting subprime, high risk borrowers Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 Avg. Rating 6.6 6.2 5.9 5.9 6.1 Serious barrier Not a barrier Note: n=15. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Additional stakeholder comments include: 􀂠 “Availability of low interest refinancing for other than federally-insured mortgages/upside down loans.” 􀂠 “Need to put more pressure on banks to release vacant homes to the market in order to better bring up the quality of our neighborhoods. Vacant homes are aesthetically disturbing and also cause safety issues, especially with pools.” CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 19 Real estate activities. Figure II-27 presents stakeholders’ ratings of real estate activities that may be a barrier to fair housing choice. Steering, denying the availability of housing and insurance agency discrimination had the highest average ratings. Figure II-27. Real Estate Activities — Stakeholders Use of "neighborhood stability" or similar factors as proxies for racial makeup in appraisals Housing providers using discriminatory advertising Landlords not willing to rent to families with children Housing providers placing certain tenants in the least desirable units in a development Sellers of homes refusing to show their home to certain buyers Owners of mobile home parks prohibiting children from playing outside Housing provider refusing to make reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities Owners of mobile home parks threatening evictions unless tenants pay additional fees and rents Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties Housing providers falsely denying that that housing is available Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 Avg. Rating 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.3 4.7 Serious barrier Not a barrier Note: n=15. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Top barriers to fair housing. Figure II-28 summarizes the top barriers (average rating of 5.9 or higher) to fair housing as rated by stakeholders. The most serious barriers include lending and real estate activities as well as NIMBYism. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 20 Figure II-28. Most Serious Barriers to Fair Housing Choice — Stakeholders Barrier 6.6 Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer 6.6 Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing 6.3 Income levels of minority and female-headed households 6.2 Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company 6.1 Lenders targeting subprime, high risk borrowers 6.1 Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods 5.9 Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing 5.9 Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers 5.9 Lenders offering prime customers subprime rates 5.9 Poor credit histories of minority borrowers 5.9 Housing providers falsely denying that housing is available 5.9 Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties Average Rating Note: n=21. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Affordable housing. As shown in Figure II-II-29, about one in ten residents who responded to the survey had been unable to find affordable housing in Temecula. These respondents were unable to find affordable housing in the following areas: 􀂠 Central Temecula; 􀂠 Southern Temecula; 􀂠 Harveston; 􀂠 The Redhawk/Morgan Hill area; and 􀂠 Pechanga; 􀂠 Throughout Temecula. The types of housing sought included single family homes, condos and apartments. Regarding their search for affordable housing, residents wrote: 􀂠 “As a single parent I needed a rental anywhere in Temecula. Income requirements were extremely and unreasonably high for property management companies and complexes. Had to find a trusting owner that believed with my steady (but not high) income and high FICO that I would pay the rent.” 􀂠 “Looking for low income housing for my son (age 24), who just married and is making little money.” Figure II-29. Have you ever tried to find affordable housing in Temecula and could not? Note: n=155. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (11%) No (89%) CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 21 CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 22 Public transit. About one in five residents who responded to the survey have tried to access public transit in Temecula and were unable to. Figure II-30. Have you ever tried to get public transit in Temecula and could not? Note: n=156. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. In addition to trying to access transit on evenings and weekends, residents reported being unable to access transit from the following parts of Temecula: 􀂠 Auto mall area; 􀂠 Calle Medusa; 􀂠 Crowne Hill; 􀂠 French Valley; 􀂠 Harveston; 􀂠 Highway 79 South; 􀂠 La Serena; 􀂠 Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway; 􀂠 Old Town; 􀂠 Paloma del Sol; 􀂠 Redhawk; 􀂠 Temecula in general; 􀂠 Temecula Valley High School; 􀂠 Winchester; and 􀂠 Wolf Creek. Desired destinations include Murietta, Promenade Mall, Old Town, San Diego and area schools. Community climate. The vast majority of residents responding to the survey agree with the statement, “I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula.” Figure II-31 presents the results. Figure II-31. I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula. Note: n=159. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (21%) No (80%) Agree (94%) Disagree (6%) Residents who do not feel welcome in Temecula explained that they were single parents, gay, of mixed race or not of the Christian faith and these factors made them feel unwelcome. Their comments include: 􀂠 “As a divorced single mother, I find Temecula is not as welcoming as it was when I moved here as an intact family in 1993. This has to do with the "culture" of the community, as well as the social offerings. Because of this, I intend to move away from Temecula as soon as my high school freshman daughter goes to college.” 􀂠 “Both. I feel that there are issues concerning racism in the community.” 􀂠 “However I do have a special needs child and believe that law enforcement could be better trained on how to deal with situations that arise.” 􀂠 “I feel people like me are welcome but only people like me are welcome here. Most of the people that are like me are extremely xenophobic in this town and cannot deal with other cultures.” 􀂠 “I’m happy to be in a same sex relationship. I don't expect everyone to jump jump up for joy but I do expect for people to be respectful and tolerant. I don't have the "gay pride" flag flowing from my awning so the super conservatives might want to consider compromising a bit as well. … I believe strongly in free speech but sometimes wish Temeculas were a bit more moderate. I would also like to personally thank our City Council for sticking up for peoples’ freedom of religion by okaying the Mosque. I am proud to have elected you and thank you. Other than that I love this city. Oh and a HUGE THANK YOU for widening Winchester by the high school. That is my neck of the woods and it has really helped with congestion. Thanks again.” 􀂠 “I have been in Temecula since 1988. Married (now) I feel welcome. As a single parent, it was very difficult. Affordable after school programs were nearly non-existent. Transportation to and from school were not affordable if you don't live near school. It is very expensive to participate in sports, school or otherwise. As far as not feeling welcome, it is is evolving somewhat now, but this city is very "traditional family friendly", but if your family deviates from the norm it is not welcoming.” 􀂠 “I personally feel welcome here because I have made my footprint by being very involved in schools and community activities, but in general I don't see that there is much room for singleparent families. I served on a school site council where a future mayor of the city of Temecula touted the wonder of Temecula based on its low percentage of single-parent families, and the low percentage of apartment dwellers. I was very insulted since both applied to me at the time.” 􀂠 “My family is mixed race and are consistently ignored in shopping centers or given undue unwanted negative attention.” 􀂠 “We are not members of a Christian religion.” CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 23 Housing discrimination. Residents responded to several questions regarding fair housing and their past experience with housing discrimination, if any. Resident experience with housing discrimination. As shown in Figure II-32, only three percent of residents responding to the survey believe they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure. Figure II-32. Do you think you have ever experienced housing discrimination? Note: n=155. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (3%) No (93%) Don’t know (5%) Those residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in housing offered the following descriptions of their experience: 􀂠 “I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in.” 􀂠 “Realtor steering us away from certain homes.” 􀂠 “Single parent.” 􀂠 “We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller.” Reporting housing discrimination. In response to their experience with housing discrimination, only one individual reported filing a complaint with the ACLU. One wrote a letter to the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) to complain about the real estate agent’s steering practices. All residents were asked if they knew who to contact in the case that they experienced housing discrimination. As shown in Figure II-33, only one in ten respondents stated that they knew who to contact to report housing discrimination. Figure II-33. If you ever felt you were discriminated against and wanted to report it, do you know who you would contact? Note: n=132. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (11%) No (59%) Don’t know (30%) CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 24 CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION II, PAGE 25 Those respondents who knew the organization to contact to report housing discrimination would contact: 􀂠 Fair Housing of Riverside County; 􀂠 The Fair Housing hotline; 􀂠 HUD; 􀂠 CA DRE; 􀂠 A lawyer; and 􀂠 Search the Internet. Fair housing resources. With regard to the availability and accessibility of fair housing resources in Temecula, half of stakeholders did not think sufficient information was available. Stakeholders made the following comments about the types of information, resources and training that would be helpful to them: 􀂠 “Credit counseling.” 􀂠 “I have never seen any leaflets, flyers, or brochures concerning Fair Housing Laws available to the general public in Temecula. If they exist, where are they hidden?” 􀂠 “Advertise workshops on how to obtain housing in the area.” 􀂠 “A more proactive approach in informing and educating the realtor community of availability of the information and where to send their clientele.” Stakeholders suggested a variety of methods to inform them about fair housing issues. These included emails and websites, city and/or county public meetings, industry publications, government publications, internal memos or communications and providing speakers to organizations. SECTION III. Strategic Plan 3-5 Year Strategic Plan This document includes Narrative Responses to specific questions that grantees of the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS and Emergency Shelter Grants Programs must respond to in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations. NAME OF JURISDICTION: City of Temecula Consolidated Plan Time Period: 2012-2016 GENERAL Executive Summary The Executive Summary is required. The Summary must include the objectives and outcomes identified in the plan and an evaluation of past performance. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Executive Summary: Introduction As an Entitlement Community receiving annual funding allocations from the Federal Government to fund local housing and community development needs, the City of Temecula is required to develop a Consolidated Plan once every five years. The Consolidated Plan serves as a comprehensive guide on how the City intends to utilize the allotted federal funds to address national national objectives in a manner that will produce the greatest measurable impact on the local community. For each succeeding year, the City is required to prepare a one year Action Plan to notify citizens and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of the City’s intended actions during that particular fiscal year. The annual Action Plan includes citizen and stakeholder input and due to HUD field office in Los Angeles 45 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The City of Temecula has prepared this draft First-Year Action Plan covering the time period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. At the end of each fiscal year, the City must also prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to provide information to HUD and Temecula citizens about the year’s accomplishments. Beginning in 2012, the City of Temecula anticipates receiving approximately $475,000 annually through the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to fund housing, community development and social service activities. The 2012 program year will be the first time Temecula has received CDBG directly, as an entitlement community. During 2012, the City will also receive an anticipated $1,200,000 of previously programmed CDBG income allocated to the City and administered by the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA) 1 Community and Housing Profile The City of Temecula is a relatively new city, incorporated in 1989. During the past decade, the City experienced very strong population growth (73%). On average the City gained approximately 4,200 residents each year, reaching 100,097 in 2010. The City is somewhat of a bedroom community to surrounding major employment centers: Of Temecula’s 42,540 employed residents, 53 percent work outside Riverside County. Forty-three percent commute to jobs in Los Angeles, Orange or San Diego counties Overall, the City of Temecula is relatively young, well educated and affluent. Even so, the poverty rate of Temecula doubled between 2000 and 2010, from 7 percent to 14 percent—perhaps reflective of the economic downturn. Most Temecula residents (57%) are non-Hispanic white. The City has a lower proportion of Hispanic residents than Riverside County and the state of California as a whole. Like many areas of California, Temecula experienced wide fluctuations in home values during the past decade. Home values increased rapidly from 2000 to 2005: the median value rose from $190,000 to $456,000. After 2007, values began falling and, between 2007 and 2010, home values decreased by 38 percent. It is not surprising, therefore, that nearly 50 percent of homeowners responding to the survey for this study owe more on their home than it is currently worth. Slightly more than one in ten are very concerned about their home going into foreclosure. Despite the recent drop in prices, home values as well as rental costs have increased overall since 2000. Both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past decade. Temecula’s median rent in 2010 was $1,252. Only 36 percent of the City’s renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. About one-third of renters can afford the City’s 2010 median home value of $289,800. A housing needs model prepared for this study found a shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula—45 percent of all renter households—earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 units affordable to these renters (11% of all rental units) leaving a gap of 3,177 units. Residents responding to the survey for this study report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and the income levels of minority and female-headed households to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real estate agents was the type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. 2 Resident and Stakeholder Priority Needs Over a five year period, Temecula plans to allocate its CDBG funds to address worst case needs, including: • Construction of a new community gym in a low income area; • Development of supportive/transitional housing in Temecula; • Development of a homeless shelter in Temecula; • Rehabilitation of a community center located in a low income area; • Replacement of equipment and accessibility improvements on two playgrounds located in low income areas; • Construction of new sidewalks in Old Town to improve accessibility; • Food, clothing, school supplies, emergency assistance and counseling services to low income children, at-risk families and homeless residents; • Services for at-risk youth and families who are victims of domestic violence and abuse; • Child care and afterschool care for low income children; • Health care services for un-and underinsured women; • Assistance with utilities costs for low income homeowners through solar equipment; and • Assistance with residential improvement for low income homeowners. This plan for allocating funds is consistent with the top priorities identified by residents and stakeholders who participated in development of the Consolidated Plan. Specifically: Residents responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, health care facilities, and street/alley improvements as top community needs. During PY2012, the City intends to fund health care services for low income, un-and underinsured women, construct sidewalks, and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town. Therefore, the City will directly fund two of the three top priorities identified in the resident survey. Job creation activities will be conducted by the City in partnership with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. A goal of the City’s Economic Development Element is to encourage job creation and economic development through revitalization activities, some of which will be funded by CDBG. Stakeholders responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing as top community needs. The City plans to fund tenant improvements to support the creation of a homeless shelter. In addition, public services dollars will be used to provide services and emergency assistance to residents who are homeless and at-risk of homelessness. 3 Public meeting attendees prioritized improving bike path linkages, supportive services to single mothers and upgrading the Boys & Girls Club facility as top needs. As described above, the City has prioritized supportive services and improvement to youth facilities (playgrounds, community center). Objectives and Outcomes The major objectives and expected outcomes for the 3-5 year Strategic Plan are: Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL-3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL-1, SL-3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO-1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Outcomes DH-1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing Provide CDBG funding to support development of a homeless shelter. Provide CDBG funding to assist low income homeowners with residential improvementsSL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG fundingconstruct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. 4 Provide CDBG funding to construct solar systems for low income homeowners Provide CDBG funding to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at-risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Fair housing outreach and education SL-2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). With CDBG funding provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. EO-1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. Strategic Plan Due every three, four, or five years (length of period is at the grantee’s discretion) no less than 45 days prior to the start of the grantee’s program year start date. HUD does not accept plans between August 15 and November 15. Mission: The City of Temecula’s mission is to maintain a safe, secure, clean, healthy, and orderly community; to balance the utilization of open space, parks, trail facilities, public transportation, quality jobs, diverse housing, and adequate infrastructure; and to enhance and revitalize historic areas. MANAGING THE PROCESS Consultation 91.200(b) 1. Identify the lead agency or entity for overseeing the development of the plan and the major public and private agencies responsible for administering programs covered by the consolidated plan. Lead agency. The lead agency for overseeing the development of the Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan and administering the Community Development Block Grant Program covered by the Consolidated Plan is the City of Temecula, Community Development Department. 5 2. Identify agencies, groups, and organizations that participated in the process. This should reflect consultation requirements regarding the following: • General §91.100 (a)(1) -Consult with public and private agencies that provide health services, social and fair housing services (including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, homeless persons) during the preparation of the plan. • Homeless strategy §91.100 (a)(2) – Consult with public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health services, and social services to determine what resources are available to address the needs of any persons that are chronically homeless. • Lead lead-based paint hazards §91.100 (a)(3) – Consult with State or local health and child welfare agencies and examine existing data related to lead-based paint hazards and poisonings. • Adjacent governments §91.100 (a)(4) --Notify adjacent governments regarding priority non-housing community development needs. Consultation with agencies, groups and organizations. As part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan development process, various MPOs, Riverside County departments, housing and community service providers, other jurisdictions, and other entities with a potential interest in, or knowledge of the City of Temecula’s housing and non-housing community development issues were consulted. The primary methods by which the City consulted with adjacent governments and service providers were through Citizen Participation Meetings, a Needs Assessment Survey, email notifications, and public noticing in the local newspapers. Public agencies and service providers that were consulted include the following: — Housing Services: The Housing Authority (HA) of the County of Riverside — Fair Housing Services: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County — Health Services: Riverside County Department of Mental Health — Social Services: Riverside County Department of Public Social Services — Homeless Services: Riverside County Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) Board — Lead-based Paint: County Department of Public Health, Office of Industrial Hygiene; California Department of Public Health — Variety of service agencies via direct mailings to individuals and agencies that have previously expressed an interest in housing and community development in the City 6 7 The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. The industries and professions represented included: 􀂠 Affordable housing provision; 􀂠 Child protective services; 􀂠 Fair housing; 􀂠 Foreclosure/loss mitigation prevention; 􀂠 Higher education; 􀂠 Homeless services; 􀂠 Landlord/tenant services; 􀂠 Lending; 􀂠 Manufacturing; 􀂠 Neighborhood stabilization; 􀂠 Rental property owners and managers; 􀂠 Residential development; 􀂠 Sales; 􀂠 Senior services; 􀂠 Services for low income residents; 􀂠 Services for single mothers; 􀂠 Social services; and 􀂠 Youth development. Metropolitan planning §91.100 (a)(5) --Consult with adjacent units of general local government, including local government agencies with metropolitan-wide planning responsibilities, particularly for problems and solutions that go beyond a single jurisdiction, i.e. transportation, workforce development, economic development, etc. The City of Temecula regularly works with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) regarding metropolitan-wide planning issues, such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City is currently working on a multi-jurisdictional plan to establish livable communities’ concepts, and a sustainable transportation system that addresses mobility, access, and safety. The City has partnered with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the cities of Murrieta, Wildomar, and Lake Elsinore to implement solutions that go beyond our jurisdiction. • HOPWA §91.100 (b) --Largest city in EMSA consult broadly to develop metropolitan-wide strategy for addressing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. N/A • Public housing §91.100 (c) ----Consult with the local public housing agency concerning public housing needs, planned programs, and activities. N/A; there is no local public housing agency in Temecula. Citizen Participation 91.200 (b) 3. Based on the jurisdiction’s current citizen participation plan, provide a summary of the citizen participation process used in the development of the consolidated plan. Temecula’s Consolidated Plan was developed with a strong emphasis on community input. To broaden participation in the Plan, the City provided a number of opportunities for public input including surveys, public meetings and focus groups and the 30-day draft public comment period. Specifically, 􀂠 The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. Notices for the community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the City’s website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. 􀂠 On November 17, 2011, the City of Temecula held a technical assistance meeting to provide assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. 􀂠 Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011, through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. These efforts efforts resulted in participation by 176 residents and 30 stakeholders in the development of the Consolidated Plan. Include a description of actions taken to encourage participation of all its residents, including the following: a. low and moderate income residents where housing and community development funds may be spent; b. minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities; c. local and regional institutions and other organizations (including businesses, developers, community and faith-based organizations); d. residents of public and assisted housing developments and recipients of tenantbased assistance; e. residents of targeted revitalization areas. The City distributed a flyer about the Consolidated Plan process and surveys to social service agencies and local nonprofits and encouraged them to make the surveys available to their clients. The City marketed the survey in the area west of I-15, where low income household concentrations are located. Notices for the community community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the City’s website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. The survey was advertised for over a month on the website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. Approximately 16 percent of residents completing the survey earned low to moderate income. One in ten respondents indicated that a member of their household has a disability. Eleven percent of survey respondents were of Hispanic descent and 16 percent were of a race other than White (Hispanic or non-Hispanic). 8 The City also actively engaged staff of social service agencies and nonprofits in development of the Plan through focus groups. An exercise was completed which allowed stakeholders to rate the top needs in the City and prioritize the City’s annual allocation of CDBG. Examples of the materials used in the public and stakeholder outreach appear at the end of Appendix A. 4. Provide a description of the process used to allow citizens to review and submit comments on the proposed consolidated plan, including how the plan (or a summary of the plan) was published for review; the dates, times and locations of a public hearing, or hearings; when and how notice was provided to citizens of the hearing(s); the dates of the 30 day citizen comment period, and if technical assistance was provided to groups developing proposals for funding assistance under the consolidated plan and how this assistance was provided. The draft Consolidated Plan was published in the local newspaper to notice the 30-day public comment review period beginning on March 1, 2012. The draft Consolidated Plan was heard by the Temecula City Council at a publicly noticed meeting on April 10, 2012, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590. The City Council meeting was noticed in the local newspaper for 14 days. 5. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views received on the plan and explain any comments not accepted and reasons why these comments were not accepted. Comments will be added here once they are received during the draft comment period. The City accepted all comments during the citizen participation process. *Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP Tool. HOUSING AND HOMELESS NEEDS Housing Needs 91.205 *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit CHAS Table from: http://socds.huduser.org/scripts/odbic.exe/chas/index.htm *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Needs/Housing Table 6. In this narrative, describe the estimated housing needs projected for the next five five year period for the following categories of persons: extremely low income, low income, moderate income, and middle income families, renters and owners, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, single persons, large families, public housing residents, victims of domestic violence, families on the public housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list, and discuss specific housing problems, including: cost-burden, severe cost-burden, substandard housing, and overcrowding (especially large families) and substandard conditions being experienced by extremely low income, low income, moderate income, and middle income renters and owners compare to the jurisdiction as a whole The jurisdiction must define the terms “standard condition” and “substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation.” 9 7. To the extent that any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need for any income category in comparison to the needs of that category as a whole, the jurisdiction must provide an assessment of that specific need. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least ten percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Housing Needs response: A full discussion of the housing needs for low income residents and special populations can be found in Section I of the Consolidated Plan, which discusses the housing problems of cost burden, severe cost burden, substandard housing and overcrowding. Projected needs, 2015: Extremely low income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated Plan found a current need for 2,079 rental units for renters earning less than 30% of the HUD MFI per year. If the City maintains its current population growth, extremely low income renters experience the same population growth as the City overall, and no new units are developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 2,641 units in 2015. Very low income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated Plan found a current need for 1,261 rental units for renters earning between 30% and 50% of the HUD MFI per year. If the City maintains its current population growth, very low income renters experience the same population growth as the City overall, and no new units are developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 1,602 units in 2015. Low and moderate income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated Plan found a current need for 1,271 rental units for renters earning between 50% and 80% of the HUD MFI per year. If the City maintains its current population growth, low and moderate income renters experience the same population growth as the City overall, and no new units are developed developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 1,614 units in 2015. Middle income renters. No current need; no future need estimated. Extremely low and very low income owners. 1,501 extremely low and very low income owners were cost burdened in 2010. By 2015, this could exceed 1,900. Low moderate income owners. Another 1,815 low and moderate income owners were cost burdened in 2010. By 2015, this could exceed 2,300. Middle income and all other owners. There were also 7,800 owners earning above 80% of the HUD MFI that were cost burdened in 2010. By 2015, this could reach nearly 10,000. Elderly persons. The Needs table completed for the Plan indicates that there are 2,245 elderly residents with housing needs; 896 are frail elderly. From 2000 to 2010, the City’s population of elderly grew faster than the general population overall. If this continues through 2015, the number of frail elderly with housing needs will increase to 3,300 for all elderly and 1,3,00 for frail elderly Persons with disabilities. CHAS data report that 559 developmentally disabled residents and 724 physically disabled residents in Temecula have housing needs. These needs could increase to 800 and 1,030, respectively. 10 Families. New data on the specific housing needs of residents by family type are not available for 2010. To the extent that these populations have housing needs in the next five years, they are captured in the needs projections by income categories above. Public housing residents/Section 8 voucher holders. The Riverside Housing Authority has a waiting list of more than 50,000 households. If two percent of these are Temecula residents (the same proportion of voucher holders), the number of Temecula residents on the wait list could increase to 1,400 in five years. Also, see the CHAS data included in the Needs tables located in Appendix C. Housing conditions. Section I of the Consolidated Plan discusses cost burden, severe cost burden and substandard condition. Because the City’s housing stock is so new, there are very few units in substandard condition. For the purposes of this Consolidated Plan, severely substandard housing is defined as housing units lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities and are not intended primarily for recreational use (e.g., a casita used like a cabin). According to the 2010 ACS, 60 housing units in Temecula lack complete plumbing and 47 units lack complete kitchens. As many as 107 units in the City could be in severely substandard condition. These units represent 0.3 percent of the occupied housing stock. Of the 107 substandard housing units, 56 percent were owner occupied and 44 percent were renter occupied. In 2000, 7 percent of units were overcrowded. According to the ACS, in 2010 that number dropped to 4 percent, or 1,184 units. Nine percent of Hispanic households are overcrowded compared with 2 percent of non-Hispanic white households. Cost burden is a more significant problem in Temecula. As the following table shows, cost burden has increased substantially during the decade and, as of 2010, more than half of renters and owners in the City were cost burdened. Cost Burdened Households, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Renters Cost Burdened 2,011 43% 5,930 63% Severely Cost Burdened 1,000 21% 3,756 40% Owners Cost Burdened 4,519 36% 11,124 52% Severely Cost Burdened 1,168 9% 4,855 23% 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Disproportionate need. According to HUD CHAS data, among extremely low income households, Native Americans and persons of Hispanic descent were more likely to have housing problems than the average household. These same groups, along with African American households were also more likely to have housing problems among low to moderate income households. Each of these minority groups had a likelihood of housing problems that was at least 10 percentage points greater than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. 11 Homeless Needs 91.205 (c) *Refer to the Homeless Needs Table 1A or the CPMP Tool’s Needs.xls workbook 8. Homeless Needs— The jurisdiction must provide a concise summary of the nature and extent of homelessness in the jurisdiction, (including rural homelessness and chronic homelessness where applicable), addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless persons and homeless families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations, in accordance with Table 1A. The summary must include the characteristics and needs of low income individuals and children, (especially extremely low income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered. 9. Describe, to the extent information is available, the nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group. A quantitative analysis is not required. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Homeless Needs response: Riverside County conducts the region’s annual Point in Time (PIT) Count of homeless individuals. The most recently published PIT, conducted in January of 2011, reports homeless tabulations for Riverside County, and a total number of homeless persons located in Temecula. Since homeless subpopulations were not provided for Temecula in the PIT, the homeless population of Temecula was assumed to have the same characteristics as Riverside County as a whole. For example, since three percent of the total homeless population was located in Temecula, three percent of the chronically homeless were also assumed to be located in Temecula. Since there is not a homeless shelter in Temecula, the entire homeless population of Temecula is assumed to be unsheltered. According to the 2011 PIT, there were 162 people who were homeless in Temecula. An estimated 148 of these people were individuals and 14 were persons in families with children. Sixty-six were estimated to be chronically homeless. The following table displays the estimated number of homeless individuals in Temecula by subpopulation, gender, race and ethnicity. The gender, race and ethnicity estimates are based on responses to a survey conducted in conjunction with the PIT. 12 Homeless Population of Temecula, 2011 Source: Riverside County January 2011 Point-in-Time Count Report. Homeless Individuals 148 91% Persons in Homeless Family Units 14 9% Total 162 Homeless Subpopulations Chronically Homeless 66 41% Severely Mentally Ill 48 30% Chronic Substance Abuse 75 46% Veterans 23 14% Persons with HIV/AIDS 5 3% Victims of Domestic Violence 19 12% Youth (Under 18 years of age) 3 2% Gender Male 96 59% Female 62 38% Unknown 5 3% Race and Ethnicity White/Caucasian 73 45% Hispanic/Latino 44 27% Black/African American 31 19% Other 15 9% Total Percent A lower bound estimate of the City’s population of persons at risk of homelessness can be calculated using HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from 2000. The CHAS data provide estimates of severe cost-burden and housing need for low income households with various characteristics. In general, households with the highest risk factors for homelessness tend to have the lowest incomes and have trouble paying their housing housing costs. They are also more likely to be renters and have limited social supports. The following table shows the estimated number of persons at risk of homelessness by household category for the City of Temecula. At-Risk of Homelessness: Extremely Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened Households, Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research and Consulting, U.S. Census Bureau 2000 and 2010 Census and SOCDS CHAS database. Elderly 95 24 119 Small Families 267 178 444 Large Families 121 57 178 Other Households 190 5 196 Total 673 264 937 Renters Owners Total at Risk of Homelessness 13 Non-homeless Special Needs 91.205 (d) including HOPWA *Please also refer to the Non-homeless Special Needs Tables 1A & 1B or, in the CPMP Tool, the Needs.xls workbook. 10. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of persons in various subpopulations that are not homeless but may require housing or supportive services, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, victims of domestic violence, public housing residents, and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs. The jurisdiction can use the Non-Homeless Special Needs Table (Table 1B or Needs.xls in CPMP Tool) of their Consolidated Plan to help identify these needs. *Note: HOPWA recipients must identify the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families that will be served in the metropolitan area. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Non-homeless Special Needs response: Please see the Non-homeless Special Needs Table that is attached in Appendix C. Lead-based Paint 91.205 (e) 11. Estimate the number of housing units* that contain lead-based paint hazards, as defined in section 1004 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and are occupied by extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families. *If using the CPMP Tool, this number can be provided on the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls file. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Lead-based Paint response: Less than one percent of the City’s housing stock was built before 1940, when lead-based paint was most common. Another 1.2 percent of the City’s housing was built between 1940 and 1960, when lead-based paint was still used but the amount of lead in the paint was being reduced. If (as HUD estimates), 90 percent of the pre-1940 units in Temecula are at risk of containing lead-based paint, 80 percent of the units built between 1940 and 1960 are at risk, and 62 percent of units built between 1960 and 1979 are at risk then as many as 1,726 Temecula housing units (6%) may contain lead paint. Of these units, an estimated 322 are occupied by low income households. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS Housing Market Analysis 91.210 Refer to the Housing Market Analysis Table in the Needs.xls workbook 14 12. Based on information available to the jurisdiction, describe the significant characteristics of the housing market in terms of supply, demand, condition, and the cost of housing; the housing stock available to serve persons with disabilities; and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. 13. Provide an estimate; to the extent information is available, of the number of vacant or abandoned buildings and whether units in these buildings are suitable for rehabilitation. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Housing Market Analysis responses: Housing market analysis. Please see Section I (Housing and Community Profile) for a complete analysis of the Temecula Housing Market, including a gaps exercise that estimates unmet demand for low income renters and renters who want to buy a home. The City does not maintain a current inventory of vacant or abandoned buildings and their suitability for rehabilitation. Public and Assisted Housing 91.210 (b) 14. In cooperation with the public housing agency or agencies located within its boundaries, describe the needs of public housing, including a. the number of public housing units in the jurisdiction, b. the physical condition of such units, c. the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction, d. the number of families on public housing and tenant-based waiting lists and e. results from the Section 504 needs assessment of public housing projects located within its boundaries (i.e. assessment of needs of tenants and applicants on waiting list for accessible units as required by 24 CFR 8.25). N/A. The jurisdiction can use the optional Priority Public Housing Needs Table of the Consolidated Plan to identify priority public housing needs to assist in this process. 15. Describe the number and targeting (income level and type of household served) of units currently assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an assessment of whether any such units are expected to be lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason, (i.e. expiration of Section 8 contracts). Temecula’s Redevelopment Agency has financed twelve affordable housing projects within the City, creating 574 multi-family rental units to serve low and moderate income families within the City of Temecula. The redevelopment agency focuses on improving blighted conditions, which are often found in under-resourced areas. As a result, most affordable development projects are concentrated in the low income portions of the City. 15 Affordable Housing and Low Income Concentration, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas, City of Temecula and BBC Research & Consulting. The following figure summarizes the City’s inventory of affordable housing developments and the number of Section 8 vouchers currently being used in the City of Temecula. As of January, 2012, there are 710 families receiving some form of rental housing assistance in Temecula. Affordable Housing and Section 8 Vouchers, City of Temecula, 2012 Source: Housing Authority of Riverside County and BBC Research & Consulting. Rancho Creek Apts. 30 Rancho West Apts. 150 Mission Village Apts. 76 Riverbank Senior Apts. 65 Dalton Historical Building (Dalton II) 24 Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 22 Temecula Reflections 11 Summerhouse 20 Warehouse at Creekside 32 Oaktree Apts. 40 Rancho California Apts. 55 Creekside Apts. 49 Total Units 574 Section 8 Voucers used in Temecula 136 Total Rental Subsidized Units/Vouchers 710 Number of Units Affordable Housing Developments in Temecula 16 Homeless Inventory 91.210 (c) 16. The jurisdiction shall provide a concise summary of the existing facilities and services (including a brief inventory) that assist homeless persons and families with children and subpopulations identified in Table 1A or in the CPMP Tool Needs Table. These include outreach and assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, access to permanent housing, and activities to prevent low income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low income) from becoming homeless. This inventory of facilities should include (to the extent it is available to the jurisdiction) an estimate of the percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs that are serving people that are chronically homeless. The City does not currently have a homeless shelter or transitional or permanent housing to assist persons who are homeless. The City’s various social service agencies may assist persons who are homeless through their programs that target low income households. The City recognizes the need for developing facilities to assist persons who are homeless and has made this a high priority for the 2012-2016 Consolidated Planning period. The jurisdiction can use the optional Continuum of Care Housing Activity Chart and Service Activity Chart to meet this requirement. Special Need Facilities and Services 91.210 (d) 17. Describe, to the extent information is available, the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. Please refer to the Non-Homeless Needs table in Appendix C for the number of residents with special needs who require supportive services. Barriers to Affordable Housing 91.210 (e) 18. Explain whether the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve affordable housing are affected by public policies, particularly those of the local jurisdiction. Such policies include tax policy affecting land and other property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment. The AI conducted as part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan found no barriers to affordable housing development related to City actions. The AI did identify two minor, potential barriers in the City’s zoning regulations (lack of definition of “family” and disallowance of congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants not specifically for the elderly in residential zones). 17 STRATEGIC PLAN The strategic plan must describe how the jurisdiction plans to provide new or improved availability, affordability, and sustainability of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity, principally for extremely low, low income, and moderate income residents General Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies 91.215 (a) 19. In this narrative, describe the reasons for setting priorities for allocating investment among different activities and needs, as identified in tables* prescribed by HUD. 92.215(a)(1) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 1A Homeless and Special Needs Population; Table 1B Special Needs (Non-Homeless) Populations; Table 2A Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Table; and Table 2B Priority Community Development Needs. *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Needs Table file: Needs.xls The activities outlined in the Strategic Plan cannot be implemented simultaneously due to limitations of funding and organizational capacity. Therefore, the City must prioritize how funds will be allocated to address the unmet housing and community development needs. For the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan period, the City has developed the following priorities for meeting the housing and community development needs identified in the Consolidated Plan and AI. These priorities are based on the quantitative needs identified through the housing market analysis; analysis of the needs of special populations; and input from citizens and stakeholders through the community meetings and surveys. High priority needs • Provide housing and support services for special needs populations. • Improve conditions in economically challenged neighborhoods and/or for low income residents. • Provide programs and services to assist families and persons who are homeless find shelter and transitional housing and access needed services. • Increase accessibility in the City for persons with disabilities, including sidewalks and accessible housing. Medium priority needs • Preserve the supply of affordable ownership stock through rehabilitation. • Increase the supply of affordable housing for renters earning less than $20,000 per year. • Assist residents with job training and employment needs. Low priority needs • Reduce lead-based paint hazards in housing. • Increase awareness and knowledge of fair housing among City Departments, Boards and residents. 18 20. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed. 21. If applicable, identify the census tracts for Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas and/or any local targeted areas. N/A 22. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a)(1)) and the basis for assigning the priority (including the relative priority, where required) given to each category of priority needs (91.215(a)(2)). 23. If appropriate, the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas and/or any local targeted areas. N/A 24. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. Geographic allocation. The City of Temecula will direct assistance to low to moderate income Census Tracts in the City—primarily those areas located west of I-15 and in the central city. ((No areas of racial concentration have been identified in Temecula). In addition to directing assistance to low to moderate income areas, the City will provide direct assistance to limited clientele populations. Obstacles to meeting needs. As mentioned above, the primary obstacles to meeting the needs of underserved residents in the City of Temecula are lack of funding, especially given the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency in February 2012. Specific Objectives 91.215 (a) (4) 25. Summarize priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete in accordance with the tables* prescribed by HUD. Outcomes must be categorized as providing either new or improved availability/accessibility, affordability, or sustainability of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity. Goals and objectives to be carried out during the strategic plan period are indicated by placing a check in the following boxes. Objective Category: Decent Housing Which includes: Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: assisting homeless persons obtain affordable housing improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods job creation and retention assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless eliminating blighting influences and the deterioration of property and facilities establishment, stabilization and expansion of small business (including microbusinesses) retaining the affordable housing stock increasing the access to quality public and private facilities the provision of public services concerned with employment 19 Goals and objectives …(continued) Objective Category: Decent Housing Which includes: Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: increasing the availability of affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low income and moderate income families, particularly to members of disadvantaged minorities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability reducing the isolation of income groups within areas through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods the provision of jobs to low income persons living in areas affected by those programs and activities under programs covered by the plan increasing the supply of supportive housing which includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/ADOS) to live in dignity and independence restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value availability of mortgage financing for low income persons at reasonable rates using nondiscriminatory lending practices providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities conserving energy resources and use of renewable energy sources access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the longterm economic social viability of the community The following objectives and outcomes the City of Temecula plans to fulfill during the 2012-2016 Consolidated Planning period were developed using HUD’s framework: Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability Decent Housing DH-1 DH-2 DH-3 Suitable Living Environment SL-1 SL-2 SL-3 Economic Opportunity EO-1 EO-2 EO-3 2012-2013 Objectives and Outcomes The major objectives and expected outcomes forthe 3-5 year Strategic Plan: Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL-3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. 20 Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL-1, SL-3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO-1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Outcomes DH-1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing Provide CDBG funding to support development of a homeless shelter. Provide CDBG funding to assist low income homeowners with residential improvements. SL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG funding construct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. Provide CDBG funding to construct solar systems for low income homeowner Provide CDBG funding to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at-risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Fair housing outreach and education SL-2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). With CDBG funding provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. EO-1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. 21 HOUSING Priority Housing Needs 91.215 (b) 26. Describe the relationship between the allocation priorities and the extent of need given to each category specified in the Housing Needs Table (Table 2A or Needs.xls). These categories correspond with special tabulations of U.S. census data provided by HUD for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. 27. Provide an analysis of how the characteristics of the housing market and the severity of housing problems and needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority housing need category, particularly among extremely low income, low income, and moderate income households. Note: Family and income types may be grouped in the case of closely related categories of residents where the analysis would apply to more than one family or income type. 28. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. The City of Temecula recognizes that many residents have housing needs. Indeed, the housing market analysis conducted for this study found a shortage of 3,177 rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In addition, more than 50 percent of renters and owners in the City are cost burdened. In the current economic climate, there are limited opportunities and funding available to provide affordable housing opportunities. They City will attempt to seek new partnerships in the upcoming year and throughout the Consolidated Planning period. Specifically, the City will continue to address affordable housing needs through the following programs: Section 8 Rental Assistance: The City will continue to provide Section 8 rental assistance to extremely low and low income households through the Riverside County Housing Authority Voucher Program. Approximately 136 low income renter-households will be assisted in the City. Mortgage Credit Certificates: The City participates with the County of Riverside in its Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program as a means of providing financial assistance for the purchase of single-family housing. A mortgage credit certificate is a certificate authorizing first-time home buyers to take a federal income tax credit of up to 15 percent of the annual interest paid on the mortgage. The program targets low and moderate income households. Specific Objectives/Affordable Housing 91.215 (b) Note: Specific affordable housing objectives must specify the number of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income households to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined in 24 CFR 92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership. (24 CFR 91.215(b)(2) 22 29. Identify each specific housing objective by number (DH-1, DH-2, DH-2), proposed accomplishments and outcomes the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms over a specified time period, or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. Complete and submit Table 1C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls file. 30. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. 31. Indicate how the characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of funds made available for rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing units. 32. If the jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance, specify local market conditions that led to the choice of that option. N/A Five Year Priority Housing Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. the City will accomplish the following affordable housing goals: DH-1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing Provide CDBG funding to support the development of a homeless shelter. Provide CDBG funding to assist low income homeowners with residential improvements. SL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to construct solar systems for low income homeowners Public Housing Strategy 91.215 (c) 33. Describe the public housing agency's strategy to serve the needs of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families residing in the jurisdiction served by the public housing agency (including families on the public housing and section 8 tenant-based waiting list). 34. Describe the public housing agency’s strategy for addressing the revitalization and restoration needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction and improving the management and operation of such public housing. 35. Describe the public housing agency’s strategy for improving the living environment of extremely low income, low income, and moderate families residing in public housing. 23 36. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the needs of public housing and activities it will undertake to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership. (NAHA Sec. 105 (b)(11) and (91.215 (k)) 37. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such designation. (NAHA Sec. 105 (g)) The Riverside Housing Authority was interviewed as part of the development of the Consolidated Plan and AI. Please see the Public Housing Authority section in the AI for a discussion of the housing authority’s practices and policies. None of the public housing units owned and operated by the Riverside Housing Authority are located in Temecula. Approximately two percent of the housing authority’s voucher holders—or about 136 households—reside in Temecula. HOMELESS Priority Homeless Needs *Refer to the Homeless Needs Table 1A or the CPMP Tool’s Needs.xls workbook 38. Describe the jurisdiction's choice of priority needs and allocation priorities, based on reliable data meeting HUD standards and reflecting the required consultation with homeless assistance providers, homeless persons, and other concerned citizens regarding the needs of homeless families with children and individuals. 39. Provide an analysis of how the needs of each category of residents (listed in question #38) provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority homeless need category. 40. Provide a brief narrative addressing gaps in services and housing for the sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless. A community should give a high priority to chronically homeless persons, where the jurisdiction identifies sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless persons in its Homeless Needs Table -Homeless Populations and Subpopulations. Please see the Homeless table in Appendix C for gaps in provision of housing and services to persons who are homeless. The City recognizes the need for developing facilities to assist persons who are homeless and has made this a high priority for the 2012-2016 Consolidated Planning period. 24 Homeless Strategy 91.215 (d) Homelessness 41. Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for developing a system to address homelessness and the priority needs of homeless persons and families (including the subpopulations identified in the needs section). The jurisdiction's strategy must consider the housing and supportive services needed in each stage of the process which includes preventing homelessness, outreach/assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, and helping homeless persons (especially any persons that are chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. 42. Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy for helping extremely low and low income individuals and families who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Chronic Homelessness 43. Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy for eliminating chronic homelessness. This should include the strategy for helping homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. This strategy should, to the maximum extent feasible, be coordinated with the strategy presented in Exhibit 1 of the Continuum of Care (CoC) application and any other strategy or plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. 44. Describe the efforts to increase coordination between housing providers, health, and service agencies in addressing the needs of persons that are chronically homeless.(91.215(l)) Homelessness Prevention 45. Describe the jurisdiction’s strategy to help prevent homelessness for individuals and families with children who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Institutional Structure 46. Briefly describe the institutional structure, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction will carry out its homelessness strategy. Discharge Coordination Policy 47. Every jurisdiction receiving McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, or Section 8 SRO Program funds must develop and implement a Discharge Coordination Policy, to the maximum extent practicable. Such a policy should include “policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons.” The jurisdiction should describe its planned activities to implement a cohesive, community-wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how the community will move toward such a policy. The City has adopted a program to find housing for Temecula’s homeless population and will continue to build new, and expand existing partnerships among private and public 25 sector organizations to ensure a comprehensive social services infrastructure that provides services to all ages and addresses gaps in services. This includes a network of public and private organizations to address homelessness, and a broad structure of social support for special needs populations. Specific Objectives/Homeless (91.215) 48. Identify specific objectives that the jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete in accordance with the tables* prescribed by HUD, and how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. For each specific objective, identify proposed accomplishments and outcomes the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms over a specified time period (one, two, three or more years) or in other measurable terms as defined by the jurisdiction. Complete and submit Table 1C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls worksheets. Five Year Homeless Objectives The City’s five-year objectives which will assist persons who are homeless include: Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing the City will provide CDBG funding to support at the development of a homeless shelter. Persons who are homeless and at-risk of homelessness in Temecula will be assisted by the City through the provision of block grant funds to homeless services and other social service providers. CDBG funds will be provided to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents, many of whom are also at risk of homelessness: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at-risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families • Fair housing outreach and education 26 NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS *Refer to Table 1B Non-Homeless Special Needs or the CPMP Tool’s Needs.xls workbook Priority Non-Homeless Needs 91.215 (e) 49. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but may or may not require supportive housing, i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction by using the Nonhomeless Special Needs Table. 50. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs. 51. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 52. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. 53. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such assistance in the plan. N/A Please see the Non-Homeless Special Needs table in Appendix C. Specific Special Needs Objectives 91.215 (e) 54. Identify each specific objective developed to address a priority need by number and contain proposed accomplishments and outcomes the jurisdiction expects to achieve in quantitative terms through related activities over a specified time period (i.e. one, two, three or more years), or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction may satisfy this requirement by using Table 1C or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Projects.xls worksheets 55. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. The City’s special needs objectives will be realized through activities that benefit low income areas, low income households and special needs households directly—e.g., through ADA improvements to playgrounds and sidewalks. 27 Five Year Special Needs Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL-3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL-1, SL-3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Activities include: SL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG funding to design and construct construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG funding construct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. Provide CDBG to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at-risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Fair housing outreach and education SL-2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). With CDBG funding provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. 28 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Priority Community Development Needs 91.215 (f) *Refers to Table 2B or to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook 56. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non-housing community development needs eligible for assistance by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community Development Needs Table* − i.e., public facilities, public improvements, public services and economic development. 57. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs provided on Table 2B or the Community Development Table in the CPMP Tool’s Needs.xls worksheet. 58. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. Specific Community Development Objectives 59. Identify specific long-term and short-term community development objectives (including economic development activities that create jobs), developed in accordance with the statutory goals described in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons. Complete and submit Table 2C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls worksheets. NOTE: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number and contain proposed accomplishments, the time period (i.e., one, two, three, or more years), and annual program year numeric goals the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. 24 CFR 91.215(a)(4) Five Year Priority Community Development Objectives Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL-3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO-1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. These objectives will be met through the following activities: SL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. 29 Provide CDBG to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG, construct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. EO-1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. In addition, the city will continue other economic development efforts. The City of Temecula’s Economic Development Program develops relationships and provides creative strategy in an effort to improve the economic viability of Temecula. The goals for the next five years are driven by three guiding principles of diversifying the local tax base, grow/retain higher wage jobs and support local business vitality. Specifically: • Encouraging the growth and expansion of desired industry by providing high quality municipal services, facilities and economic development assistance. • Leveraging our strong relationships with the Riverside County EDA, SW Riverside EDC, Temecula Chamber of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureau. • Establish a proactive continuing dialogue between the City and educational institutions, including school districts, community colleges and universities • Continual marketing and promotion of Temecula in conjunction with current demographic trends and retail analysis Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas 91.215(g) 60. If the jurisdiction has one or more approved Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas, the jurisdiction must provide, with the submission of a new Consolidated Plan, either: the prior HUD-approved strategy, or strategies, with a statement that there has been no change in the strategy (in which case, HUD approval for the existing strategy is not needed a second time) or submit a new or amended neighborhood revitalization strategy, or strategies, (for which separate HUD approval would be required). The City of Temecula will need to request a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) designation, as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CPD Notice 96-01. The western portion of the City is comprised with some of the most distressed residential neighborhoods in the City and may qualify for NRSAs based on the high percentage of low and moderate income (LMI) residents. Currently, there is no NRSA designation in the City. 30 Many of the goals and objectives of a designated NRSA continue to be addressed through the implementation of several short-and long-term targeted programs and projects. However, an NRSA designation would enhance these efforts by: • Developing complementary strategies that prioritize the use of CDBG resources; • Encouraging the development of innovative services and projects eligible for CDBG support; and • Embarking on programs and projects to improve neighborhood cohesion by alleviating economic and social disparity. N/A Barriers to Affordable Housing 91.215 (h) 61. Describe the strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, except that, if a State requires a unit of general local government to submit a regulatory barrier assessment that is substantially equivalent to the information required under this part, as determined by HUD, the unit of general local government may submit that assessment to HUD and it shall be considered to have complied with this requirement. Examination of Barriers. Barriers to affordable housing are frequently caused when the incentive to develop such housing is removed due to excessive development costs, governmental regulation, and community opposition. Some development costs are driven by economic conditions and other factors that affect the real estate market. These are often beyond the control of local government policies. Public policy approved by local government to address community issues and concerns potentially affects the cost of all development projects through the adoption and implementation of ordinances, housing elements, land use plans, fee schedules, and development standards. The imposition of additional taxes on homeowners increases the cost of maintaining and living in a house or apartment and can be a barrier to home ownership, particularly for low and moderate income households. Moreover, public opposition over the location of affordable housing can be detrimental to a project once it enters the public hearing process and may result in the denial of the project. The primary purpose of governmental regulation of land development is to guide development in an orderly fashion, ensure adequate provision of public services and facilities, protect existing development from incompatible land uses, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Government regulation is generally beneficial to the housing needs of the public, since the development review and approval process is necessary to insure decent and safe housing. In the City of Temecula, the primary barriers to affordable housing are not created through local policies. Recently, the largest barrier to affordable housing is the elimination of the City’s Redevelopment Agency. Historically, the Redevelopment Housing set-aside fund has provided all of the funding for affordable housing development. 31 The City has made a concerted effort to streamline the development process, and offers fee waivers for some development fees. The City completed an update to the Housing Element in 2008 that examined barriers to housing development. The Housing Element Update 2008-2014 did not reveal any significant barriers to affordable housing, although it does contain goals and policies to facilitate affordable housing development. The City’s Housing Element Update 2008-2014 includes implementation of the following programs: • Density Bonus Program: Encourages development of housing for low income households by incorporating the Development Code density bonus provisions for affordable and senior housing development. • Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing: Increases the supply of rental and ownership units affordable to Low and Moderate Income households by working with Riverside County in securing tax exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond financing. • Section 202 Elderly or Handicapped Housing: Provides housing and related facilities facilities for the elderly and handicapped by supporting all viable non-profit entities seeking Section 202 funding. • Second Units: Provides increased affordable housing opportunities to low income households by permitting second units on residential lots zoned for single-and multi-family residential use. • Priority Processing for Affordable Housing: Facilitates production of affordable housing through priority processing of affordable housing projects. • Modify Development Fees: Provide incentives to developers of affordable/senior housing through fee reductions or the addition of fee waiver provisions for the production of low income and senior citizen housing. • Ensure Adequate Infrastructure: Immediately consulting with developers interested in developing areas that currently do not have adequate infrastructure to ensure that all new development is adequately served by sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Removing Barriers: The City uses a multi-faceted strategy to address barriers to affordable housing. A major focus involves the use of both financial and processing assistance to maximize as many housing units as possible. This approach allows the City to quantify affordable housing production and make adjustments to development strategies as necessary. Development fees and approval delays add to the cost of development. In addition, inflation can increase the cost of both materials and labor. These factors combined with negative public perceptions serve as a major disincentive to the construction of affordable housing and are seen as obstacles by qualified developers. The City implements the following policies as mitigation for potentially foreseen barriers to affordable housing: • Project Manager: The designation of a staff liaison to work specifically with affordable housing developers and their representatives. • Fee Subsidies: Under certain circumstances, the City will subsidize the payment of development fees. 32 • Public Outreach: The City will continue to educate the public about the social and economic benefits of affordable housing. • Fast Track and Priority Processing: Expedite the construction of affordable housing projects through all phases of the approval process. The AI conducted as part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan found no barriers to affordable housing development related to City actions. The AI did identify two minor, potential barriers in the City’s zoning regulations (lack of definition of “family” and disallowance of congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants not specifically for the elderly in residential zones). Lead-based Paint 91.215 (i) 62. Describe the jurisdiction’s plan to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards and describe how lead based paint hazards will be integrated into housing policies and programs, and how the plan for the reduction of lead-based hazards is related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards. The primary programs that will mitigate lead based paint hazards will be the City’s Residential Improvement Program, which includes provisions to reduce lead-based paint hazards, and new construction of affordable units to increase the supply of quality affordable housing. Antipoverty Strategy 91.215 (j) 63. Describe the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number of poverty level families (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually. Poverty is defined by the Social Security Administration as the minimum income an individual must have to survive at a particular point in time. Although there are many causes of poverty, some of the “more pronounced” causes of poverty include the following: • Low income-earning capability; • Low educational attainments and job skills; • Discrimination; and • Person limitations (e.g. developmental and physical disabilities, mental illness, drug/alcohol dependency, etc.) Some other important causes of poverty related to those mentioned above include: unemployment or underemployment; lack of affordable, decent housing; negative images of people who are recipients of assistance; the lack of available funding; and lack of policy and widespread community support for poverty issues (this includes the lack of additional federal and state funding programs to address the problem of poverty); lack of affordable childcare and health care; age; cultural and language barriers; lack of behavioral changes of people in poverty; limited access to services; and domestic abuse. 33 Although the many and varied solutions for the reduction or elimination of poverty appear endless, costly, and complex, the County employs a variety of strategies to help reduce the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, including efforts to stimulate economic growth and additional job opportunities. An example would be economic development activities that help create additional jobs. Economic development opportunities, such as higher paying jobs, are very important. The City’s primary emphasis locally in regard to anti-poverty strategies is to provide adequate housing to low income families and fund a range of support services that will assist them in meeting their basic needs, including food, health care, supportive services and transportation. A number of such support programs are funded through the annual Action Plan, public services process. Other programs are provided locally through other funding mechanisms. One of the largest constraints to an effective anti-poverty plan is lack of funding, especially with the recent elimination of the Redevelopment Agency and in the current economic climate. Many service providers in the City have been forced to cut back programs and housing provision due to funding cuts, which further exacerbates poverty and limits opportunities for self-sufficiency. 64. Identify the extent to which this strategy will reduce (or assist in reducing) the number of poverty level families, taking into consideration factors over which the jurisdiction has control. It is difficult in the current economic climate to reduce poverty; instead, many jurisdictions focus on stabilizing those households most at-risk of poverty and homelessness. Between 2000 and 2010, the poverty rate of Temecula doubled, from 7 percent to 14 percent. The City’s goal during the next five years is to prevent future increases in poverty by providing a safety net for those households who have experienced job and economic losses. Institutional Structure 91.215 (k) 65. Provide a concise summary of the the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, community and faith-based organizations, and public institutions. The City of Temecula will use the following institutional structure to accomplish the goals established in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan: The City of Temecula Community Development Department serves as the lead agency in coordinating and monitoring the use of federal funds and is responsible for the administration of the CDBG program for the City of Temecula. Multiple staff members manage a wide variety of CDBG activities at the local level. These CDBG activities include: • Economic Development: Oversees job creation, business retention, and business attraction. • Housing: Administers acquisition, affordable housing creation and construction, housing rehabilitation, local service needs, including the provision of social services, shelter and homeless activities. • Planning: Administers the General Plan and zoning regulations that guide development. • Code Enforcement: Provides special code enforcement in revitalization areas 34 • Building: Oversees the permitting process for all ADA infrastructure and improvements, new construction, remodeling, and other required building codes and standards. • Finance: Works closely with Community Development to ensure timely expenditure of funding and accurate accounting of the funds received and expended. Other organizations involved in the delivery of housing, homeless, non-homeless special needs, and community development activities include many of the public agencies and community organizations consulted during the Consolidated Planning process. They include various community organizations whose fields of interest and service include but are not limited to: social services, youth services, elderly services, disability services, HIV/AIDS services, abused children services, health services, homeless services, and domestic violence assistance. Major Non-profit Organizations This section provides a sampling of the non-profit organizations that provide viable and essential services to low income residents. • Youth Services — Assistance League of Temecula Valley — Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County — CASA for Riverside County • Elderly Services — Temecula Senior Citizens Service Center • Homeless Services — Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission — Project T.O.U.C.H. — Domestic Violence Assistance — Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. (SAFE) • Health Services — Temecula Murrieta Pantry — Medical Resources International Group, Inc. • Community Empowerment — Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) 66. Provide an assessment of the strengths and gaps in the delivery system. The City’s institutional structure for carrying out housing and community development activities is efficient. The City works diligently to foster and develop strong relationships with its organizations that provide housing and supportive services to low income and special needs populations. City staff are accessible to its providers of housing and services, and the City works to make the CDBG application processes transparent. Gaps in the system are primarily related to lack of funding for activities, which creates long waiting lists for programs. In recent years, the City has been very proactive in implementing policies and programs that remove barriers and support the provision of needed housing and services, such as streamlining the development process and implementing fee 35 waivers for affordable housing development. These efforts will continue during the next five-year period. 67. Describe efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies, particularly with regard to the development of the jurisdiction’s economic development strategy. (91.215(l)) The City of Temecula works diligently to foster and develop strong relationships with the private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies. Particularly the City has a strategic partnership with the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest County, the Southwest California Economic Alliance, and the Temecula valley Chamber of Commerce to facilitate our economic development strategy, including business attraction and retention, and expansion of enterprises in the region. The City works to enhance the business climate in community by promoting economic growth and encouraging business expansion and job creation. The City will continue its coordination efforts with all organizations to address the needs of the business community, particularly with regard to economic development, over the next five year period. Coordination 91.215 (l) 68. Describe the efforts to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies. In the case of agency coordination, all agencies are working toward one common goal: to provide affordable housing, supportive services, and community development assistance to benefit low and moderate income individuals and families. Local agencies, community-based organizations, and social service providers must coordinate their activities in response to the region’s urgent needs in order to meet these common goals. Each stakeholder in the delivery system contributes valuable resources and expertise. The City is currently working to acquire an apartment complex that will be designated for those with developmental disabilities including providing mental health services as well as job training assistance on–site. The City will continue to strive to increase collaborative efforts with public and private sector entities, numerous advisory agencies, and service agencies. 69. Describe efforts in addressing the needs of persons that are chronically homeless with respect to the preparation of the homeless strategy The homeless population refers to persons lacking consistent and adequate shelter. This includes persons living in emergency or transitional housing, as well as persons living in cars, parks, abandoned buildings, and other places not meant for permanent habitation. The City has adopted a program to find housing for Temecula’s homeless population and will continue to build new, and expand existing partnerships among private and public sector organizations to ensure a comprehensive social services infrastructure that provides services to all ages and addresses gaps in services. This includes a network of public and private organizations to address homelessness, and a broad structure of social support for special needs populations. 36 Persons who are homeless and at-risk of homelessness in Temecula will be assisted by the City through the provision of block grant funds to homeless services and housing providers. The City will use CDBG funds for those activities that assist the homeless. The City will continue to strive to increase affordable housing collaborative efforts with public and private sector entities, numerous advisory agencies. 70. Describe the means of cooperation and coordination among the state and any units of general local government in the metropolitan area in the implementation of the plan The City works regularly with the state and local governments and community-based organizations to coordinate their CDBG activities in response to the region’s needs. Each stakeholder in the delivery system contributes valuable resources and expertise. 71. Describe efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies, particularly with regard to the development of the jurisdiction’s economic development strategy. Please see response to No. 67. 72. Describe the jurisdiction's efforts to coordinate its housing strategy with local and regional transportation planning strategies to ensure to the extent practicable that residents of affordable housing have access to public transportation. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is increasingly recognized as having the potential to improve the quality of life for American households, by creating vibrant, livable communities in proximity to transit. Improved access to transit can reduce transportation costs for working families and mitigate the negative impacts of automobile travel on the environment and the economy. The need for a mix of housing types that is affordable to a range of family incomes in proximity to transit is an important policy concern for the City of Temecula. The City has clearly identified several key priorities to achieve its transportation mobility and connectivity goals. These goals include working with local and regional transportation partners to leverage existing resources for all available transportation modes, and supporting local and regional efforts to enhance transit opportunities, including transit centers and park and ride facilities. The City is currently working on a multi-jurisdictional plan to establish livable communities’ concepts, and a sustainable transportation system that addresses mobility, access, and safety. The plan will help to create live-work communities with better access to public transit. The City is committed to effective collaboration with many partners in order to achieve its public transportation priorities. Monitoring 91.230 73. Describe the standards and procedures the jurisdiction will use to monitor its housing and community development projects and ensure long-term compliance with program requirements and comprehensive planning requirements. Performance of planned projects and activities for these CDBG funds are monitored in various ways depending on type of program and reporting requirements. Monitoring is viewed as a way to identify deficiencies and promote corrections in order to improve performance. The actual activity of monitoring helps promote quality performance, as well as identify any need for further technical assistance. The following is a description of the types of monitoring performed by staff: 37 • Performance monitoring • Financial monitoring • Environmental Review Compliance The Community Development planning staff monitors all activities of the program. The Community Development staff works in cooperation with the Finance Department staff to manage and monitor CDBG funds jointly. Performance Monitoring: Monitoring activities includes spot check monitoring of sub recipients which includes a review of reporting information to ensure compliance with the HUD requirement that beneficiaries be low income. Comprehensive monitoring includes on-site visits, interviews, telephone contacts and reports. Subrecipients Agreements are used to measure compliance by grant recipients. Financial Monitoring: All project costs are paid on a reimbursement basis. A request for reimbursement must have appropriate documentation attached to verify all expenditures. A current report of program activities must also be attached to the draw down request. Expenditures are not paid in advance. The combination of data from the request and the program activities report provides the information necessary to input data into the IDIS system. Collecting this data during the program year is helpful in compiling reports. By requiring documentation in association with reimbursement, the City's Community Development Department staff are able to closely monitor program requirements and ensure that program goals are being met. Reporting/Tracking Systems: Performance is tracked and reported as stated above. Staff reviews the reports, and any discrepancies are addressed with the appropriate entities. Records on performance are kept in the project file. Accuracy of data is confirmed by site visits and monitoring. Environmental Review Compliance: Each project that is budgeted is first reviewed for compliance with the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Agency regulations). CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) regulations may also apply. Projects that are community service in nature are exempt from NEPA. Once the environmental analysis is determined, staff prepares the appropriate paperwork. When environmental clearance has been obtained, the project can move forward to City Council and/or bid, etc. as appropriate. The CDBG Planner monitors all environmental reviews. Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) *Refers to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook. 74. Describe the activities to be undertaken with HOPWA Program funds to address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible population. Activities will assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, such as efforts to prevent low income individuals and families from becoming homeless and may address the housing needs of persons who are homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. 75. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs and summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to address 38 identified needs. 76. The Plan must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number of households to be assisted during the year in: (1) short-term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as community residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. The plan can also describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for persons who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be used in connection with an assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks of homelessness and improved access to care. 77. For housing facility projects being developed, a target date for the completion of each development activity must be included and information on the continued use of these units for the eligible population based on their stewardship requirements (e.g. within the ten-year use periods for projects involving acquisition, new construction or substantial rehabilitation). 78. Provide an explanation of how the funds will be allocated including a description of the geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the rationale for these geographic allocations and priorities. Include the name of each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary area(s) of planned activities, amounts committed to that sponsor, and whether the sponsor is a faith-based and/or grassroots organization. 79. Describe the role of the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA), involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan-wide strategy for addressing the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions within the EMSA; (b) the standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities in order to ensure compliance by project sponsors of the requirements of the program. N/A Specific HOPWA Objectives 80. Identify specific objectives objectives that the jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete in accordance with the tables* prescribed by HUD. Complete and submit Table 1C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls worksheets. 81. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. N/A OTHER NARRATIVES AND ATTACHMENTS 82. Include any Strategic Plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other section. If optional tables are not used, provide comparable information that is required by consolidated plan regulations. 83. Section 108 Loan Guarantee 39 40 If the jurisdiction has an open Section 108 project, provide a summary of the project. The summary should include the Project Name, a short description of the project and the current status of the project, the amount of the Section 108 loan, whether you have an EDI or BEDI grant and the amount of this grant, the total amount of CDBG assistance provided for the project, the national objective(s) codes for the project, the Matrix Codes, if the activity is complete, if the national objective has been met, the most current number of beneficiaries (jobs created/retained, number of FTE jobs held by/made available to LMI persons, number of housing units assisted, number of units occupied by LMI households, etc.) The City of Temecula does not have any open Section 108 projects. However, the City would like to utilize Section 108 loans in the future when eligible. 84. Regional Connections Describe how the jurisdiction's strategic plan connects its actions to the larger strategies for the metropolitan region. Does Does the plan reference the plans of other agencies that have responsibilities for metropolitan transportation, economic development, and workforce investment? The City of Temecula regularly works with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) regarding metropolitan-wide planning issues, such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The actions set forth in the strategic plan are directly related to achieving larger metropolitan strategies such as regional transportation and economic development. The City has clearly identified several key priorities to achieve its community development goals. These goals include working with regional partners to leverage existing resources for all available support efforts to enhance opportunities for low and mod income families, including housing choices, job opportunities, adequate infrastructure, and access to social services. The City is committed to effective collaboration with many partners in order to achieve its community development priorities. SECTION IV. Year One Action Plan Annual Action Plan The CPMP Annual Action Plan includes the SF 424 and Narrative Responses to Action Plan questions that CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG grantees must respond to each year in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations. Narrative Responses ACTION PLAN Annual Action Plan includes the SF 424 and is due every year no less than 45 days prior to the start of the grantee’s program year start date. HUD does not accept plans between August 15 and November 15. Executive Summary 91.220(b) 1. The Executive Summary is required. Include the objectives and outcomes identified in the plan and an evaluation of past performance. Introduction As an Entitlement Community receiving annual funding allocations from the Federal Government to fund local housing and community development needs, the City of Temecula is required to develop a Consolidated Plan once every five years. The Consolidated Plan serves as a comprehensive guide on how the City intends to utilize the allotted federal funds to address national objectives in a manner that will produce the greatest measurable impact on the local community. For each succeeding year, the City is required to prepare a one year Action Plan to notify citizens and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of the City’s intended actions during that particular fiscal year. The annual Action Plan includes citizen and stakeholder input and due to HUD field office in Los Angeles 45 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The City of Temecula has prepared this draft First-Year Action Plan covering the time period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. At the end of each fiscal year, the City must also prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to provide information to HUD and Temecula citizens about the year’s accomplishments. Beginning in 2012, the City of Temecula anticipates receiving approximately $475,000 annually through the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to fund housing, community development and social service activities. The 2012 program year will be the first time Temecula has received CDBG directly, as an entitlement community. During 2012, the City will also receive an anticipated $1,200,000 of previously programmed CDBG income allocated to the City and administered by the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA) 1 Resident and Stakeholder Priority Needs During the 2012 Action Plan, Temecula plans to allocate its CDBG funds to address worst case needs, including: • Development of supportive/transitional housing in Temecula, • Rehabilitation of a community center located in a low income area, • Food, clothing, school supplies, emergency assistance and counseling services to low income children, at-risk families and homeless residents, • Services for at-risk youth and families who are victims of domestic violence and abuse, • Child care and afterschool care for low income children, This plan for allocating funds is consistent with the top priorities identified by residents and stakeholders who participated in development of the Consolidated Plan. Specifically: Residents responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, health care facilities, and street/alley improvements as top community needs. During PY2012, the City intends to fund health care services for low income, un-and underinsured women, construct sidewalks, and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town. Therefore, the City will directly fund two of the three top priorities identified in the resident survey. Job creation activities will be conducted by the City in partnership with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. A goal of the City’s Economic Development Element is to encourage job creation and economic development through revitalization activities. Stakeholders responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing as top community needs. The City plans to fund the development of a transitional/supportive housing facility. . In addition, public services dollars will be used to provide services and emergency assistance to residents who are homeless and at-risk of homelessness. Public meeting attendees prioritized improving bike path linkages, supportive services to single mothers and upgrading the Boys & Girls Club facility as top needs. As described above, the City has prioritized supportive services and improvement to youth facilities (playgrounds, community center). 2 2012-2013 Objectives and Outcomes The major objectives and expected outcomes for 2012-2013 Action Plan are: Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL-3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL-1, SL-3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO-1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Year One Outcomes DH-1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide $150,000 CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing SL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide $1.2 million of CDBG to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide $50,000 of CDBG to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at-risk youth and families of domestic violence SL-2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). Provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. 3 4 EO-1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. Citizen Participation 91.220(b) 2. Provide a summary of the citizen participation and consultation process (including efforts to broaden public participation in the development of the plan. Temecula’s Consolidated Plan and Year One Action Plan were developed with a strong emphasis on community input. To broaden participation in the Plan, the City provided a number of opportunities for public input including surveys, public meetings and focus groups and the 30-day draft public comment period. Specifically, 􀂠 The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. Notices for the community workshop meetings and and surveys were publicized on the City’s website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. 􀂠 On November 17, 2011, the City of Temecula held a technical assistance meeting to provide assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. 􀂠 Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011, through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. These efforts resulted in participation by 176 residents and 30 stakeholders in the development of the Consolidated Plan. Stakeholders represent a broad spectrum of interests. The industries and professions represented included: 􀂠 Affordable housing provision; 􀂠 Child protective services; 􀂠 Fair housing; 􀂠 Foreclosure/loss mitigation prevention; 􀂠 Higher education; 􀂠 Homeless services; 􀂠 Landlord/tenant services; 􀂠 Lending; 􀂠 Manufacturing; 􀂠 Neighborhood stabilization; 􀂠 Rental property owners and managers; 􀂠 Residential development; 􀂠 Sales; 􀂠 Senior services; 􀂠 Services for low income residents; 􀂠 Services for single mothers; 􀂠 Social services; and 􀂠 Youth development. Participating stakeholders serve a variety of populations in Temecula, including; 􀂠 Elderly; 􀂠 Families on CalWorks cash assistance; 􀂠 Immigrants; 􀂠 Low income individuals; 􀂠 Persons with a developmental disability; 􀂠 Persons and families who are homeless; 􀂠 Persons with HIV/AIDS; 􀂠 Persons with a mental illness; 􀂠 Persons with a physical disability; 􀂠 Persons with substance abuse/addiction; 􀂠 Victims of domestic violence; 􀂠 Single mothers; and 􀂠 Youth. 3. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan. Comments will be added here once they are received during the draft comment period. 4. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why these comments were not accepted. The City accepted all comments during the citizen participation process. Resources 91.220(c)(1) and (c)(2) 5. Identify the federal, state, and local resources (including program income) the jurisdiction expects to receive to address the needs identified in the plan. Federal resources should include Section 8 funds made available to the jurisdiction, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and competitive McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act funds expected to be available to address priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic plan. The following resources are available to the City of Temecula and will be used to carry out the 2012–2016 Strategic Plan and the 2012 Action Plan of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan. FEDERAL PROGRAMS: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Urban communities may use funds to address neighborhood revitalization, economic development, provisions of improved community facilities, prevention and elimination of slums or blight, and activities aiding low and moderate income families. For the 2012 Action Plan, the City will be receiving $475,558 of CDBG Entitlement funds, and an anticipated $1,200,000 of previously programmed CDBG income allocated to the City and administered by the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA). These funds have been allocated as indicated in the listing of Proposed Projects to address the priority needs identified in the 2012 – 2016 Strategic Plan. There is no match required for these funds. This will give the City’s 2012 CDBG Program a full funding amount of $1,675,558. 5 6. Explain how federal funds will leverage resources from private and non-federal public sources. The service funds leverage private donations and local support from United Way and other organizations for the operating funds for non-profit organizations. Annual Objectives 91.220(c)(3) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 3A. *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Summary of Specific Annual Objectives Worksheets or Summaries.xls Goals and objectives to be carried out during the action plan period are indicated by placing a check in the following boxes. Objective Category: Decent Housing Which includes: Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: assisting homeless persons obtain affordable housing improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods job creation and retention assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless eliminating blighting influences and the deterioration of property and facilities establishment, stabilization and expansion of small business (including microbusinesses) retaining the affordable housing stock increasing the access to quality public and private facilities the provision of public services concerned with employment increasing the availability of affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low income and moderate income families, particularly to members of disadvantaged minorities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability reducing the isolation of income groups within areas through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods the provision of jobs to low income persons living in areas affected by those programs and activities under programs covered by the plan increasing the supply of supportive housing which includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/ADOS) to live in dignity and independence restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value availability of mortgage financing for low income persons at reasonable rates using nondiscriminatory lending practices providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities conserving energy resources and use of renewable energy sources access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long-term economic social viability of the community 6 7. Provide a summary of specific objectives that will be addressed during the program year. Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH-1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at-risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL-3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL-1, SL-3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessib ility) EO-1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Description of Activities 91.220(d) and (e) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 3C *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Projects Worksheets and the Summaries Table. 8. Provide a summary of the eligible programs or activities that will take place during the program year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic plan. Describe the outcome measures for activities in accordance with Federal Register Notice dated March 7, 2006, i.e., general objective category (decent housing, suitable living environment, economic opportunity) and general outcome category (availability/accessibility, affordability, sustainability). Overall priority. The overall priority for the Action Plan is to use these Federal funds to increase self-sufficiency and economic opportunity for lower income residents and individuals with special needs so that they can achieve a reasonable standard of living. The national objectives and performance outcome measurement system established by HUD are the basis for assigning priorities to needs for which funding may be allocated. National objectives. In order for an activity or project to be eligible for funding, it must qualify as meeting one of the three national objectives of the program: 1. Principally benefit (at least 51%) low and moderate income persons; 2. Aid in the prevention of slums or blight; or 3. Meet community development needs having a particular urgency. 7 The objective and outcome that will be achieved is included in each of the planned activities and is identified using a numbering system that ties to the Community Planning and Development Performance Measurement System developed by HUD. The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities. Based upon this intent, it must be determined which of the following three objectives best describe the purpose of an activity: • Provide decent housing (DH); • Provide a suitable living environment (SL); and/or • Expand economic opportunities, principally for lower income persons (EO). Each activity must also meet specific performance outcomes that are related to at least one of the following: • Availability/Accessibility (1); • Affordability (2); or • Sustainability -Promoting Livable or Viable Communities (3) In addition to national objectives and performance measurements, the City must weigh and balance the input from different groups and assign funding priorities that best bridge the gaps gaps in the City’s service delivery system. The City received input through outreach efforts helping to prioritize funding for community facilities, community services, homeless facilities and services, housing, economic development, and public improvements. Projects are reviewed and funding allocations are made based upon the above criteria, including the projects’ ability to reach and serve the areas and persons with the greatest need. Application Process. The City’s annual CDBG funding cycle starts in the early fall. A general funding availability notice is published citywide. An online application notice is sent to all current recipients, previous applicants, and any and all organizations submitting a request. The online application provides applicants with application due dates, anticipated funding amounts, application submittal procedures, and any programmatic changes. Upon receipt, an application is reviewed and thoroughly evaluated for completeness, eligibility, national objective, and the projects ability to reach and serve the areas and persons with the greatest need. Other criteria include project readiness, innovation, leveraging, and cost-benefit analysis. The City is committed to allocating funds that serve the needs of the lowest income and most disadvantaged residents. Households with less than fiftypercent (50%) percent of the area median income, particularly those with extremely low incomes (less than thirty-percent (30%) percent of area median income), are priorities. The City has established priorities for allocating funds based on a number of criteria, including: the established need; urgency of the need; cost efficiency; eligibility of activities/programs; funding program limitations; capacity and authority for implementing actions; consistency with City goals, policies, and efforts; identified gaps in service; availability of other funding sources to address specific needs; comments and correspondence from interested agencies and organizations; and feedback from the general public. 8 Based on a comprehensive needs assessment, priority ranking was assigned to each category of housing and community development needs according to the following HUD criteria: High Priority: Activities to address this need are expected to be funded with CDBG funds during the five-year period. Medium Priority: If CDBG funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded during the five-year period. Low Priority: The City will not directly fund activities using CDBG funds to address this need during the next five-years. No Such Need: The City finds there is no such need for activities or the need is already substantially addressed. The proposed One-Year Action Plan is then prepared. The applications and funding recommendations are submitted to the Finance Committee for consideration. Upon final funding allocations, a 30-day public comment period and a 14-day noticed public hearing are scheduled. The final One Year Action Plan is presented to the Temecula City Council for approval. The One-Year Action Plan is then submitted to HUD at least 45 days prior to the start of the program year. Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects: 1. Project: Transitional/Supportive Housing Priority Need: Public Facilities – High Sponsor: City of Temecula Address: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 Project Description: The project includes the acquisition of a facility to provide supportive housing for 15-20 families and identify a non-profit operator to operate the facility and provide supportive services. Rental housing would be provided at this facility, targeting families within the extremely low income category. Location: Temecula, CA Census Tract: Objective: Decent Housing (DH) Outcome: Availability/Accessibility (1) HUD Matrix Code: 03C CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 11 Type of Recipient: Public Agency Funding Source: CDBG $150,000 2. Project: Temecula Community Center Rehabilitation Priority Need: Public Facilities -High Sponsor: City of Temecula Address: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 9 Project Description: The project includes a complete building renovation including new parking lot lights, trash enclosure, re-roof, exterior and interior paint, lobby area expansion and new furniture, new restroom fixtures, floors, and partition walls, new flooring and cabinets throughout, replace kitchen equipment, new doors, windows, and hardware, and install energy efficient HVAC system. CDBG funds will be used for design and construction costs. Location: 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Sustainability (3) HUD Matrix Code: 03F CDBG National Objective: LMA CDBG Accomplishment Type: 11 Type of Recipient: Public Agency Funding Source: CDBG $1,200,000 3. Project: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Replacement Priority Need: Public Facilities -High Sponsor: City of Temecula Address: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 Project Description: Design and construct a new play structure to replace the existing equipment including removal of old equipment and installation of new equipment, and resurfacing according to ADA Guidelines. CDBG funds will be used for design and construction costs. Location: 41970 Moreno Road, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Sustainability (3) HUD Matrix Code: 03F CDBG National Objective: LMA CDBG Accomplishment Type: 11 Type of Recipient: Public Agency Funding Source: CDBG $50,000 4. Project: Operation School Bell Priority Need: Public Services -High Sponsor: Assistance League of Temecula Valley Address: 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Description: The program provides clothes and school supplies to children from low income families. CDBG funds will provide clothing for children. Location: 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Affordability (2) HUD Matrix Code: 05 10 CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 5. Project: Domestic Violence Services Program Priority Need: Public Services -High Sponsor: Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) Address: 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Description: The program provides a provision of services to at-risk youth and families to avoid violence and abuse. CDBG funds will be used for staff salaries and benefits. Location: 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Availability/Accessibility (1) HUD Matrix Code: 05G CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 6. Project: Before and After School Care for Kids Priority Need: Public Services -High Sponsor: Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County Address: 28790 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Description: The program provides before and after school care for underserved low income youth. CDBG funds will be used for program “scholarships” to reduce child care costs for families. Location: 28790 Pujol Street & 31465 Via Cordoba, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Affordability (2) HUD Matrix Code: 05D CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 7. Project: Emergency Food/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Priority Need: Public Services -High Sponsor: Senior Citizens Service Center Address: 41538 Eastman Drive, Unit B & C, Murrieta, CA 92562 Project Description: The program provides food and supplies to low income families. CDBG funds will be used for food and other operation costs. Location: 41538 Eastman Drive, Unit B & C, Murrieta, CA 92562 11 Census Tract: Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Availability/Accessibility (1) HUD Matrix Code: 05 CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 8. Project: Expanded SMURF Childcare Program Priority Need: Public Services -High Sponsor: Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) Address: 41919 Moreno Dr. Suite D, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Description: The program provides expanded childcare developmental curriculum for underserved low income youth while mothers attend fellowship program. CDBG funds will be used for educational and developmental supplies, and staff salaries. Location: 41919 Moreno Dr. Suite D, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Availability/Accessibility (1) HUD Matrix Code: 05 CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 Geographic Distribution/Allocation Priorities 91.220(d) and (f) 9. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed during the next year. Where appropriate, the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target areas. The City of Temecula will direct assistance to low to moderate income Census Tracts in the Cit. These are located directly west of I-15 and in the central city. In addition to directing assistance to low to moderate income areas, the City will provide direct assistance to limited clientele populations. 10. Describe the reasons for the allocation priorities, the rationale for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) during the next year, and identify any obstacles to addressing underserved needs. Geographic Allocation. The City's primary method of allocating CDBG dollars is to assist low to moderate income and special needs populations. To the extent that specific geographic areas have greater needs than other areas in the City and /or if service and housing organizations are located in certain areas, they will receive a larger proportionate share of the funding. 12 For sidewalk improvements, the City will focus on the geographic areas where sidewalks, curb cuts and related ADA accommodations are lacking. Finally, to provide affordable rental and single family housing, the City's dollars will be allocated in areas of new development where affordable housing is lacking and /or infill areas that can accommodate affordable housing. Actions to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. As mentioned in the Strategic Plan, the greatest obstacle to meeting underserved needs is lack of funding. The City has many needs that exceed available funding, including street/sidewalk repair, housing and services to special needs populations, comprehensive housing and services to assist persons who are chronically homeless move into supportive housing environments and provision of affordable housing. Both private foundations and public agencies have been have been impacted by the recent economic downturn. As noted previously, the amount of resources available to address social, community, and economic development goals pale in comparison to the recognized needs. To address this obstacle, the City strongly encourages its subrecipients to seek other resources, forge new partnerships, and to leverage additional funding whenever possible from local, State, Federal, and private sources. The City urges CDBG funded programs and services to be flexible, while at the same time to be as efficient and effective as possible to achieve expected performance outcomes. Annual Affordable Housing Goals 91.220(g) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 3B Annual Housing Completion Goals. *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Table 3B Annual Housing Completion Goals. 11. Describe the one-year goals for the number of homeless, non-homeless, and special-needs households to be provided affordable housing using funds made available to the jurisdiction and one-year goals for the number of households to be provided affordable housing through activities that provide rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of existing units, or acquisition of existing units using funds made available to the jurisdiction. The term affordable housing shall be defined in 24 CFR 92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership. During the 2012-2013 program year, the City will accomplish the following affordable housing goals: DH-1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide $150,000 CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing As stated above, there are limited opportunities and funding available to provide affordable housing opportunities. They City will attempt to seek new partnerships in the upcoming year. During FY 2012-2013 the City will continue to address affordable housing needs through the following programs: 13 Section 8 Rental Assistance: The City will continue to provide Section 8 rental assistance to extremely low and low income households through the Riverside County Housing Authority Voucher Program. Approximately 136 low income renter-households will be assisted in the City. Mortgage Credit Certificates: The City participates with the County of Riverside in its Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program as a means of providing financial assistance for the purchase of single-family housing. A mortgage credit certificate is a certificate authorizing first-time home buyers to take a federal income tax credit of up to 15 percent of the annual interest paid on the mortgage. The program targets low and moderate income households. Public Housing 91.220(h) 12.Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the needs of public housing and activities it will undertake during the next year to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership. The City does not have public housing; and therefore does not undertake activities to increase resident initiatives; however, the City will continue to support the Section 8 rental assistance voucher program for low income households administered through the Riverside County Housing Authority. 13. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such designation during the next year. N/A Homeless and Special Needs 91.220(i) 14.Describe, briefly, the jurisdiction’s plan for the investment and use of available resources and describe the specific planned action steps it will take over the next year aimed at eliminating chronic homelessness. 15. Describe specific action steps to address the needs of persons that are not homeless identified in accordance with 91.215(e). 16. Homelessness Prevention—Describe planned action steps over the next year to address the individual and families with children at imminent risk of becoming homeless. The City has adopted a program to find housing for Temecula’s homeless population and will continue to build new, and expand existing partnerships among private and public sector organizations to ensure a comprehensive social services infrastructure that provides services to all ages and addresses gaps in services. This includes a network of public and private organizations to address homelessness, and a broad structure of social support for special needs populations. 14 Persons who are homeless and at-risk of homelessness in Temecula will be assisted by the City through the provision of block grant funds to homeless services and other social service providers. CDBG funds will be provided to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents, many of whom are also at risk of homelessness: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at-risk youth and families of domestic violence • Provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families Barriers to Affordable Housing 91.220(j) 17. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to remove barriers to affordable housing. Barriers to affordable housing are frequently caused when the incentive to develop such housing is removed due to excessive development costs, governmental regulation, and community opposition. Some development costs are driven by economic conditions and other factors that affect the real estate market. These are often beyond the control of local government policies. In the City of Temecula, the primary barriers to affordable housing are not created through local policies. Recently, the largest barrier to affordable housing is the elimination of the City’s Redevelopment Agency through State legislative action. Historically, the Redevelopment Housing set-aside fund has provided all of the funding for affordable housing development. The City has made a concerted effort to streamline the development process, and offers fee waivers for some development fees. The City completed an update to the Housing Element in 2008 that examined barriers to housing development. The Housing Element Update 2008-2014 did not reveal any significant barriers to affordable housing, although it does contain goals and policies to facilitate affordable housing development. The City uses a multi-faceted strategy to address barriers to affordable housing. A major focus involves the use of both financial and processing assistance to maximize as many housing units as possible. This approach allows the City to quantify affordable housing production and make adjustments to development strategies as necessary. Development fees and approval delays add to the cost of development. In addition, inflation can increase the cost of both materials and labor. These factors combined with negative public perceptions serve as a major disincentive to the construction of affordable housing and are seen as obstacles by qualified developers. The City will implement the following policies as mitigation for potentially foreseen barriers to affordable housing: • Project Manager: The designation of a staff liaison to work specifically with affordable housing developers and their representatives. 15 • Fee Subsidies: Under certain circumstances, the City will subsidize the payment of development fees. • Public Outreach: The City will continue to educate the public about the social and economic benefits of affordable housing. • Fast Track and Priority Processing: Expedite the construction of affordable housing projects through all phases of the approval process. The AI conducted as part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan found no barriers to affordable housing development related to City actions. The AI did identify two minor, potential barriers in the City’s zoning regulations (lack of definition of “family” and disallowance of congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants not specifically for the elderly in residential zones). Other Actions 91.220(k) 18.Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain affordable housing, evaluate and reduce the number of housing units containing lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of poverty-level families develop institutional structure, enhance coordination between public and private agencies (see 91.215(a), (b), (i), (j), (k), and (l)). 19. Describe the actions to coordinate its housing strategy with local and regional transportation planning strategies to ensure to the extent practicable that residents of affordable housing have access to public transportation. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is increasingly recognized as having the potential to improve the quality of life for American households, by creating vibrant, livable communities in proximity to transit. Improved access to transit can reduce transportation costs for working families and mitigate the negative impacts of automobile travel on the environment and the economy. The need for a mix of housing types that is affordable to a range of family incomes in proximity to transit is an important policy concern for the City of Temecula. The City has clearly identified several key priorities to achieve its transportation mobility and connectivity goals. These goals include working with local and regional transportation partners to leverage existing resources for all available transportation modes, and supporting local and regional efforts to enhance transit opportunities, including transit centers and park and ride facilities. The City is currently working on a multi-jurisdictional plan to establish livable communities’ concepts, and a sustainable transportation system that addresses mobility, access, and safety. The plan will help to create live-work communities with better access to public transit. The City is committed to effective collaboration with many partners in order to achieve its public transportation priorities. 16 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS CDBG 91.220(l)(1) 1. Identify program income expected to be received during the program year, including: • amount expected to be generated by and deposited to revolving loan funds; • total amount expected to be received from each new float-funded activity included in this plan; and • amount expected to be received during the current program year from a float-funded activity described in a prior statement or plan. N/A, the City does not have any revolving or float-funded activities and does not plan to use them during the Con Plan period. 2. Program income received in the preceding program year that has not been included in a statement or plan. None, the Plan includes the $1,200,000 of program income received in the preceding program year. 3. Proceeds from Section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in its strategic plan. None. 4. Surplus funds from any urban renewal settlement for community development and housing activities. None. 5. Any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. None. 6. Income from float-funded activities. None. 7. Urgent need activities, only if the jurisdiction certifies. None; however, should an urgent need arise the City will process the necessary Action Plan amendments to address such need. 8. Estimated amount of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. 90-100% Changing conditions provision. As market changes occur within Temecula, the City will rededicate funding sources to address the needs in other areas. • Priority changes in public facilities and infrastructure needs will be rededicated to public projects identified to meet the City’s five year high priority objectives. 17 • Funding changes or elimination of Public Service activities will be rededicated to other, eligible Public Service activities and providers that submitted eligible applications and programs within the previous (most current) year’s application cycle. • Completion of one project, with additional funding, primarily for public facilities and/or infrastructure, will be rededicated to another public facilities or infrastructure project. HOME 91.220(l)(1) N/A; the City of Temecula does not receive HOME funds. 1. Describe other forms of investment. (See Section 92.205) If grantee (PJ) plans to use HOME funds for homebuyers, did they state the guidelines of resale or recapture, as required in 92.254. 2. If grantee (PJ) plans to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is being rehabilitated with HOME funds, state its refinancing guidelines required under 24 CFR 92.206(b). 3. Resale Provisions — For homeownership activities, describe its resale or recapture guidelines that ensure the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4). 4. HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance — Describe the local market conditions that led to the use of a HOME funds for tenant based rental assistance program. If the tenant based rental assistance program is targeted to or provides a preference for a special needs group, that group must be identified in the Consolidated Plan as having an unmet need and show the preference is needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by this population. 5. If a participating jurisdiction intends to use forms of investment other than those described in 24 CFR 92.205(b), describe these forms of investment. 6. Describe the policy and procedures it will follow to affirmatively market housing containing five or more HOME-assisted units. 7. Describe actions taken to establish and oversee a minority outreach program within its jurisdiction to ensure inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minority and women, and entities owned by minorities and women, including without limitation, real estate firms, construction firms, appraisal firms, management firms, financial institutions, investment banking firms, underwriters, accountants, and providers of legal services, in all contracts, entered into by the participating jurisdiction with such persons or entities, public and private, in order to facilitate the activities of the participating jurisdiction to provide affordable housing under the HOME program or any other Federal housing law applicable to such jurisdiction. 8. If a jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds, state its financing guidelines required under 24 CFR 92.206(b). 18 19 HOPWA 91.220(l)(3) 1. One year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA activities for: short-term rent, mortgage, and utility assistance to prevent homelessness of the individual or family, tenant-based rental assistance, units provided in housing facilities that are being developed, leased, or operated. N/A; the City does not receive HOPWA. OTHER NARRATIVES AND ATTACHMENTS Include any action plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other section. If optional tables are not used, provide comparable information that is required by consolidated plan regulations. SECTION V. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 1 SECTION V. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice This section contains the City of Temecula’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). This AI was completed as part of the city’s 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan. This section contains: 􀂠 Maps examining racial, ethnic and income concentrations in Temecula; 􀂠 The findings from a fair housing survey that was conducted for this analysis; 􀂠 A review of the city’s land use policies and zoning codes for barriers to fair housing choice; 􀂠 An analysis of home mortgage lending data; 􀂠 An analysis of fair housing complaints and legal cases; and 􀂠 An identification of fair housing barriers and recommended fair housing action plan. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. The AI is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. The AI is required for the City of Temecula to receive federal housing and community community development block grant funding.1 The AI involves: 􀂠 A review of a city’s laws, regulations and administrative policies, procedures and practices; 􀂠 An assessment of how those laws, policies and practices affect the location, availability and accessibility of housing; and 􀂠 An assessment of public and private sector conditions affecting fair housing choice. According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice are: 􀂠 Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices. 􀂠 Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. 1 The city is also required to submit a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and an annual performance report to receive funding each year. PAGE 2, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Although the AI itself is not directly approved or denied by HUD, its submission is a required component of a city’s or state’s Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development (Consolidated Plan) performance reporting. HUD desires that AI’s: 􀂠 Serve as the substantive, logical basis for fair housing planning; 􀂠 Provide essential and detailed information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing providers, lenders and fair housing advocates; and 􀂠 Assist in building public support for fair housing efforts both within a city’s boundaries and beyond. Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender/sex, familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales, mortgage and home improvement lending and land use and zoning. Excluded from the Act are owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing units sold or rented without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members and housing for older persons.2 HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act. HUD investigates the complaints it receives and determines if there is a ‘‘reasonable cause’’ to believe that discrimination occurred. If reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an Administrative Law Judge. Parties to the action can also elect to have the trial held in a federal court (in which case the Department of Justice brings the claim on behalf of the plaintiff).3 State of California Fair Housing Laws. In addition to the Federal Fair Housing Act, there are several California state laws that apply to Fair Housing. Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959. This act requires equal access to the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services of all business establishments. It provides for the right to be free from discrimination in public accommodations regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin. It was later amended to include all disabilities.4 Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1963. This is the primary state law which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, lease negotiation or financing of housing based on race, color national origin, sex, marital status, national origin and ancestry.5 Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976: This act provides that all persons within California have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, age, disability or position in a labor dispute. The Act prohibits violence or threat of 2 ‘‘How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws’’, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Research, April 2002. 3 Ibid. 4 The Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Available online at http://www.fairhousing.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=68 5 I bid. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 3 same in rental housing situations, including houses, apartments, hotel, boarding housing and condominiums.6 California Fair Housing Act of 1992: This act brings the Fair Housing Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) into conformity with the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Added to current protected groups are "mental and physical disability" and "familial status." It requires that housing providers allow disabled persons to modify their premises and make reasonable accommodations to meet their needs, increases the time limit for the filing of discrimination complaints from 60 days to one year, provides minimum accessibility standards for all newlyconstructed multifamily housing, bars mobile home parks from "adults only" residency unless they comply with criteria for the senior housing exemption as defined under Housing for Older Persons, and it provides representation of the victim by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing if the issue is removed to a court court of law from the administrative process after determination that the law has been violated.7 Protected Class Concentrations A full demographic profile of Temecula is provided in Section I of the Consolidated Plan. This section of the AI focuses on concentrations of protected classes in Temecula. Racial concentrations. In 2010, the largest racial group in Temecula was white (71%), followed by Asian (at a much lower 10%). The slight majority of Temecula residents (57%) were non-Hispanic white and approximately one-quarter were of Hispanic origin. Figure V-1 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of Temecula in 2000 and 2010. Figure V-1. Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and 2010 Census. The population proportion of all minority groups increased in between 2000 and 2010, while the non-Hispanic white population proportion dropped from 69 percent to 57 percent. Despite this increase in diversity, Temecula still has a smaller minority population than Riverside County as a 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. Total population 57,716 100 100,097 100 Race American Indian and Alaska Native 497 0.9% 1,079 1.1% Asian 2,728 4.7% 9,765 9.8% Black or African American 1,974 3.4% 4,132 4.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 174 0.3% 368 0.4% White 45,555 78.9% 70,880 70.8% Some Other Race 4,276 7.4% 7,928 7.9% Two or More Races 2,512 4.4% 5,945 5.9% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 10,974 19.0% 24,727 24.7% Non-Hispanic White 40,007 69.3% 57,246 57.2% Number Percent Number Percent 2000 2010 PAGE 4, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA whole. In Riverside County, the Hispanic population (45%) outnumbers the non-Hispanic white population (40%). One of the key components of a demographic analysis is an examination of the concentration of racial and ethnic minorities within a jurisdiction to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, minority concentrations are a reflection of preferences-----e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and friends of the same race/ethnicities or where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater to them. In other cases, minority populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily influence where minorities live, to the extent that there are economic disparities among persons of different races and ethnicities. According to HUD, an area of racial and ethnic concentration (also called a ‘‘minority impacted area’’) is defined as where the percentage of persons in a particular race or ethnic group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category for the city as a whole. Using the above definition of concentration, block groups in Temecula have a concentration if the following exists: 􀂠 A non-Hispanic white population proportion of 77 percent and more; 􀂠 A Hispanic population proportion of 45 percent and more; 􀂠 An Asian population proportion of 30 percent and more; and 􀂠 A Black or African American population proportion of 24 percent and more. Figure V-2 shows the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents within each block group in the city. There are no block groups within city boundaries that are 77 percent or more non-Hispanic white; however one block group immediately east of Temecula is non-Hispanic white-concentrated. Figure V-2. Percent of Non-Hispanic White Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 5 Figure V-3 shows the ratio of Hispanics to total population by block group in the city. As the map demonstrates, there no block groups in the city with Hispanic concentrations. Figure V-3. Percent of Hispanic/Latino Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Figure V-4 shows the proportion of Asian residents by block group in the city. There is one block group in the southwestern portion of the city with a concentration of Asian residents. Figure V-4. Percent of Asian Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 6, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Figure V-5 shows the proportion of African Americans by block group in the city. There are no block groups with concentrations of African Americans. Figure V-5. Percent of Population that is African American, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Persons with disabilities. The 2000 Census reported that 13 percent of Temecula residents had a disability. By 2010, the percent of residents with a disability had dropped to 10 percent. The prevalence of disability decreased in each age cohort between 2000 and 2010-----most dramatically in residents aged 18-34 (12% in 2000 to 5% in 2010). Figure V-6. Disability by Age Cohort, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 American Community Survey. The likelihood of disability increases with age and thus the distribution of disabilities is typically a function of a city’s age profile. Of the 9,374 persons with disabilities in Temecula, 30 percent were seniors, up from 26 percent in 2000. Figure V-7 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities in Temecula by block group as of 2000, the latest date of availability. A block group is concentrated when 33 percent of residents in a block group have a disability (based on the 2000 Census disability proportion for the city). There are no block groups with concentrations of persons with disabilities. However, the map indicates that block groups in the center of Temecula have a higher proportion of persons with disabilities. Age Cohort Under 5 years 1 61 2% 2% 5 to 17 years 1 ,609 7% 17% 18 to 34 years 1 ,089 5% 12% 35 to 64 years 3 ,745 10% 40% 65 to 74 years 1 ,256 36% 13% 75 years and over 1 ,514 47% 16% Total 9 ,374 9% 100% Percent with Disabilities Percent of Age Estimate Group CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 7 Figure V-7. Percent of Population with Disabilities, City of Temecula, 2000 Source: U.S. Census 2000 and BBC Research & Consulting. The 2010 ACS estimates the presence of persons with disabilities in the workforce. Of persons with disabilities who are working age (18 to 64), about half were not in the labor force, 37 percent were employed and 12 percent were unemployed. Household size. The average household size (3.15) in Temecula did not change between 2000 and 2010. As is typical, the average household size of renters in Temecula is slightly smaller (3.07) than the average household size of owners (3.18). Large households, defined by the Census as having five or more persons in a household, made up 18 percent of the total occupied households in 2010. The proportion of large households has not changed substantially since 2000, but the share of renter occupied households with five or more persons increased from14 percent to 19 percent. Large households can have unique housing needs because of the limited housing stock to serve them-----especially rental housing stock-----as well as lack of support and understanding of familial status protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act. The map in Figure V-8 examines the location of large households within the city. Concentrated block groups are those in which large households make up more than 38 percent of households. Although there are no concentrated block groups in Temecula, block groups on the outskirts of the city tend to have higher percentages of large households. PAGE 8, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Figure V-8. Percentage of Large Households by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Familial status. In 2010, half of all households in Temecula were families with children. Of these 15,806 households with children, 77 percent were husband-wife families and 23 percent were single parent households. Figure V-9 displays the city’s 2010 household composition. Figure V-9. Household Composition, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not appear to aggregate correctly. Source: 2010 Census. Single parent households-----especially those with single mothers-----have some of the highest rates of poverty in most communities. As such, they have needs for social services (child care, transportation) and affordable housing. Familial status is also a protected class under fair housing law and, in many communities, one of the most common reasons for fair housing complaints. Single parent households are therefore vulnerable to fair housing discrimination and often have fewer choices in the housing market because of their lower income levels. Approximately 8 percent of all households in Temecula are female-headed households with children. Based on the same definition of concentration as in the ethnicity maps, Figure V-10 shows that there are no concentrations of female-headed households with children in the city. Total households 31,781 100% Nonfamily households 5,955 19% Family households 25,826 81% Husband-wife families 20,483 64% With children 12,141 38% Without children 8,342 26% Female householder, no husband present 3,763 12% With children 2,632 8% Without children 1,131 4% Male householder, no wife present 1,580 5% With children 1,033 3% Without children 547 2% Number Percent CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 9 Figure V-10. Percentage of Female-Headed Households with Children by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Low Income and poverty. Figure V-11 shows the proportion of very low income households (earning less than $25,000) by block group. Approximately 19 percent of all households in Temecula earn less than $25,000, so block groups in which more than 39 percent of households are low income are considered to have low income concentrations. Low income households tend to be concentrated immediately west of I-15. Low income households are also concentrated just outside the western boundary of Temecula. The two block groups just east of I-15 with 19 to 39 percent of low income households, respectively, also had high percentages of female-headed households with children. Figure V-11. Percent of Low Income Households, City of Temecula, 2009 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 10, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA In 2000, 7 percent of Temecula’s population, or 3,864 people, were living below the poverty level. This was substantially lower than the rest of Riverside County, the state of California and the U.S. as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010 the poverty rate in Temecula doubled to 14 percent (14,020 people). Despite this large increase, the poverty level in Temecula remained below that of Riverside County, California and the U.S., as shown in Figure V-12. Figure V-12. Poverty Rate, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Public Input During the development of the Consolidated Plan and AI, residents and stakeholders were consulted about fair housing barriers and housing and community development needs. A complete discussion of public input can be found in Section II of the Consolidated Plan. This portion of the AI summarizes the findings and responses relevant to fair housing choice in Temecula. Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011 through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. Potential barriers to fair housing. Residents and stakeholders rated the relative seriousness of potential barriers to fair housing in Temecula on a scale from zero to nine, where a rating of nine indicates that the factor is a serious barrier. Due to their expertise, stakeholders evaluated a more comprehensive list of barriers. As shown in Figure V-13, on average, most residents have not experienced barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. Income, concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas and a lack of affordable housing to purchase were the top three barriers, and these were a serious problem for 10 to 17 percent of residents. 2010 2000 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 6.7% 14.2% 14.0% 16.3% Temecula Riverside County 100% CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 11 Figure V-13. Potential Fair Housing Barriers — Residents Note: n=148. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Stakeholders evaluated a comprehensive series of potential barriers to fair housing including economic, demographic and housing factors; land use, zoning and housing policies; capacity issues; lending activities; and real estate activities. The most serious barriers in each category are below. 􀂠 Income levels of minority and female-headed households had the highest average rating among economic, demographic and housing factors. 􀂠 Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and neighborhood objections to group homes for persons with disabilities were the most serious barriers associated with land use, zoning and housing policies. 􀂠 Among capacity issues, a lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing was the most serious potential barrier, followed by a lack of fair housing knowledge on the part of small landlords. 􀂠 Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer was considered a serious barrier by more than 40 percent of stakeholders. 􀂠 Among real estate activities, steering, denying the availability of housing and insurance agency discrimination had the highest average ratings. Housing provider refused to make reasonable accommodations for my disability Sellers of homes refused to show me their home I can’t find a real estate professional of the race, ethnicity, disability or gender I prefer My lender did not give me an appraisal of my home or property I did not get information about private mortgage insurance Real estate agents only showed me housing I could afford in certain neighborhoods My lender told me to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company I was given a subprime loan (higher interest rate than normal) I have poor credit Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing Lack of affordable housing to rent Restrictive covenants by builders, developers or homeowners associations Lack of affordable housing to purchase Concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas My income level 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0123456789 A Serious Problem Not a Problem Avg. Rating 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 PAGE 12, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Figure V-14 identifies the top barriers (average rating of 5.9 or higher) to fair housing as rated by stakeholders. The most serious barriers across all categories include lending and real estate activities as well as NIMBYism. Figure V-14. Most Serious Barriers to Fair Housing Choice — Stakeholders Note: n=21. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Affordability, services and community climate. Residents responded to a series of questions about affordable housing, public transit and community climate in Temecula. 􀂠 About one in 10 residents who responded to the survey had been unable to find affordable housing in Temecula. The types of housing sought included single family homes, condos and apartments. 􀂠 About one in five residents who responded to the survey have tried to access public transit in Temecula and were unable to. Lack of access pertained to a number of locations within Temecula as well as limited hours of transit operation. 􀂠 The vast majority of residents responding to the survey agree with the statement, ‘‘I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula.’’ Residents who do not feel welcome in Temecula explained that they were single parents, gay, of mixed race or not of the Christian faith and these factors made them feel unwelcome. Resident experience with housing discrimination. Residents also responded to several questions regarding fair housing and their past experience with housing discrimination, if any. Only three percent of residents responding to the survey believe they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure. Barrier 6.6 Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer 6.6 Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing 6.3 Income levels of minority and female-headed households 6.2 Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company 6.1 Lenders targeting subprime, high risk borrowers 6.1 Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods 5.9 Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing 5.9 Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers 5.9 Lenders offering prime customers subprime rates 5.9 Poor credit histories of minority borrowers 5.9 Housing providers falsely denying that housing is available 5.9 Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties Average Rating CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 13 Those residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in housing offered the following descriptions of their experience: 􀂠 ‘‘I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in.’’ 􀂠 ‘‘Realtor steering us away from certain homes.’’ 􀂠 ‘‘Single parent.’’ 􀂠 ‘‘We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller.’’ In response to their experience with housing discrimination, only one individual reported filing a complaint with the ACLU. One wrote a letter to the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) to complain about the real estate agent’s steering practices. All residents were asked if they knew who to contact in the case that they experienced housing discrimination. As shown in Figure V-15, only one in 10 respondents stated that they knew who to contact to report housing discrimination. Figure V-15. If you ever felt you were discriminated against and wanted to report it, do you know who you would contact? Note: n=132. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Those respondents who knew the organization to contact to report housing discrimination would contact Fair Housing of Riverside County, the Fair Housing hotline, HUD, CA DRE, a lawyer or search the internet. Fair housing resources. With regard to the availability and accessibility of fair housing resources in Temecula, half of stakeholders did not think sufficient information was available. Stakeholders made the following comments about the types of information, resources and training that would be helpful to them: 􀂠 ‘‘Credit counseling.’’ 􀂠 ‘‘I have never seen any leaflets, flyers, or brochures concerning Fair Housing Laws available to the general public in Temecula. If they exist, where are they hidden?’’ 􀂠 ‘‘Advertise workshops on how to obtain housing in the area.’’ 􀂠 ‘‘A more proactive approach in informing and educating the realtor community of availability of the information and where to send their clientele.’’ Stakeholders suggested a variety of methods to inform residents about fair housing issues. These included emails and websites, city and or county public meetings, industry publications, government publications, internal memos or communications and providing speakers to organizations. Yes (11%) No (59%) Don’t know (30%) PAGE 14, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Summary of public input findings. The public outreach conducted for the Consolidated Plan and AI reveal several important findings related to fair housing choice in Temecula: 􀂠 One in 10 residents had tried to find affordable housing in Temecula without success, and one in five had experienced difficulty trying to access public transit. 􀂠 Residents report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and the income levels of minority and female-headed households to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. 􀂠 The majority of residents feel that people like them are welcome in Temecula. Those who did not feel welcome believe this results from their being single parents, mixed-race families or gay. 􀂠 Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real estate agents was the type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. Housing and Land Use Policy Review This section discusses the housing and land use policies that may affect fair housing in the City of Temecula. Housing profile. A detailed profile of the city’s housing market is provided in the Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis section of the Consolidated Plan (Section I). In sum, the analysis found: 􀂠 The majority of the city’s housing stock is new and in good condition-----over 90 percent was built after 1980. Few residents live in substandard units and few reported living in overcrowded units. 􀂠 Between 2000 and 2010 median rent and median home value in Temecula increased faster than resident incomes. Thus, both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past decade. 􀂠 Temecula’s median rent in 2010 was relatively high at $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city’s renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. Forty-three percent of Temecula residents (33% of renters) can afford the city’s 2010 median home value of $289,800. 􀂠 There is a substantial shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula-----45 percent of all renter households-----earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 affordable units-----11 percent of all rental units. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 15 Zoning codes, planning and zoning commission, planning fees OR Development regulations review. BBC reviewed the City of Temecula’s zoning regulations, comprehensive plan and planning fees to assess potential fair housing concerns or opportunities resulting from the development process. This review identified two possible fair housing concerns: 􀂠 Neither household nor family is defined in the city’s zoning code, which may exclude unrelated persons with disabilities from living together. 􀂠 Congregate care and residential care facilities for seven or more are only addressed for the elderly, which may exclude persons with disabilities from similar living arrangements. To evaluate potential fair housing concerns within the city’s zoning code, BBC utilized a ‘‘Review of Public Policies and Practices (Zoning and Planning Codes)’’ form recently circulated by the Los Angeles fair housing office of HUD. This section poses the questions from this checklist, along with responses about the city’s code. Does the Code definition of ‘‘family’’ have the effect of discriminating against unrelated individuals with disabilities who reside together in a congregate or group living arrangement? The city’s code does not define the term ‘‘family,’’ nor does it explicitly state that the occupants of a single family dwelling unit must be related. It does specify the occupants of a single family unit as ‘‘one household,’’ which is not defined. The code allows residential care facilities and facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children in all residential zones provided there are six or fewer occupants. Is the Code definition of ‘‘disability’’ the same as the Fair Housing Act? Yes. The Code defines a ‘‘disabled person’’ or ‘‘person with a disability’’ as an ‘‘individual who has a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more of that person’s major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone who has a record of having such an impairment. Such an impairment shall not include an individual’s current, illegal use of a controlled substance.’’ Does the zoning ordinance restrict housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities and mischaracterize such housing as a ‘‘boarding or rooming house’’ or ‘‘hotel’’? No. Rooming and boarding houses, although not specifically defined in the code, are commercial and are distinct from group homes and residential care facilities, which are defined and zoned residential. Does the zoning ordinance deny housing opportunities for disability individuals with on site housing supporting services? No. Residential care facilities, which are permitted by right in all residential zones if they have six or fewer occupants, include on site support services by definition. Does the jurisdiction policy allow any number of unrelated persons to reside together, but restrict such occupancy, if the residents are disabled? The city does not specify the number of related or unrelated persons in one household. However, group homes or residential care facilities must have six or fewer people in order to be permitted in any residential zone. Congregate care for the elderly and residential care facilities for the elderly with seven or more are permitted in medium and high density residential zones and conditionally permitted in all other residential zones. PAGE 16, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants that are not specifically for the elderly are not addressed in residential zoning uses. This may effectively exclude congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants for those with disabilities. Does the jurisdiction policy not allow disabled persons to make reasonable modifications or provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people who live in municipal-supplied or managed residential housing? No. Does the jurisdiction require a public hearing to obtain public input for specific exceptions to zoning and land-use rules for disabled applicants and is the hearing only for disabled applicants rather than for all applicants? No. Public hearings are required to obtain a conditional use permit, variance or amendment to development code, but the hearing is not specific to persons with disabilities. Does the zoning ordinance address mixed uses? How are the residential land uses discussed? What standards apply? Yes. Village Centers, designated by the general plan or zoned with the application of the village center overlay zoning district, are intended to create a mixture of land uses with pedestrian orientation with plazas, open spaces and mass transit opportunities. Residential design considerations include allowing for residential density increases for those projects that offer mixed uses with a diversity of housing opportunities including the provision of affordable housing; integrating mixed uses into a single structure with retail on the lower level, office and residential on upper levels; and considering higher residential densities and intensities that will support mass transit options. Does the zoning ordinance describe any areas in this jurisdiction as exclusive? No. Are there exclusions or discussions of limiting housing to any of the following groups: race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, marital status or familial status and/or creed of national origin? No. Are there any restrictions for Senior Housing in the zoning ordinance? If yes, do the restrictions comply with Federal law on housing for older persons (i.e., solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or at least one person 55 years of age and has significant facilities or services to meet the physical or social needs of older people)? There are no restrictions on senior housing, per se. The definition of senior citizen housing complexes (not including state-licensed rest homes, group homes, convalescent hospitals, etc.) is consistent with federal law. Senior citizen housing complexes, or congregate care for the elderly, are permitted by right in low density, low medium density, medium density and high density residential zones. Other multifamily housing is only permitted by right in medium and high density residential zones. Residential care facilities for the elderly are defined as ‘‘housing arrangements chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided.’’ Residential care facilities for the elderly with six or fewer occupants are permitted in all residential zones. Those with seven or more are permitted in medium and high density residential zones and require a CUP in all others. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 17 Special development standards allowing higher maximum densities apply to senior housing. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various density incentives and development standard concessions as outlined in section 17.10.020 of the code. Does the zoning ordinance contain any special provisions for making housing accessible to persons with disabilities? Yes. Section 17.03.065 specifically addresses reasonable accommodations. Does the zoning ordinance establish occupancy standards or maximum occupancy limits? Yes. Although family households are not subject to maximum occupancy limits, group homes are limited to six or fewer persons. (Group homes for the elderly with more than six are required to obtain a conditional use permit). Does the zoning ordinance include a discussion of fair housing? Yes. ‘‘Fair Housing Laws,’’ meaning the Federal Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment Housing Act, are referenced in section 17.03.065 of the code in the context of reasonable accommodations. Describe the minimum standards and amenities required by the ordinance for a multiple family project with respect to handicap parking. Section 17.24.040-D in the code discusses the minimum number of disabled parking spaces required for both non-residential and multifamily parking. Residential uses are required to provide one parking space designated for the disabled for each dwelling unit that is designated for the disabled. Ultimate authority for disabled parking requirements is deferred to the state of California and the American Disabilities Act. Does the zoning code distinguish senior citizen housing from other single family residential and multifamily residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? In the standard zoning districts (residential, commercial/office/industrial and public/institutional) senior housing is not distinguished from other residential uses by the application of a CUP. However, there are two overlay districts (PDO-7 and PDO-10) in which multifamily housing is permitted by right, but congregate care for the elderly requires a CUP. Does the zoning code distinguish handicapped housing from other single family residential and multifamily residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? Although handicapped housing is not distinguished by the application of a CUP, it is distinguished by omission. In residential districts, congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants is only addressed as specific to the elderly. This effectively excludes congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants for those with disabilities. The same is true for commercial/office/industrial zoning districts and most overlay districts. How are ‘‘special group residential housing’’ defined in the jurisdiction zoning code? The code defines a group home as any residential care facility for six or fewer persons which is licensed by the state. Other special group housing definitions included in the code are below. 􀂠 Congregate care: apartment housing, usually for senior citizens, or for the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5, which is arranged in a group setting that includes independent living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and recreational facilities. (Congregate care facilities for the elderly are permitted in L-2, LM, MH and H residential zones). PAGE 18, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Although the code definition of congregate care is not specific to the elderly, the only residential use type included in the zoning code is ‘‘Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly.’’ This may have the effect of excluding congregate care facilities for persons with disabilities. 􀂠 Convalescent facility: a state-licensed facility which provides long-term nursing, dietary and other medical services except surgery or primary treatments customarily provided in a hospital, to convalescents or invalids. (Permitted in M and H residential zones). 􀂠 Residential care facility: means any family home, group care facility, or similar facility determined by the Director of Social Services, established for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision or assistance. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people. Residential care facilities with more than six occupants are not listed as a residential use in the code). 􀂠 Residential care facility for the elderly: a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over, or their authorized representative, where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with seven to 12 people). 􀂠 Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children: not defined. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with seven to 12 people). 􀂠 Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility: not defined. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with seven or more people). 􀂠 Emergency shelter: a facility that that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Supplemental services may include food, counseling and access to other social programs. (Permitted in M and H; conditionally permitted in all other residential zones). 􀂠 Transitional Housing: not defined. (Permitted in M and H; conditionally permitted in all other residential zones). 􀂠 Community care facility: any facility, place or building which is maintained and operated to provide non-medical residential care, day treatment, adult day care or foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically disabled, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children, and includes residential facilities, adult day care facilities, day treatment facilities, foster family homes, small family homes, social rehabilitation facilities, community treatment facilities, and social day care facilities. (Not included in residential uses listed in in the code). CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 19 􀂠 Senior citizen housing complexes: licensed housing for persons 62 years of age or older, or licensed housing for persons 55 years of age or older, including such housing facilities as retirement villas, apartments, condominiums, etc.; but not including state-licensed rest homes, group homes, convalescent hospitals, etc., which are regulated by other provisions of this development code. (These are considered the same as congregate care for the elderly in residential uses included in the code). Does the jurisdiction’s planning and building codes presently make specific reference to the accessibility requirements contained in the 1988 amendment to the Fair Housing Act? The specific amendment is not mentioned, but the discussion of fair housing laws upholds the Federal Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment Housing Act ‘‘as these statutes now exist or may be amended from time to time.’’ Is there any provision for monitoring compliance? Section 17.03.100 of the development code addresses enforcement for all violations of the zoning code. Public Housing Authority policies. The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR) serves as the housing authority for the City of Temecula, as well as Riverside County. Their mission is to ‘‘provide affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities to low and moderate income families including elderly and handicapped persons, while supporting programs to foster economic self-sufficiency.’’ The policies and procedures of the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside were reviewed as part of the FY2012-2016 AI. Section 8 voucher program. The HACR currently has funding to serve 8,550 families in Riverside County through the federal Section 8 voucher program. Approximately two percent, or 136 families, of those being served in Riverside County live in Temecula. The housing authority reports that it has approximately 50,000 families on the waiting list. The waiting list is currently closed, except to those who are 75 years or older or are veterans. According to the HACR, it is relatively easy for voucher holders to find a unit that accepts Section 8 vouchers, most likely due to the current housing market conditions in Riverside County (large supply of housing stock and low rents). According to the 2009 Riverside County AI, owners are more likely to accept Section 8 vouchers now than in 2003; however, some landlords who reduce their rent to gain occupancy may be anticipating a foreclosure and in several months families may be forced to relocate and forfeit their security deposits. The resulting challenge for the housing authority is screening the properties to determine their legitimacy. Once a family is awarded a voucher, the HACR encourages certificate holders to locate in nontraditional areas by showing them neighborhood maps with poverty concentrations and discussing the benefits of living in low poverty areas. However, families tend to select properties near their support network, which is often in a low income area. Affordable units. The housing authority also owns and manages 469 rental units scattered throughout Riverside County. None of these properties are located in Temecula. Seven percent of the units in Riverside County are accessible to persons with physical disabilities. The waiting list for public housing is open, but currently has 78,000 families. PAGE 20, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Client demographics. There are 136 families in Temecula receiving housing assistance in the form of Section 8 vouchers. There are another 1,412 families on the waiting list for housing services. Of those currently holding vouchers, 26 percent are Hispanic and 14 percent are African American. Eightyfour percent are elderly or disabled and 14 percent are families with children. Figure V-16 compares the characteristics of families on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers in Temecula with the waiting list in Riverside County as a whole. Figure V-16. HACR Section 8 Waiting List, City of Temecula Source: Housing Authority of the County of Riverside. Affordable Development Temecula’s Redevelopment Agency has financed twelve affordable housing projects within the city, creating 574 multi-family rental units to serve low and moderate income families within the City of Temecula. The redevelopment agency focuses on improving blighted conditions, which are often found in under-resourced areas. As a result, most affordable development projects are concentrated in the low income portions of the city. Figure V-14. Affordable Housing and Low Income Concentration, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas, City of Temecula and BBC Research & Consulting. Waiting list total 1,412 53,688 Extremely low income <=30% AMI 69% 77% Elderly families 15% 7% Families with Disabilities 25% 21% Families with children 60% 64% Temecula Riverside County CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 21 The following figure summarizes the city’s inventory of affordable housing developments and the number of Section 8 vouchers currently being used in the City of Temecula. As of January, 2012, there are 710 families receiving some form of rental housing assistance in Temecula. Figure V-17. Affordable Housing and Section 8 Vouchers, City of Temecula, 2012 Source: Housing Authority of Riverside County and BBC Research & Consulting. Fair Lending Analysis This section contains an analysis of mortgage loan and community reinvestment data. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data are commonly used in AI’s to examine fair lending practices within a jurisdiction. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)8 is responsible to facilitate public access to data that depository institutions must disclose under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) and the aggregation of annual HMDA data, by census tract, for each each metropolitan statistical area (MSA). CRA compliance. The CRA is federal legislation requiring that financial institutions progressively seek to enhance community development within the area they serve. On a regular basis, financial institutions submit information about mortgage loan applications as well as materials documenting their community development activity. The records are reviewed to determine if the institution satisfied CRA requirements. The assessment includes a review of records as related to the following: 􀂠 Commitment to evaluating and servicing community credit needs; 􀂠 Offering and marketing various credit programs; 􀂠 Record of opening and closing of offices; 8 The Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and to make recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions. Rancho Creek Apts. 30 Rancho West Apts. 150 Mission Village Apts. 76 Riverbank Senior Apts. 65 Dalton Historical Building (Dalton II) 24 Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 22 Temecula Reflections 11 Summerhouse 20 Warehouse at Creekside 32 Oaktree Apts. 40 Rancho California Apts. 55 Creekside Apts. 49 Total Units 574 Section 8 Voucers used in Temecula 136 Total Rental Subsidized Units/Vouchers 710 Number of Units Affordable Housing Developments in Temecula PAGE 22, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA 􀂠 Discrimination and other illegal credit practices; and 􀂠 Community development initiatives. The data are evaluated and a rating for each institution is determined. Ratings for institutions range from substantial noncompliance in meeting credit needs to an outstanding record of meeting community needs. Only one financial institution, Temecula Valley Bank, received CRA exams in Temecula in the past five years.9 Temecula Valley Bank was most recently examined on March 2, 2009 and received a satisfactory rating. It should be noted that large banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, U.S. Bank, Chase, Pacific Trust and Pacific Western are examined at their regional headquarter offices; the latest CRA exams for these banks were either Satisfactory or Outstanding. Mortgage lending. HMDA data are widely used to detect evidence of discrimination in mortgage lending. In fact, concern about discriminatory lending practices in the 1970s led to the requirement for financial institutions to collect and report HMDA data. The variables contained in the HMDA dataset have expanded over time, allowing for more comprehensive analyses and better results. However, despite expansions in the data reported, HMDA analyses remain limited because of the information that is not reported. As such, studies of lending disparities that use HMDA data carry a similar caveat: HMDA data can be used to determine disparities in loan originations and interest rates among borrowers of different races, ethnicities, genders, and location of the property they hope to own. The data can also be used to explain many of the reasons for any lending disparities (e.g., poor credit history). Yet HMDA data do not contain all of the factors that are evaluated by lending institutions when they decide to make a loan to a borrower. Basically, the data provide a lot of information about the lending decision-----but not all of the information. Beginning in 2004, HMDA data contained the interest rates on higher-priced mortgage loans. This allows examinations of disparities in high-cost, including subprime, loans among different racial and ethnic groups. It is important to remember that subprime loans are not always predatory or suggest fair lending issues, and that the numerous factors that can make a loan ‘‘predatory’’ are not adequately represented in available data. Therefore, actual predatory practices cannot be identified through HMDA data analysis. However, the data analysis can be used to identify where additional scrutiny is warranted, and how public education and outreach efforts should be targeted. The Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of compliance with fair lending regulations. When federal regulators examine financial institutions, they use HMDA data to determine if applicants of a certain gender, race or ethnicity are rejected at statistically significant higher rates than applicants with other characteristics are. The Federal Reserve uses a combination of sophisticated statistical modeling and loan file sampling sampling and review to detect lending discrimination. 9 All state member banks, state nonmember banks, national banks and savings associations, except small institutions, are subject to data collection and reporting requirements of CRA. A small institution is a bank or thrift that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had total assets of less than $250 million and was independent or an affiliate of a holding company that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had total banking and thrift assets of less than $1 billion. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 23 This section uses the analysis of HMDA data to uncover: 􀂠 The geographic areas in Temecula where high-cost lending and loan denials are concentrated, and the correlation of these areas with concentrations of minority and low income households; 􀂠 Disparities in high-cost lending and loan denials across different racial and ethnic groups. Loan applications in Temecula. During 2010, there were 4,755 loan applications made in Temecula secured by residential properties that intended to be occupied by owners. Over half (56%) of the loan applications were for refinances, 42 percent were for home purchases and the remaining 2 percent were for home improvement. About 2,900 of these loans were conventional loans and the rest were government-guaranteed loans. Two-thirds of loan applications in Temecula during 2010 were approved and originated. Fifteen percent of all loan applications in Temecula were denied. Figure V-18 displays the action taken on Temecula loan applications in 2010. Figure V-18. Loan Applications and Action Taken, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. Denial rates by race and ethnicity. Figure V-19 presents denial rates by race and ethnicity. It is focused on the largest racial/ethnic groups in Temecula: White, Hispanic, Asian and African American. African American applicants had the lowest denial rate at 11 percent. Both Hispanic and Asian borrowers were denied at slightly higher rates than White borrowers. Overall, the differences in denial, origination and approval rates are modest. Loan originated (64.7%) Application approved but not accepted (5.0%) Application denied by financial institution (15.3%) Application withdrawn by applicant (11.4%) File closed for incompleteness (3.5%) PAGE 24, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Figure V-19. Result of Mortgage Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. Another important HMDA analysis involves examining the reasons for denial by type of loan and applicant. These characteristics may help explain some of the variation in approval rates among applicants. Figure V-20 show the reasons for denials of loan applications by race and income. As the table demonstrates, Hispanics and African Americans have a much higher proportion of loans that are denied because of credit history than Whites and Non-Hispanics, and a smaller percentage of incomplete loan applications. Figure V-20. Reasons for Denials of Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity of Applicant, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. Race/Ethnicity of Applicant Overall 64.7% 5.0% 15.3% White 67.4% 4.6% 14.8% African American 68.5% 3.8% 10.8% Asian 60.1% 7.3% 15.9% non-Hispanic 67.1% 4.9% 14.6% Hispanic 64.2% 5.4% 17.1% African American /White difference 1.1% -0.8% -4.1% Asian /White difference -7.3% 2.7% 1.0% Hispanic /White difference -3.2% 0.8% 2.2% Hispanic /non-Hispanic difference -2.9% 0.5% 2.5% Loans Originated Percent of Loans Denied Percent of Applications Approved but Not Accepted by Applicant Overall 23.2% 1.5% 14.8% 23.4% 3.5% 5.3% 10.9% 0.3% 17.2% White 22.5% 1.2% 13.3% 25.4% 3.7% 5.5% 11.2% 0.0% 17.2% Black or African American 26.3% 0.0% 31.6% 15.8% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 15.8% Asian 31.4% 2.0% 15.7% 19.6% 5.9% 7.8% 3.9% 0.0% 13.7% Not Hispanic or Latino 23.3% 1.5% 12.7% 26.3% 4.0% 4.8% 11.0% 0.4% 16.0% Hispanic or Latino 23.7% 2.1% 20.6% 14.4% 4.1% 8.2% 6.2% 0.0% 20.6% Unverifiable Information Credit Application Incomplete Mortgage Insurance Denied Other Race/Ethnicity of Applicant Debt-to-Income Ratio Employment Employment History Credit History Collateral Insufficient Cash CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 25 Denial rate by income by census tract. On average, 15 percent of loan applications in Temecula are denied. However, an analysis of loan applications by census Tracts reveals that one census Tract in Temecula has a much higher denial rate of 26 percent. Lenders are much less likely to approve loans for homes located in this Census tract (432.15). Figure V-21 overlays this high denial census tract with the low income concentration map. As indicated by the map, this high rate of denial occurs in the low income concentrated block group. Figure V-21. Loan Denials and Percent of Low Income Households, City of Temecula Source: 2009 Claritas, 2010 HMDA and BBC Research & Consulting. While higher denial rates are common for lower incomes, residents of all income levels within census tract 432.15 are denied more frequently than residents with similar incomes in other parts of Temecula. Figure V-22 compares the denial rates for Temecula as a whole with Census Tract 432.15 for various income levels. Even for those earning 200 percent of MFI ($130,000 or more per year), residents of census tract 432.15 are denied 21 percent of the time, compared to only 15 percent citywide. Figure V-22. Denials by Income, City of Temecula, 2010 Notes: The HUD MFI for Temecula was $65,000 in 2010. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. Income Level Overall 15.3% 26.3% 200% MFI or greater 15.3% 21.0% 150%-199% MFI 13.1% 20.8% 100%-149% MFI 13.7% 35.7% Less than 100% MFI 18.3% 53.8% Denials in Temecula Denials in Census Tract 432.15 PAGE 26, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA These data suggest that it is significantly harder for borrowers who live in the city’s lowest income areas to obtain a mortgage loan, even for moderate and high income households. Subprime analysis. This section examines how often minorities in Temecula received subprime loans compared to Whites. For the purposes of this section, we define ‘‘subprime’’ as a loan with an APR of more than three percentage points above comparable Treasuries. This is consistent with the intent of the Federal Reserve in defining ‘‘subprime’’ in the HMDA data. According to the 2010 HMDA data, there were only 18 subprime loans in Temecula, of 3,077 originated loans. There was no indication that subprime loans were targeted to specific racial or ethnic groups. Complaints and Legal Review This section reviews fair housing complaint data and legal cases related to fair housing violations to highlight the prevalence of and trends in fair housing violations. Fair housing complaint data and legal cases are important to pinpoint the types of discrimination that are most prevalent and detect improvements or deterioration in fair housing conditions. HUD fair housing complaints. Residents who feel they have been discriminated against may contact HUD directly or the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Contacting HUD. Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online at (http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm), by calling 1-800-669-9777 or by contacting the HUD Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in San Francisco at 1-800-347-3739. When HUD receives a complaint, the department will notify the person who filed the complaint, then notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act. A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD attempts to reach an agreement between the two parties involved. If achieved, this ‘‘conciliation conciliation agreement’’ must lay out provisions to protect the filer of the complaint and public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no further action unless the agreement is breached, in which case HUD will recommend that the Attorney General file suit. If a person needs immediate help to stop a serious problem being caused by a Fair Housing Act violation, HUD may assist as soon as a complaint is filed. HUD may authorize the Attorney General to go to court to seek temporary or preliminary relief, pending the outcome of the complaint, if irreparable harm is likely to occur without HUD's intervention and there is substantial evidence indicating a violation of the Fair Housing Act. From January 1, 2006 through December 15, 2011, five complaints were filed by or against Temecula residents and businesses. Four complaints were brought on the basis of discrimination because of disability; the other was because of race. In Riverside County as a whole, 272 complaints were filed over the same period. period. Forty-six percent were brought on the basis of discrimination because of disability and 33 percent on the basis of discrimination because of race, color or national origin. Familial status accounted for another 11 percent of complaints in Riverside County followed by sex (8%) and religion (2%). CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 27 Figure V-23 displays the complaints filed in Temecula over the past six years. The most common issues cited were discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental and failure to make reasonable accommodation. Two complaints closed following a successful settlement. Two more closed after HUD found ‘‘no reasonable cause to believe that housing discrimination occurred.’’ 10 Figure V-23. Fair Housing Complaints, City of Temecula, 2006-2011 Notes: Complaints reported for 2011 includes those filed between 1/1/2011 and 12/15/2011. Complainants are allowed to cite more than one issue when filing a complaint. Source: HUD and BBC Research & Consulting. Contacting the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Residents with fair housing complaints can also contact the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC), a county-wide non-profit organization that seeks to affirmatively address and promote fair housing rights and further other housing opportunities for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, presence of children, disability, ancestry, marital status, or other arbitrary factors. The FHCRC provides the following fair housing services to communities throughout Riverside County: 􀂠 Anti-discriminatio n: Receive, investigate, resolve (through conciliation or referral to enforcement agency: HUD; DFEH; attorney) housing discrimination complaints; also conduct workshops, seminars; disseminate written fair housing information. In order to file a complaint a resident can call the FHCRC or complete a complaint form on their website. 􀂠 Landlord-tenant: Receive, investigate, mediate, counsel renter/owner rights and responsibilities; also conduct workshops, seminars; disseminate written landlord-tenant information. 􀂠 Training and technical assistance: Conduct property management training workshops and seminars; serve on quasi-government technical advisory and working groups. 10For a definition of no cause determination, please visit: http://portal.hud.gov /hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/complaint-process Year Filed Issue(s) Cited Reason for Closure 2006 0 2007 1 Disability Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges and failure to make/permit reasonable accommodation Conciliated or Resolved, with compensation of $1,300 2008 1 Disability Failure to make reasonable accommodation Admin 2009 0 2010 1 Disability Discrimination in the making of loans Conciliated or Resolved 1 Race Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate; discriminatory advertising, statements and notices; and discriminatory acts under Section 818 No Cause 2011* 1 Disability Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate No Cause Total 5 Number of Complaints Reason for Discrimination PAGE 28, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA 􀂠 Enforcement of housing rights: Conduct housing discrimination audits and tests; refer discrimination cases to HUD, DFEH or private attorney. 􀂠 Administrative hearings: Conduct administrative hearings for Public Housing Authority tenant grievance and Section 8 hearings. 􀂠 Special projects: The FHCRC conducts and participates in various activities throughout the year. 􀂠 Foreclosure prevention: The FHCRC offers confidential one-on-one counseling with certified housing counselors for residents in fear of foreclosure. The counseling session is designed to help determine the cause of the delinquency, develop a monthly spending plan and discuss possible options to enable residents to meet their mortgage obligations. 􀂠 First time buyers: HUD requires the completion of a Homebuyer Counseling Course for all borrowers receiving First Time Homebuyer Program assistance. Legal cases. As part of the fair housing analysis, recent legal cases were reviewed to determine significant fair housing issues and trends in the area. Although there have been no legal cases in the City of Temecula, there were several recent legal cases in Riverside County; these are highlighted to demonstrate regional trends in fair housing violations. The most recent case involved housing conditions in a mobile home park. One case involved age restrictions in portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The final two cases took place in the City of Riverside and involved discrimination on the basis of sex, race and/or family status. These cases were found on websites maintained by the Department of Justice, the National Fair Housing Advocate and HUD. In many cases, text was borrowed directly from the legal briefs. The United States v Harvey Duro (2009). Harvey Duro, a member of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian tribe operated a desert trailer park commonly called ‘‘Duroville’’ mobile home park, on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. According to a 2007 Department of Justice press release, the park consists of 300 to 400 trailers inhabited by 2,000 to 6,000 persons, predominantly migrant farm workers and their families. Based on health and safety concerns, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a cease and desist order to Duro in 2003 which required him to immediately stop operating the trailer park and associated businesses, and to return the property to its original condition. Duro agreed to make improvements to bring the facility into compliance with government codes and regulations but failed to do so. In 2007 the United States filed a lawsuit against Duro alleging that Duro was operating without a permit, that conditions at the trailer park posed an imminent threat to the health and safety of several thousand residents and that Duro failed to make improvements he promised to make in 2004. Some of the substandard conditions in Duroville included defective construction, faulty electrical wiring, unhealthful distribution of drinking water and a deeply flawed septic system. In 2009, the Court provided the following fundamental findings and conclusions: (1) The commercial mobile home park on its allotment to Harvey Duro, Sr., is unlawful; (2) despite recent efforts, the mobile home park is unsafe and unhealthy; (3) despite recent efforts, there is no presently available relocation facilities for the vast majority of the residents of the Park; and (4) immediate closure of the Park under current circumstances would create an unacceptable humanitarian crisis for thousands of people. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 29 Based on these findings, the Court appointed a Receiver to administer and manage the Park for two years. The Receiver was tasked with addressing a number of health and safety concerns and encouraging park residents to relocate to safe, healthy, affordable and available housing. The court also encouraged local governmental and non-governmental organizations who had been and wished to be involved in resolving this crisis to continue their efforts to develop safe, healthy, affordable, and available housing for the residents of the Park. Gibson v. County of Riverside (1995, 1997, 2002). Since 1978, the County of Riverside has enacted ordinances imposing age restrictions on residents in certain areas within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Although the specific age restrictions have changed through the years, the ordinances effectively limited occupancy to seniors. In May of 1994, several residents filed a complaint against the county claiming the county's use of its zoning power to impose age restrictions on the residential use of real property violates the Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. In 1996, the Court concluded the age-restricting ordinance was null and void based on California state code which declares any zoning decision by a county to be "null and void" if it denies to anyone the enjoyment of residence because of age. After a series of appeals, in 2002 the Court held that the county’s actions in enacting ordinances imposing age restrictions on persons occupying dwelling units in certain areas violated the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on familial-status based discrimination. United States v. Wingo (2002). In December of 2000 a complaint was filed against Wingo Properties that alleged that the owners and managers of two Riverside apartment complexes engaged in a pattern of discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and by sexually harassing their female tenants. Apartment Apartment manager Vinnie Stancyk subjected female tenants at the complex to repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment, including conditioning the privileges of tenancy on tenants performing sexual acts. According to the Justice Department, the property owners William David Wingo and Karen Wingo Cipriano knew or should have known about this harassment and took no action to halt or prevent it. In addition, the defendants engaged in a variety of discriminatory conduct toward black and Latino apartment-seekers, including: refusing to rent to them, throwing away their rental applications, using racial epithets toward them, refusing to let them have minority guests, and evicting them because of their race or national origin. On August 8, 2002, the court entered a consent order that required the defendants to pay $35,000 in civil penalties and $355,000 into a fund to compensate victims of the defendants' discriminatory conduct. The consent order also barred the manager of the apartment complexes from working in the the rental real estate business. In addition, the owners of the complexes were required to train all employees on their obligations under the Fair Housing Act, implement a discrimination complaint policy, retain an independent agency to conduct at least three fair housing tests per year at each of their properties, and submit to monitoring by the Justice Department. PAGE 30, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA Smoke Tree Apartments (1997). In another Riverside case, Smoke Tree Apartments managers John and Mary Harding agreed to pay $100,000 to settle claims that it had violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis on race and family status. Tenants originally voiced their complaints to the Fair Housing Council over the alleged segregation of families with children at Smoke Tree Apartments. Tenants claimed that the owners and managers had reserved one side of the complex for families with children and the other side of the complex for single or married adults who did not have children. The plaintiffs also claimed that young children were forbidden to cross over into the "adult" side of the Smoke Tree complex. Families with children were also allegedly denied use of some of the Smoke Tree's services and facilities. According to the suit, children were harassed by managers and unreasonable rules and regulations against children and their families were enforced at Smoke Tree. The claims of racial discrimination at Smoke Tree Apartments came from a former manager of the complex. She said in her complaint that she was ordered by the owners to apply discriminatory rental policies against minorities and families with children. The former manager said that the owners of Smoke Tree Apartments were aware that the policies were discriminatory. Fair Housing Impediments, Recommendations and Action Plan This section summarizes the impediments to fair housing choice identified in the research conducted for the FY2012-2016 AI and recommends a Fair Housing Action Plan for FY2012-2016. Fair housing choice in Temecula. As a relatively new city, Temecula does not have past cultural or institutional barriers to fair housing. Although Temecula residents predominantly identify themselves as non-Hispanic White, the city has a sizable population of residents with various other races and Hispanic ethnicity. This analysis found no geographic areas in the city with significant concentrations by by race or ethnicity. Instead, the city has two areas where low income households are concentrated: The two block groups just east of I-15 contain 19 and 39 percent of low income households, respectively. These are also the areas within the city where mortgage loan denials were the highest in 2010. Even for those earning 200 percent of MFI ($130,000 or more per year), residents of one low income census tract (432.15) are denied 21 percent of the time, compared to only 15 percent citywide. About half of the city’s affordable housing developments are located in the concentrated areas. Fair housing barriers related to low income and low income household concentrations were named as the top two in the city according to residents. It should be noted, however, that all potential barriers were rated very low by residents (2.4 on a scale of 0 to 9, where 9 is the most serious barrier), including these two. Residents report low levels of past experience with housing discrimination (just three percent believe they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure). There were only five fair housing complaints filed in Temecula during the past five years and no fair housing lawsuits. The vast majority of residents responding to the AI survey agree with the statement, ‘‘I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula.’’ Stakeholders, in contrast, ranked potential fair housing barriers with higher levels of seriousness. Stakeholders named lenders’ failure to disclose private mortgage insurance company determinations and NIMBYism as the top fair housing barriers in Temecula (both with ratings of 6.6). CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 31 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Fair Housing Action Plan This section identifies the impediments to fair housing choice found through the research conducted for this AI. This section also presents recommended action items for mitigating the identified barriers. According to HUD, an impediment occurs only if it affects a protected class. Where a protected class is not directly affected, we have identified a fair housing ‘‘observation.’’ Observation No. 1—Lack of affordable housing could become a future barrier to housing choice. According to the survey completed for this AI, one in 10 residents were unable to find affordable housing in Temecula when there were looking for a place to live. Temecula’s median rent in 2010 was $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city’s renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. A quantitative comparison of supply and demand for rental housing in Temecula found that there is a substantial shortage of rental units affordable to low income households. In 2010, 45 percent of all renter households in Temecula earned less than $35,000, but only 11 percent of all rental units were affordable to this group. There are approximately 1,400 Temecula residents currently on the waiting list for housing services with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside. Is this a fair housing barrier? Lack of affordable housing can lead to income, racial and ethnic segregation and may disproportionately restrict housing choices for certain protected classes. This may occur because racial and ethnic minorities have lower incomes or because persons with disabilities require specific housing accommodations and need affordable housing due to limitations on employment. Although it does not appear that the shortage of affordable rentals in the city has led to racial or ethnic segregation, continued concentration of affordable housing in certain areas of the city could lead to segregated conditions. 􀂠 Action item No. 1-1. Continue to diversify housing stock. The City of Temecula should make a concerted effort to increase the number of affordable rentals located east of I-15. 􀂠 Action Items No. 1-2. Address the basic needs of low income households. The city should also use CDBG and other HUD funds it may receive to preserving the safety net for its lowest income households who have difficulty finding affordable rentals and are likely cost burdened and/or at risk of homelessness. This could include supporting homeless shelters, food pantries, emergency assistance programs and social service operations. Observation No. 2—Steering may be a fair housing impediment. Anecdotal evidence from stakeholders suggests that steering by real estate agents could be a barrier to fair housing for Temecula residents. Stakeholders also rated neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing as one of the most serious barriers to fair housing. Neighborhood opposition to certain types of housing or residents could influence where real estate agents show their clients homes. PAGE 32, SECTION V CITY OF TEMECULA The residents in the AI survey who believe they have experienced housing discrimination in Temecula most commonly described this discrimination as steering: 􀁨 ‘‘I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in.’’ 􀁨 ‘‘Realtor steering us away from certain homes.’’ 􀁨 ‘‘Single parent.’’ 􀁨 ‘‘We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller.’’ Why is this a fair housing barrier? Steering is a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. In addition, steering can perpetuate segregated housing conditions. 􀂠 Action Item 2. Conduct fair housing outreach and education with Temecula’s real estate professionals. City staff should present the results of the AI at an event with real estate professionals and engage in a discussion about steering as a potential impediment to housing choice. The city should also consider working with a task force sponsored by by the real estate community to better educate residents about fair housing rights (also see Action Item No. 5). Finally, the city may want to work with a regional fair housing organization to conduct testing about steering, especially when residential sales activities increase. Impediment No. 3—Zoning regulations could be improved to facilitate affordable housing development. Although the zoning review did not find any egregious barriers to affordable housing creation in Temecula, the review highlighted two fair housing concerns: 􀂠 Neither household nor family is defined in the city’s zoning code, which may exclude unrelated persons with disabilities from living together. 􀂠 Congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants that are not specifically for the elderly are omitted from residential zoning uses. This may effectively exclude congregate care and residential care of seven or more occupants for those with disabilities. 􀂠 Action Item 3. The city should clarify the definition of family so that it does not exclude unrelated parties living in group home settings and add congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants to some residential zones. Why is this a fair housing barrier? Zoning regulations that could be interpreted to disallow group homes occupied by persons with disabilities in residential settings can create barriers to fair housing choice. It is in a city’s best interest to be transparent about its group home zoning regulations to avoid misinterpretations that cause unequal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Observation No. 4—High loan denials in low income areas. It is significantly harder for borrowers who live in the city’s lowest income areas to obtain a mortgage loan, even for moderate and high income households. This may be an indicator that the private market is unwilling to invest in such areas, specifically in the neighborhood immediately west of I-15. Disinvestment could lead to neighborhood decline if residents are unable to secure loans to improve and maintain their homes. CITY OF TEMECULA SECTION V, PAGE 33 Is this a fair housing barrier? Low income residents are not a protected class under Fair Housing Law; therefore, lack of mortgage loan approvals in low income areas (if they are not also minority concentrated areas) is not a fair housing impediment. However, it is prudent for the city to address this potential issue to avoid neighborhood deterioration caused by lack of private capital invested in low income areas. 􀂠 Action Item No. 4. Invest in low income neighborhoods. The city should invest in community projects in its low income areas. Such investments will mitigate neighborhood deterioration, which is particularly important given the high rates of loan denials in the areas east of I-15. In addition, public improvements in low income areas ensure that the amenities offered in these areas are comparable to amenities in higher income areas. Inequality of neighborhood amenities can become a fair housing concern if lower quality neighborhoods are predominantly occupied by members of protected classes. Observation No. 5—There is a lack of information and knowledge about fair housing. Information about fair housing is difficult to find on the city’s website and, according to the survey conducted for this AI, most residents are unaware about how to report fair housing violations. Although few residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination, only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. Stakeholders also expressed concern about the availability of fair housing information and resources. Why is this a concern? Lack of fair housing information can become an impediment if such information is not equally available to all protected classes. In addition, an impediment could be created if inadequate fair housing information leads to lack of corrective action by housing providers and real estate professionals. 􀂠 Action Item No. 5. Improve access to fair housing information. The City of Temecula should add easy to find fair housing information on its website. An example of a comprehensive website with fair housing information in a semi-rural, affluent jurisdiction in Colorado is Douglas County’s (see http://www.douglas.co.us/CDBG/Fair_Housing.html). It is critical that the city have a link to HUD’s complaint-taking website and the State of California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, where residents may file complaints if they desire. 􀂠 The city should also disseminate fair housing information quarterly during the year, piggybacking on well-attended events (e.g., summer festivals, public school events. Some communities sponsor fair housing poster contests for local school children). APPENDIX A. Citizen Participation Plan 1 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A City of Temecula Citizen Participation Plan July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Temecula is required to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City’s procedure for ensuring and encouraging citizens to participate in the development of the City’s Consolidated Plan for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The City of Temecula’s CDBG funding has historically been administered by the County of Riverside on behalf of the City of Temecula. Since the City of Temecula will become an entitlement community effective July 1, 2012, the City of Temecula (rather than the County of Riverside) will be able to administer and allocate the City’s CDBG funding to the Temecula community directly from HUD. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City to have and follow a Citizen Participation Plan (CCP) as a condition of receiving funds. In order to ensure maximum participation in the consolidated planning process among all populations and needs groups, and in order to ensure that their issues and concerns are adequately addressed, the City of Temecula will follow the standards set forth in its adopted Citizen Participation Plan. This Citizen Participation is a plan to involve the community as the City develops the required HUD Plans for CDBG funding including the multi-year Consolidated Plan, the annual Action Plan, and the yearly review of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to ensure the citizens are involved in the use of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or other HUD grants including, if such funding becomes available to the City of Temecula, the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program. The yearly participation process will be developed and monitored by the City of Temecula Community Development Department. PURPOSE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN The City of Temecula recognizes the importance of public participation in both defining and understanding current housing and community development needs, and prioritizing resources to address those needs. The City’s Citizen Participation Plan is designed to provide citizens of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities, and special needs equal access to become involved each year. This document serves as the City’s Citizen Participation Plan for 2012 and all subsequent program years through June 30, 2017. This Citizen Participation Plan was drafted in accordance with Sections 91.100 and 91.105 of HUD’s Consolidated Plan regulations. 2 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT TERMS Action Plan: The yearly plan of action for the Consolidated Plan that identifies the specific activities and projects to be undertaken with CDBG during that funding/program year by the City. Analysis of Impediments (AI): The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) involves a comprehensive review and assessment of how the city’s laws, regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing, and how conditions, both public and private, affect fair housing choice. The City of Temecula is required to conduct an update to its Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in conjunction with the updates to its Consolidated Plan. This analysis will identify the proposed fair housing actions to be taken during the lifespan (5 years) of the Consolidated Plan. CAPER: The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, as required by HUD regulations, reports the City’s completion of projects and activities as outlined within the Action and Consolidated Plans and the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) at the end of the program year. CDBG: The Community Development Block Grant Program, as established under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, and the funding received under such program, assists communities to address housing and community development needs, primarily for low and moderate income residents. Consolidated Plan: A three to five multi-year plan of the City’s housing and community development needs, resources, priorities, and proposed activities to be undertaken for the CDBG program. Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG): ESG is a HUD grant for the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings into homeless shelters. It also funds certain related social services, operating expenses, homeless prevention activities, and administrative costs. ESG supplements State, local, and private efforts to improve the quality and number of emergency homeless shelters. By funding emergency shelter and related social services, ESG provides a foundation for homeless people to begin moving to independent living. HOME: The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, as established by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Act of 1990, is designed to provide communities with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the creation of affordable housing opportunities through partnerships with other organizations. Low and Moderate Income Areas (LMA): The Low and Moderate Income Areas are typically areas where 51% of the residents are low or moderate income. However, since the City of Temecula is considered an Exception Community, Low and Moderate Income Areas are defined block group areas with the highest 25% (upper quartile) of the low and moderate income residents. This means, based upon Temecula’s currently defined block group areas, Low and Moderate Income Areas are areas where 35% of the residents are low or moderate income person s. 3 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A The LMA benefit category is the most commonly used national objective for activities that benefit a low and moderate income block group area. Attached as Appendix A is a map that shows the boundaries of the City of Temecula eligible Low and Moderate Income Block Group areas. Activities that benefit the residents within the Low and Moderate Income Area are the type of activities that may qualify for the purposes of meeting a national objective. Examples of area benefit activities may include the following: •Acquisition of land to be used as a neighborhood park; •Construction of a health clinic; •Improvements to public infrastructure like the installation of gutters and sidewalks; and •Development of a community center or community gymnasium. Low and Moderate Limited Clientele Benefit (LMC): LMC activities provide benefits to a group of low or moderate income persons regardless of where they live; as opposed to LMA activities benefitting all the residents of a particular low and moderate area. In contrast to the Low and Moderate Area (LMA) benefit category, it is not the concentration of low to moderate persons living within the service area of the activity that determines whether the activity will qualify or not, but rather the actual number of Low and Moderate Income (LMI) persons that benefit from the activity. LMC activities benefit a limited clientele of whom at least 51% are low or moderate incomes. Activities in this category provide benefits to specific groups of low and moderate income persons rather than everyone in an area. It may benefit particular persons without regard to their residence, or it may be an activity that provides a benefit to only particular persons within a specific area. Examples of activities that qualify under the limited clientele category include: •Acquisition of a building to be converted into a shelter for the homeless; •Rehabilitation of a center for training severely disabled persons to enable them to live independently; •Clearance of a structure from the future site of a neighborhood center that will exclusively serve the elderly; and •Public services activities (i.e., the provision of health services); and •Construction of a community recreational park or gymnasium serving the low to moderate Income residents. Groups that automatically qualify under LMC criteria are generally presumed by HUD to be principally low to moderate income persons as follows: •Abused children; •Elderly persons (age 62 and older); •Battered spouses; •Homeless persons; •Severely disabled adults; •Illiterate adults; •Persons living with AIDS; and •Migrant farm workers. Severely Disabled Adults: As defined by the Bureau of Census, persons are classified as having a severe disability if they: (a) used a wheelchair or had used another special aid for 6 months or longer; (b) were unable to perform one or more functional activities or needed assistance with an activity of daily living or instrumental activity of daily living; (c) were prevented from working at a job or doing housework; or (d) had a condition including autism, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer's disease, senility, or mental retardation. Finally persons who are under 65 years of age and who are covered by Medicare or receive Social Security are considered to have a disability (and a severe disability). Functional activities include seeing, hearing, having one's 4 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A speech understood, lifting and carrying, walking up a flight of stairs, and walking. Activities of daily living include getting around inside the house, getting in and out of bed or a chair, bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting. Instrumental activities of daily living include going outside the home, keeping track of money or bills, preparing meals, doing light housework, and using the telephone. CONSOLIDATED PLAN OF PROGRAMS The Consolidated Plan is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement for a city to receive federal housing and community development funding (CDBG funding). The Consolidated Plan report examines the housing and community development needs of a city, sets priorities for HUD grant monies to which a city is entitled, identifies the city’s performance in meeting its goals, and establishes a strategic plan for meeting current and future needs. The City of Temecula is in the process of preparing its first multi-year Consolidated Plan as an “Entitlement Community” covering the program years July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017. The City of Temecula multi-year Consolidated Plan covers the geographic area within the City limits of Temecula. The City is entitled to receive CDBG funding from HUD during its five program years beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2017. Each program year coincides with the City’s fiscal year of July 1st to June 30th. The City’s Consolidated Plan is also required to have a strategy for citizen participation in the consolidated planning process. The citizen participation strategy is outlined in this document, the Citizen Participation Plan, which details the City’s plan for soliciting and receiving citizen input during preparation of the Consolidated Plan. A public hearing to discuss and adopt this document, the City of Temecula’s proposed Citizen Participation Plan, will be held on November 1, 2011 at 7 p.m. at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The City of Temecula consolidated planning processes will offer many opportunities for citizen participation. Participation will be solicited and encouraged through community outreach meetings, City Council public hearings and public Finance Committee meetings. The City will particularly encourage participation of persons with special needs and/or persons who are often underrepresented in public process (i.e. low income, non-English speaking persons, minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons who are homeless). A minimum of two public hearings, and two or three community meetings, will be held before submittal of the draft Consolidated Plan (or the Annual Plan) to HUD. It is anticipated that one or two optional Finance Committee meetings open to the public may also be held annually. The first public hearing is held in September, October or November each year. Citizen Input will also include two or three community meetings in October, November or December, and conclude with a final public hearing in April, May or June to adopt the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan. The public hearings will take place at the City of Temecula Civic Center, Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590, a location which is accessible to persons with physical disabilities. The community outreach meetings will also take place at the City of Temecula Civic Center at one of the available meeting rooms. 5 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Citizen Participation Opportunities -Relevant Public Hearings and Meetings: All sites selected for public meetings and public hearings are accessible to the physically disabled. The City will provide a Spanish translator upon request to accommodate non-English speaking persons at public hearings or community meetings. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. These requests should be made to the Community Development Department at 951-694-6400. Multiple processes will be used to inform citizens, local government officials, advocates, housing and community development officials, and others about the City Council public hearings and community meetings. Citizens will be given at least 15 days’ advance notice of the City Council public hearings and community meetings through postings on the City website (www.cityoftemecula.org), postings at public places including the City of Temecula Public Library and City of Temecula Civic Center, email notifications (interested parties’ email addresses will be added to Appendix B as they are obtained), personal contact with agencies and advocates, and publications in a local newspaper of general circulation (The Press Enterprise or The Californian). The City will also distribute public notices to residents through property landlords or directly to residents living within existing, designated low income areas and neighborhoods throughout the City to inform residents about the public hearings as an effort to increase public participation. The City will also send notifications to all interested parties and individuals listed on Appendix B. •Community Meetings: Two or three community meetings will be held annually during the months of October, November and/or December conducted by City staff to gather public input about the housing and community development needs of citizens and their neighborhoods and to provide technical assistance on CDBG applications. The community meetings will provide an opportunity for citizens and interested parties to obtain information about the City’s housing and community development programs and eligibility requirements. One of the community meetings during these months will be dedicated to potential stakeholders that may be eligible for funding of service programs and City staff will be available at the meetings to provide technical assistance for developing funding proposals for the programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. At least one community meeting will be held in early evenings to accommodate work schedules and at least one community meeting will be held during daylight to accommodate those uncomfortable driving at night. The location for these meetings will be at the City of Temecula Civic Center (at one of its available meeting rooms) which is within a low and moderate income area (LMA) of the City. Type of Meeting Date Location Address Community Meetings October, November and/or December City of Temecula Civic Center (Available Meeting Room) 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA •City Council Public Hearings: The City Council will fulfill its required role by holding public hearings and carrying out the procedures established in this Citizen Participation Plan. The City Council makes the final determination about the priority of various community needs that will guide the Council each year when allocating CBDG funds in the annual Action Plan. 6 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A The first public hearing will be held during the months of September, October or November each year prior to drafting and releasing the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. A final public hearing will be held after the release of the Draft Consolidated Plan and/or yearly Action Plan during the months of April, May or June. The Citizen Participation Plan provides for at least two public hearings; however, additional public hearings may be necessary if the City is needs to, for example, address a substantial amendment or obtain additional citizens’ views, respond to proposals and questions, address housing or community development needs, development of proposed activities and/or review the program performance. A minimum of two public hearings is required. Type of Meeting Date Location Address Public Hearing September, October and/or November City of Temecula Civic Center (Council Chambers) 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA Public Hearing April, May and/or June City of Temecula Civic Center (Council Chambers) 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA The public will have the opportunity of reviewing the draft Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan (and providing input to City Staff) within a 30-day comment period during March and/or April each year. City staff will incorporate public comments submitted to City staff during the 30-day comment period and then present the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Action Plan) for approval to the City Council at a public hearing in the months of April, May or June. Public comments and citizen participation are encouraged during all public hearings each year. •City Finance Committee: It is anticipated (but optional to the City) that the Finance Committee may meet one to three times a year regarding CDBG. The public will be noticed and such meetings would provide additional opportunities for the public to participate. The City Finance Committee consists of two appointed City Council Members (the two appointed Council Members are selected by City Council vote each calendar year or as may be determined at any other City Council meeting). The Finance Committee meets as needed and performs in an advisory manner to City staff and to the City Council concerning City Finance issues which may also include CDBG funding as a topic item on a City Finance Committee Agenda. Therefore, it is anticipated the Finance Committee would perform in an advisory manner to City staff and to the City Council concerning planning, implementing and assessing CDBG programs/activities through the following: • Consideration of citizen input concerning neighborhood/community needs; • Project recommendations for the City Council’s approval; and • Review of project/program progress. This meeting is intended more as an internal City meeting concerning CDBG however offers the public a supplemental opportunity to participate and the public is invited to attend. The anticipated timing of these City Finance Committee meetings that would have a CDBG topic item on the Agenda is expected to occur within 45 days before City Council CDBG public hearings and/or in January or February during City staff review of all CDBG service applications for funding requests that were submitted to the City. In the event Staff proposes a Substantial Amendment to the any of the CDBG plans, then a Finance Committee meeting may be scheduled to provide a status to the Finance Subcommittee before proposing a Substantial Amendment at a City Council Public Hearing. The public will be notified of any Finance Committee meetings in a manner that exceeds the City’s standard noticing requirements for standing Committees (3-days’ advance public notice) when CDBG is a topic item on the agenda. If CDBG is an item on the agenda for a Finance Committee meeting, then a minimum of 10 days’ advance notice (rather than the City’s 7 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A standard 3 days’ advance notice for standing Committee meetings) shall be required and the Public Notice shall specify that CDBG will be a discussion item. Ten days’ public notice shall be through publication in at least one local newspaper (The Press Enterprise or The Californian) and through notices posted at public areas including City Civic Center and the City of Temecula Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.cityoftemecula.org. Citizen Participation Opportunities -Relevant Plans: The City will make every effort to involve the community, especially lower income persons or special needs, during the preparation of all relevant HUD plans including the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and the CAPER. The City will also seek input from other groups that might not be eligible for funding but may have tenants or employees, or are aware of charitable organizations interested in participating. Appendix B provides a list of groups that will be invited to participate in the public process. The City will maintain the list and verify the contact information periodically and, at a minimum, annually. The list will continue to evolve and be administratively modified each year, without a substantial amendment, as stakeholders or potential participants are identified or dissolved. Organizations or groups and persons interested in registering to be on the list may contact the City of Temecula Community Development Department at 951-694-6400 to make the request to be added to the CDBG contact list. •Citizen Participation Plan: The draft Citizen Participation Plan will be released for public review and comment for 15 days in October or November and posted on the City’s website at http://www.cityoftemecula.org. A public hearing to present, discuss and adopt the Citizen Participation Plan will be held in November. This Citizen Participation Plan will be in effect through June 30, 2017. In the event there are substantial amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan during the five-year consolidated plan period, a public comment period of at least 15 days will be provided. Key housing and community development organizations in the City listed on Appendix B will be notified of the 15-day comment period for this Citizen Participation Plan and, if necessary, any substantially amended Citizen Participation Plan in the future. This Citizen Participation Plan will be made available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities upon request. •Consolidated Plan /Action Plan: Prior to the adoption of a Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan), the City will make available to the public and all interested parties the draft Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan for a comment period of no less than 30 days. The public comment period will commence in March, April or May each year. City Staff will then include public comments into the Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) prior to the public hearing on the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) by City Council. The draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) will contain the amount of assistance the City expects to receive through the CDBG and the activities that are planned each year during the five-year consolidated planning period. The draft Consolidated Plan will also include the City’s policies related to displacement of low and moderate income individuals, reducing poverty, removal of lead-based paint hazards, preventing and mitigating homelessness and removing barriers to fair housing choice. The City does not anticipate any displacement of individuals under the Consolidated Plan and the City’s “anti-displacement plan,” as part of the Consolidated Plan, will describe how the City will minimize displacement of persons or, in the unanticipated event of displacement, how the City will assist any persons who are actually displaced as a result of the use of these funds, specifying the type and levels of assistance and amount of compensation. An 8 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Appendix to the draft Consolidated Plan will also include the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) which involves a comprehensive review and assessment of how the city’s laws, regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing, and how conditions, both public and private, affect fair housing choice. The entire proposed Consolidated Plan will be available at the City Hall and the City Library during the public comment period. The proposed Consolidated Plan will also be available for viewing on the City’s website, http://www.cityoftemecula.org. Hard copies of the Consolidated Plan will be available to the public upon request. Annual Action Plans will likewise be made available. Citizens or groups that have attended any of the community meetings or public hearings will be added to Appendix B and notified when the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) is available for comment. Any person or organization may be added to Appendix B (or deleted) upon request to the Community Development Department at 951-694-6400. The City will openly consider any comments of individuals or groups received in writing during the process of drafting the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan including at public hearings or meetings. A summary of the written and public hearing comments will be included in the final Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan, along with the City’s response to the comments. Please note however that copies of the complaints, along with the City’s response will be sent to HUD if they occur outside of the Consolidated Planning and/or Annual Action Planning process and, as such, may not appear in the Consolidated Plan. The City will provide a written response to all written citizen comments and complaints related to the Consolidated Plan, amendments, and the CAPER within 30 days of receiving the comments and complaints. •Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER): Before the City submits a Consolidated Plan Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to HUD, the City will make available to interested parties the proposed CAPER for a comment period of no less than 15 days. Citizens will be notified of the CAPER’s availability through publications in at least one local newspaper of general circulation within the City (The Press Enterprise or The Californian). Any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings in preparing the performance report will be considered when preparing the CAPER. A summary of these comments shall be attached to the performance report. The CAPER will be available for review at the City during the full public comment period. Hard copies of the Draft CAPER will be located at the City of Temecula public library, City Clerk’s Office, Community Development Department, and on the City’s website at http://www.cityoftemecula.org. 9 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Citizen Participation Opportunities – Summary of Annual Schedule of Public Hearings and Meetings: The schedule for public participation and public review and adoption of all relevant plans including the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report is a follows: •City Council Public Hearing (September–November): Public Hearing on the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report CAPER (and/or Citizen Participation Plan if it is a Consolidated Plan year) by the City Council; with a 15-day public review period for public review and comments. This hearing is intended to present the public with an overview of the CDBG funding priorities prior to drafting/adopting the Annual Action Plan. This will include an overview of allowed activities under the CDBG programs, as well as an overview of the previous year’s Action Plan activities and projects for the City. •Community Meetings (October–December): Two or three community outreach meetings to gather input from the public on the overall proposed activities and programs to be completed as part of that year’s Action Plan. •Finance Committee Meetings (January–April; August–November): It is anticipated (but not required) that the Finance Committee may review existing and potential programs and projects funded with Community Development Block Grant funds prior to drafting and/or adopting the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. These meetings would be publically noticed and open to the public for input and participation. The timing of these meetings is expected to occur within 45 days before any City Council public hearings regarding CDBG and/or in January or February to review all CDBG service applications for funding requests that were submitted to the City. •City Council Public Hearing (March-June): Public Hearing on the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan by the City Council; with a 30-day public review period for public review and comments. The public hearing provides an opportunity for public input before the City Council adopts the proposed Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan. •HUD Submittal (May-June): Submittal of the Consolidated and/or Annual Action Plan to Department of Housing and Urban Development. Each year, the annual schedule and locations for community hearings and meetings for public input will be posted on the City’s website at www.cityoftemecula.org by September 15th. PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS The City shall provide opportunities for residents, public agencies, and other interested parties, including those most affected, with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the jurisdiction's consolidated plan, as well as the proposed, actual, and past use of funds covered by this Citizen Participation Plan. Standard documents will be available for public review at the City of Temecula, Community Development Department, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92592. These materials will also be available in a form accessible accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request. Comments, questions, or suggested amendments should be directed to the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. Standard program documents that shall be made accessible for public review and comment throughout the preparation process include: the proposed and final Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance Report (CAPER), Substantial Amendments, and this Citizen Participation Plan. The City will maintain and provide access to documentation and records for a period of five (5) years. 10 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A CONSULTATION WITH ORGANIZATIONS AND CITY AGENCIES When preparing the Consolidated Plan, the City will actively consult with public and private agencies that provide housing, health, and social services in order to ensure that the interests and needs of all groups are being adequately addressed. The City will also make the Consolidated Plan available to surrounding units of local government including local housing authorities. This consultation will occur through the community meetings, consultation or interviews conducted with such organizations including those that provide services to special needs populations and incorporation of data and reports produced by such organizations into the Consolidated Plan. The City will develop a list of these organizations and agencies and add them to Appendix B. COMPLAINTS Residents or other interested parties may submit complaints to the City in relation to administration of the CDBG programs or plans. Complaints may be made via telephone by calling (951) 694-6400 or in writing to: Community Development Department/CDBG, City of Temecula, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92589. The complaining party should state the nature of the complaint, what prior efforts have been made to resolve the problem and any other pertinent information which would help staff determine a solution. All complaints will receive careful consideration and a timely, substantive response will be provided within fifteen (15) days where practicable but no less than thirty (30) working days. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS Occasionally, public comments warrant an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. The criteria for whether to amend are referred to by HUD as “Substantial Amendment Criteria.” A change in the Annual Action Plan will be considered substantial whenever costs increase by $50,000 or 25% of the project’s budget, whichever is greater. It would constitute a substantial change if a proposal is made to amend the description of an existing activity in such a way that the newly described purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries differ significantly from the original activity’s purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries, The addition or deletion of an activity would also constitute a substantial change except in the following cases: (1) if the additional activity were on the back up priority list approved by the City Council; (2) if the activity were being deleted due to delays and would be included in the following year’s Annual Action Plan; (3) if there are nonperformance or eligibility issues requiring activity termination; (4) if project deletion or funding reductions are due to facility closure or bankruptcy; (5) if the agency becomes disqualified or ineligible to receive funding or is unable to produce sufficient eligible billings in accordance with the provisions of the agreement; or (6) if an applicant requests that their activity be terminated. Reallocation of funds allocated to an activity in the Action Plan to other activities of equal or lesser priority need level as as a result of a federal government recession or changes of appropriated funds that the City makes an administrative decision not to fund one or more activities are not considered to be Substantial Amendments. If such federal government funding cuts or changes were to happen, the City would be required to follow its plan of action as outlined in the Consolidated Plan and/or the annual Action Plan. Modifications to appendixes in the plans are not considered to be a Substantial Amendment. 11 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Citizen participation in the Event of a Substantial Amendment: In the event of a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan, the City will conduct at least one public hearing. This hearing will be held after a comment period of no less than 30 days, where the proposed, substantially amended Consolidated Plan will be made available to interested parties. Citizens will be informed of the public hearing through newspaper notification prior to the hearing, and the notice will appear in at least one newspaper. The substantially amended sections of the Consolidated Plan will be available for review at the City during the full public comment period. In addition, the substantially amended sections of the Consolidated Plan will be made available on the City’s website, http://www.cityoftemecula.org, for the full duration of the public comment period. Consideration of Public Comments on Substantially Amended Plan: In the event of substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan, the City will openly consider any comments on the substantially amended Consolidated Plan from individuals or groups. Comments must be received in writing, including emails, or verbally during public hearings. A summary of the written and public hearing comments on the substantial amendments will be included in the Final Consolidated Plan. Also included in the Final Consolidated Plan will be a summary of all comments not accepted and their reasons for dismissal. 12 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Appendix A City of Temecula Map of Low to Moderate Income Areas Census Tract 432.14 Block Group 2 Census Tract 432.15 Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.20 Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.19 Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.16 Block Group 1Census Tract 432.10 Block Group 2 §¨¦15 REDHAWK PKY RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD DE PORTOLA RD PECHANGA PKY JEFFERSON AV MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD WINCHESTER RD DIAZ RD KALMIA ST LA SERENA WY MEADOWS PKY RIDGE PARK DR MAIN ST OVERLAND DR ANZA RD JEDEDIAH SMITH RD MONTELEGRO WY BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD WOLF VALLEY RD APIS RD PAUBA RD IVY ST PIO PICO RD SOLANA WY RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD RANCHO VIS TA RD SANTIAGO RD WASHINGTON AV MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD ANZA RD TEMECULA PKY BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD DEER HOLLOW WY DIAZ RD FIRST ST PAUBA RD PUJOL ST EQUITY DR BUCK RD HAWTHORN ST ANZA RD MADERA DE PLAYA DR NICOLAS RD ANZA RD COUNTY CENTER DR DENDY PKY HIGHWAY 79 S YNEZ RD BUSINESS PARK DR MARGARITA RD VIA NORTE AMARITA WY PALA RD VAIL RANCH PKY * Low/moderate income block group is defined as a block group with 51% or more low and moderate Income population. However, since Temecula is an exception community, its low/moderate income block group areas are defined as the top 25% of the block groups with the highest amount of low and moderate income residents. Source: HUD 2000 Census Low and Moderate Income Summary Data. Legend Low Moderate Income 2000 Census Tract, Block Group Census Tract 432.10, Block Group 2 Census Tract 43.214, Block Group 2 Census Tract 432.15, Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.16, Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.19, Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.20, Block Group 1 City of Temecula Highways Major Streets City of Temecula Low to Moderate Income Census Block Groups * 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 O Miles October 3, 2011 13 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Appendix B CDBG Notification List of Persons or Organizations Any person or organization may be added to this list (or deleted) upon request. Please contact Dana Weaver, Associate Planner Dana.Weaver@CityofTemecula.org or 951-694-6400 Nonprofit Organizations, Public/Private Organizations or Interested Persons RIVERSIDE AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER 1845 Chicago Avenue, Suite A, Riverside, CA 92507 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF TEMECULA VALLEY 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92593 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY, John Whann P.O. Box 892349, Temecula, CA 92589-2349 JohnW@bgcswc.org CASA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INC. P.O. Box 3008, Indio, CA 92202-3008 SAFE ALTERNATIVES FOR EVERYONE, INC. 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590-2829 SENIOR CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER 41538 Eastman Dr. # C, Murrieta, CA 92562 VINEYARD OF THE NEW WINE P.O. Box 218, Temecula, CA 92593 TEMECULA MURRIETA RESCUE MISSION 31300 Rancho Community Way, Temecula, CA 92592 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula CA 92592 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 26790 Ynez Ct # A, Temecula CA 92591-5607 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA P.O. Box 1388 Temecula CA 92593-1388 TEMECULA MURRIETA PANTRY 28922 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY 3933 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 14 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A SINGLE MOTHERS UNITED IN REWARDING FELLOWSHIP (SMURF), Paul Kauffman 31805 Temecula Parkway Ste 389, Temecula, CA 92592 Paul@smurfmom.com TEMECULA MURRIETA PANTRY 28922 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 GRID ALTERNATIVES 1257 Columbia Ave Ste D5, Riverside, CA 92507 ZAK SCHWANK zakschwank@gmail.com MARY TOWELL MaryTowell@yahoo.com MVM NETWORK INC., Nick Benavides Nick@mvmnetwork.org MVM NETWORK INC., Eric Moore Eric@mvmnetwork.org BOYS & GIRLS CLUB, Tornell McColley TornellM@bgcswc.org BOYS & GIRLS CLUB, D. Joy Gould joyg@bgcswc.org COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY EDUCATION, Julie Zimmerman MicheleSmithsccg@verizon.net WELLS FARGO, Mark Stringer Mark.Stringer@wellsfargo.com PAUL JACOBS temeculaPaul@aol.com 15 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Appendix B Affordable Rental Housing Rancho Creek Apts. 28464 Felix Valdez, Temecula, CA 92590 Rancho West Apts. 42200 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Mission Village Apts. 28485 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Riverbank Senior Apts. 28500 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Dalton Historical Building (Dalton II) 41925 Fifth Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 41955 Fifth Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Reflections 31111 Black Maple Dr., Temecula, CA 92592 Summerhouse 44155 Margarita Rd., Temecula, CA 92592 Warehouse at Creekside 42081 Third Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Oaktree Apts. 42176 Lyndie Lane, Temecula, CA 92591 Rancho California Apts. 29210 Stonewood Rd. , Temecula, CA 92591 Creekside Apts. 28955 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 16 | P A G E CI T Y O F T E M E C U L A Appendix B Affordable Housing Developers Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 Habitat for Humanity 27475 Ynez Road, Suite 390 Temecula, CA 92592 951-296-3362 Jamboree Housing 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 263-8676 The Olson Company 30200 Old Ranch Pkwy, #250 Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 596-4770 BRIDGE Housing 2202 30th Street San Diego, CA 92104-5427 (619) 231-6300 Affirmed Housing 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92128 (858) 679-2828 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY MEETING NOTICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) Notice is hereby given that a Community Meeting will be held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California on November 16, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. (This is the same meeting information offered at two different times). This meeting is for the purpose of discussing the City’s CDBG program and funding. Citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula are encouraged at this time and will be considered in the development of CDBG activities for the City's Five-Year CDBG Consolidated Plan 2012-2016 and the City’s One-Year Action Plan for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. Projects supported with CDBG funds must meet at least one of the following three National Objectives: (1) benefit low and moderate income persons, (2) prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or (3) meet a particularly urgent community development need. need. All interested citizens are invited to attend. Please direct any questions to Betsy Lowrey, Planner, City of Temecula, telephone: 951-693-3959, or by email at Betsy.Lowrey@CityofTemecula.org. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request to Betsy Lowrey one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. More information can be obtained at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Finance/GrantAdmini stration.htm. CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY MEETING NOTICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) Notice is hereby given that a Community Meeting will be held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California on November 17, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. This meeting is for the purpose of discussing the CDBG funding for fiscal year 2012-2013 to provide technical assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies that will be submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. Applications can be obtained at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Finance/GrantAdministration.htm. Please direct any questions to Betsy Lowrey, Planner, City of Temecula, telephone: 951-693-3959, or by email at Betsy.Lowrey@CityofTemecula.org. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request to Betsy Lowrey one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. The City of Temecula Wants Your Input! The City of Temecula needs your input about how to spend the federal housing and community development funds the City will receive during the next five years (2012-2017). Programs and services must generally benefit low and moderate income persons. The City is starting its Consolidated Plan process, which will determine how the federal funds will be spent. Citizen participation is a vital step in determining the City’s needs and priorities. Complete a survey online: Other questions or needs? What do you consider to be the City’s most critical housing needs? What are the City’s most critical community development needs? What can the City do to improve housing opportunities and community development? Do you have any housing discrimination concerns? For more information about the Consolidated Plan process, please contact: Betsy Lowrey City of Temecula Community Development Department PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 951-693-3959 or betsy.lowrey@cityofTemecula.org https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Temecula_Resident_Housing_Survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Temecula_Professional_Hou sing_Survey What Do You Think? Residents Housing, real estate, lending and social service professionals 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Suite 850 Denver, Colorado 80209-3868 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com MEMORANDUM To: Betsy Lowrey, Luke Watson From: Heidi Aggeler and Jen Garner Re: Draft Public Input Session Plan Date November 3, 2011 Background The forums will open to the public and stakeholders. Discussion will be focused on prioritizing needs for CDBG expenditures and fair housing. Session Format Each session will include the following elements: 􀂠 Brief introductory presentation by BBC explaining the Consolidated Planning process, meeting objectives and an overview of how Temecula has spent housing and community development funds in the past (city can be part of this as well, depending on preferences) [BBC/City], and the anticipated funding level; 􀂠 Warm up group discussion of the participants’ perceptions of the quality of life in the low/mod neighborhoods -----challenges, strengths [BBC] 􀂠 Group discussion of the greatest housing needs in the low/mod neighborhoods [BBC]; 􀂠 Group discussion of the greatest community development needs in the low/mod neighborhoods [BBC]; 􀂠 Group discussion of the greatest needs of special needs populations in the low/mod neighborhoods [BBC]; 􀂠 Spending and prioritization exercise [BBC]; 􀂠 If time allows, we will introduce Fair Housing and the AI and discuss [Note: fair housing information will primarily be collected via the surveys in interviews]; and 􀂠 Wrap-up [BBC/City]. Page 2 Group Discussion Sample Questions The purpose of the group discussion is to get participants warmed up and thinking about housing and community development needs in Temecula’s low/mod neighborhoods. Questions may include: 􀂠 How would you describe these [low/mod] neighborhoods to someone who didn’t live in Temecula? 􀂠 How does the quality of life in these neighborhoods compare to the rest of Temecula? 􀂠 Do these neighborhoods have the same types of amenities as other Temecula neighborhoods? [parks, schools, sidewalks, street lighting] 􀂠 What do you think are the greatest needs regarding housing in these neighborhoods? [more affordable housing, type of housing] 􀂠 [Show examples of community development projects/services on a slide.] When you think about community development activities and services like those on the screen, what do you think the greatest needs are in these neighborhoods? 􀂠 [Show list of special needs populations: youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, persons who are homeless, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS] What are the greatest needs of special needs populations in Temecula? Spending and Prioritization Exercise After the discussion of needs, participants will be given a handout that directs them to spend $400,000 on eligible activities of their choosing and to assign a priority (high, medium, low) to each activity. Wrap-Up Upon completion of the prioritization exercise, the floor will be opened for any additional comments about housing and community development needs and the Consolidated Plan process. Participants will be given the opportunity to make additional written comments on a comment sheet handout. Materials Needed The following materials are needed: 􀂠 Screen, projector and laptop for presentation[City] 􀂠 Large format maps highlighting the qualified low and moderate income neighborhoods (at least two)[City] 􀂠 Post-It/sticky flip charts and markers [City] 􀂠 Project prioritization worksheets [BBC] Page 3 􀂠 Sign in sheets [BBC] 􀂠 Flyers promoting the resident and stakeholder survey [BBC] 􀂠 Paper copies of the resident and stakeholder surveys with return envelopes [BBC] 􀂠 Public comment sheets [BBC] APPENDIX B. CDBG Service Application City of Temecula Community Development Department Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application for the 2012-2013 Program Year Submission Deadline December 15, 2011 5:00 P.M. 1 City of Temecula 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant Application Instructions The following CDBG Application is to be used for the City of Temecula 2012-2013 CDBG Program Year. This application form is intended for the use by non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies that will be requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula’s 2012-2013 CDBG funds will not be available until after September 15, 2012. The original and one copy (total of two hard copies) of the complete 2012-2013 CDBG Application and an electronic copy of the application and all attachments in PDF format* are due no later than 5:00 PM on Thursday, December 15, 2011, at the following location: City of Temecula ATTN: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 308-6342 *You may email the PDF copy of your full application to David.Bilby@CityofTemecula.org, or provide a CD or Flash Drive when you submit the original and copy. Please contact David Bilby if you are are unable to provide a PDF of your application. Applications received after the above deadline will not be accepted. A complete application for each activity or project must be submitted by all organizations applying for CDBG funds. All questions must be answered completely, and all required documentation must be attached. If additional sheets are required to complete a response, please continue the answer as an attachment. Attachments to the Application: All applicants must submit a detailed index of all attachments to the CDBG application. All attachments must be individually tabbed and labeled to correspond to the specific section of the application. Non-profit organizations are only required to submit one copy of their Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and current board membership. Should you require any assistance in completing the application, please attend the Technical Assistance Workshop: Technical Assistance Workshop November 17, 2011 6:00 p.m. City of Temecula City Hall Conference Center 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 If you are unable to attend the Technical Assistance Workshop, you may also contact a CDBG representative at (951) 694-6400 and ask for Dana Weaver, Luke Watson, Betsy Lowrey or David Bilby for assistance completing the application. 2 2012-2013 CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW At this time, the City of Temecula will utilize a Priority Evaluation and Project Rating System for all proposals. As part of the review and evaluation process, City staff will review and evaluate all proposals utilizing the following checklist: I. ACTIVITY EVALUATION □ Does the activity address an established need? □ Is the proposed activity eligible (24 CFR 570.201) under the CDBG program? □ Does the proposed activity meet one of the three broad National Objectives? ▪ Principally benefit low and moderate-income persons; ▪ Prevents or eliminates slum and blight; or ▪ Addresses an urgent need or problem in the community. □ Has the applicant provided sufficient explanation concerning their ability to adequately and accurately document the benefit to low and moderate income persons? □ Can the project be implemented and completed within a reasonable amount of time (Public Service activities 1 year /all other activities 2 years maximum)? □ Has the applicant identified all the major tasks or components that will be required in carrying out the activity? Are there any potential issues or concerns? □ Has the applicant provided a reasonable estimate of the resources necessary for each component of the project, and has it developed a realistic budget that reflects these resources? Are other sources of funds (leveraging) committed to this project? □ Is the proposed budget for the CDBG-funded activity separate from other activities undertaken by the applicant? II. APPLICANT (ORGANIZATIONAL) EVALUATION □ Has the applicant ever undertaken the proposed activity before? What were the results? □ Does the applicant have experience with CDBG or other Federal programs? Has the applicant conducted a Single Audit (OMB A-133) within the last two years? □ Does the applicant and prospective staff understand the additional requirements associated with Federal funding? □ Does the applicant have qualified staff for all the necessary functions associated with the proposed activity? Is there adequate staff time available? □ Does the applicant possess adequate administrative structures, management systems, and policies & procedures? □ Does the applicant possess adequate financial stability? Will the applicant be overly dependent upon CDBG funding? 3 Minimum Activity Funding: In an effort to ensure effective, efficient, and appropriate allocation and use of CBDG funds, the City may reject any proposed CDBG activity in an amount less than $10,000. Leverage Funding: Verification of at least FIVE percent matching funds must be provided prior to the date of the grant awarded to the grantee. Funds used to match a previous CDBG grant may not be used to match a subsequent grant award. Applications with zero leverage will be disqualified. Leverage may include, but limited to Federal, State, local, private, donations, in-kind, volunteer hours at $5.00 hour, etc. Acquisition of Real Property /Displacement: NOTE: Any organization considering the submittal of an application for CDBG funds for a project that involves acquisition of real property and/or the displacement of tenants must consult with the City prior to submitting the application. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 2012-2013 APPLICATION FORM I. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applying Entity or Agency: Location: City: Zip Code: Mailing Address: City: Zip Code: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Executive Director: Telephone Number: E-mail: Program Manager: Telephone Number: E-mail: Address (If different from above: Grant Writer: Telephone Number: E-mail: II. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY: (This is applicable only if you are a non-profit organization) Date Organization founded: Date Organization incorporated as a non-profit organization: Identification Number:________________________________________ State Identification Number: DUNS Number:___________________________ Number of paid staff: _______________ Number of volunteers: ATTACH: Current Board of Directors (Label as Attachment I.A) Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws (Label as Attachment I.B) CITY USE ONLY PROPOSAL NUMBER ____ ___ REVIEWER ______ DOCUMENT STAMP DATE RECEIVED: ____________ 5 III. PROJECT ACTIVITY: CDBG Funds Requested: $ (Total amount for the project only) Where will the proposed activity occur (be specific as to the geographic scale of the proposed activity)? If the project involves a new or existing facility, what is the proposed service/benefit area for the facility? (Attachment II Project Activity) Citywide (check if project will serve multiple areas of the city). Community (ies): Other: What area of the City does the activity occur within? NOTE: The City will make the final determination of the appropriate service area of all proposals. Check ONLY the applicable category your application represents. Real Property Acquisition Public Service Housing Rehabilitation/Preservation (please provide picture of structure) Public Facilities Improvements (construction) Other (provide description) IV. PROJECT NARRATIVE: A. Name of Project: Specific Location of Project (include street address; if a street address has not been assigned provide APN) Street: City: Zip Code: APN: Attach maps of proposed project(s) location and service area. B. Provide a detailed Project Description. The description should only address or discuss the specific activities, services, or project that is to be assisted with CDBG funds. If CDBG funds will assist the entire program or activity, then provide a description of the entire program or activity. (Attach additional sheets if necessary – Attachment III Project Description) 6 C. Provide a detailed description of the proposed use of the CDBG funds only (e.g. client scholarships, purchase a specific piece of equipment, rent, supplies, utilities, salaries, etc.): D. Outcomes and Performance Measures Number of clients or units of service to be provided using CDBG funds during the term of the grant: NOTE: This is based on the expected number of clients to be served if the City funds your project for the requested amount. Length of CDBG-funded activities or service (weeks, months, year): Unduplicated number of clients/persons projected to serve (e.g., 25 clients, 50 seniors): Units of service (Example: 25 clients x 10 visits = 250 units of service): Service will be provided to (check one or more): Men Women Children Men/Women Range of children’s ages: Men/Women/Children Families Seniors Severely Disabled Adults Migrant Farm Workers Homeless Number of beds of facility: Anticipated number of “new” beds: Length of stay (if residential facility): 7 E. What are the goals and objectives of the project, service, or activity? How will you measure and evaluate the success of the project to meet these goals and objectives (measures should be both qualitative and quantitative)? F. Discuss how this project directly benefits low-and moderate-income residents. G. Respond to A & B only if this application is for a public service project. (a) Is this a NEW service provided by your agency? Yes No (b) If service is not new, will the existing public service activity level be substantially increased or improved? H. What methods will be used for community involvement to assure that all who might benefit from the project are provided an opportunity to participate? 8 I. What evidence is there of a long-term commitment to the proposal? Describe how you plan to continue the work (project) after the CDBG funds are expended? V. PROJECT BENEFIT: All CDBG-funded activities must meet at least one of three National Objectives of the CDBG program. Indicate the category of National Objective to be met by your activity: CATEGORY 1: Benefit to low-moderate income persons (must be documented). Please choose either subcategory A, B, or C. A. Area Benefit: The project or facility serves, or is available to, all persons located within the City’s Low/Moderate Income Area. Please refer to the City’s Low to Moderate Area Map attached as Exhibit A to the Citizen Participation Plan. If you need assistance in determining the appropriate census data, please call the City. Census Tract and block group numbers: CT BG CT BG CT BG CT BG CT BG CT BG # Total population in Census Tract(s) /block group(s) # Total low-moderate population in Census Tract(s) /block group(s) B. Limited Clientele: The project serves clientele that will provide documentation of their family size, income, and ethnicity. Identify the procedure you currently have in place to document that at least 51% of the clientele you serve are low-moderate income persons. 9 C. Clientele presumed to be principally low-and moderate-income persons: The following groups are presumed by HUD to meet this criterion. You will be required to submit a certification from the client (s) that they fall into one of the following presumed categories. The activity will benefit (check one or more) Abused children Homeless persons Battered spouses Illiterate adults Elderly persons Persons living with AIDS Severely disabled adults Migrant Farm workers Describe your clientele to be served by the activity. CATEGORY 2: Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight: The proposed project or activity must directly benefit an identified slum and blighted area. Is the project located in a Redevelopment Area? Yes No If yes, attach map of the area with the site highlighted, and provide the Redevelopment Project Area (excerpts accepted) which documents the existence of slum/blight. Also, document the specific redevelopment objectives pertaining to the proposed project. (Label as Attachments: IV Category 2, Exhibit 1, 2, etc.) NOTE: this National Objective Category must be approved by the City in writing prior to the submittal of your application. CATEGORY 3: Documented Health or Safety Condition of Particular Urgency: Condition shall have been of recent (18 months) origin and must be designated by the City Council. Provide documentation which demonstrates the health or safety condition has existed within the previous 18 months. (Label as Attachments: V Category 3, Exhibit 1, 2, etc.) NOTE: this National Objective Category must be approved by the City in writing prior to the submittal of your application. 10 VI. FINANCIAL INFORMATION: A. Proposed Project Budget Complete the following annual program budget to begin July 1, 2011. If your proposed CDBG-funded activity will start on a date other than July 1, 2011, please indicate starting date. If these budget line items are not applicable to your activity, please attach an appropriate budget. Provide total Budget information and distribution of CDBG funds in the proposed budget. The budgeted items are for the activity for which you are requesting CDBG funding -not for the budget of the entire organization or agency. (EXAMPLE: The Valley Senior Center is requesting funding of a new Senior Nutritional Program. The total cost of the program is $15,000. A total of $10,000 in CDBG funds is being requested for operating expenses associated with the proposed activity. Other non-CDBG funding will be used to pay pick-up the remaining costs for the program). TOTAL ACTIVITY/PROJECT BUDGET (Include CDBG Funds) CDBG FUNDS REQUESTED I. Personnel A. Salaries & Wages $ $ B. Fringe Benefits $ $ C. Consultants & Contract Services $ $ SUB-TOTAL $ $ II. Non-Personnel A. Space Costs $ $ B. Rental, Lease or Purchase of Equipment $ $ C. Consumable Supplies $ $ D. Travel $ $ E. Telephone $ $ F. Other Costs $ $ SUB-TOTAL $ $ III. Architectural/Engineering Design $ $ IV. Acquisition of Real Property $ $ V. Construction/Rehabilitation $ $ VI. Indirect Costs $ $ TOTAL $ $ 11 B. Leveraging Identify other funding sources (commitments or applications) from other sources to assist in the implementation this activity. Attach current evidence of commitment (Attachment VI-A, Exhibits 1, 2, etc.). If commitments are pending, indicate amount requested and attach documentation regarding previous year’s funding. Funding Source Amount Requested Date Available Type of Commitment C. Provide a summary by line item of your organization’s previous year’s income and expense statement (Attachment VI-B, Exhibits 1, 2, etc.). D. If the project benefits residents outside the City’s jurisdiction have requests been submitted to those other jurisdictions? Yes No If yes, identify sources and indicate outcome. If no, please explain 12 E. Was this project previously funded with CDBG funds? Yes No If yes, when? Is this activity a continuation of a previously funded (CDBG) project? Yes No If yes, explain: VII. MANAGEMENT CAPACITY: A. Describe your organization’s experience in managing and operating project or activities funded with CDBG or other Federal funds. Include within the description a resource list (partnerships) in addition to the source and commitment of funds for the operation and maintenance of the program. Source Activity Year Allocation Amount Expended B. Management Systems Does your organization have written and adopted management systems (i.e., policies and procedures) including personnel, procurement, property management, record keeping, financial management, etc.? 13 C. Capacity Please provide the names and qualifications of the person(s) that will be primarily responsible for the implementation and completion of the proposed project. Provide a detailed organizational chart (Attachment VII-A, Exhibits 1, 2, etc.). D. Should the applying entity be awarded CDBG funds, please identify the primary project objectives and goals using an Estimated Timeline for Project Implementation: OBJECTIVE START DATE COMPLETION DATE 14 APPLICATION CERTIFICATION Undersigned hereby certifies that (initial after reading each statement and sign the document): _____ 1. The information contained in the project application is complete and accurate. _____ 2. The applicant agrees to comply with all Federal and City policies and requirements imposed on the project funded in full or part by the CDBG program. _____ 3. The applicant acknowledges that the Federal assistance made available through the CDBG program funding will not be used to substantially reduce prior levels of local, (NON-CDBG) financial support for community development activities. _____ 4. The applicant fully understands that any facility built or equipment purchased with CDBG funds shall be maintained and/or operated for the approved use throughout its economic life. _____ 5. If CDBG funds are approved, the applicant acknowledges that sufficient funds are available or will be available to complete the project as described within a reasonable timeframe. _____ 6. On behalf of the applying organization, I have obtained authorization to submit this application for CDBG funding. (DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED Minute Action and/or written Board Approval signed by the Board President). DATE: Signature: Print Name/Title Authorized Representative: 15 Applicant’s Check-list: The following required documents listed below have been attached. Any missing documentation to the application will be cause for the application to be reviewed as INELIGIBLE. Yes NO ATTACHMENT 1. Board of Directors 2. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws 3. Project Activity Map 4. Project Description 5. Project Benefit, Category 2. Slum Blight Documentation 6. Project Benefit, Category 3, Urgency 7. Leveraging 8. Income and Expense Statement 9. Management Capacity 10. Board Written Authorization approving submission of application APPENDIX C. HUD Needs Tables and Required Forms Only complete blue sections. Do NOT type in sections other than blue. Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual % HSHLD # HSHLD NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 115 100% 155 no 181 Any housing problems 65.2 75 0 #### 83.9 130 Cost Burden > 30% 65.2 75 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 65.2 75 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 274 no With Any Housing Problems 85.4 234 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 81.8 224 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 76.6 210 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 120 no With Any Housing Problems 100.0 120 0#### Cost Burden > 30% 87.5 105 0#### Cost Burden >50% 79.2 95 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 210 yes With Any Housing Problems 76.2 160 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 76.2 160 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 71.4 150 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 54 With Any Housing Problems 35.2 19 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 35.2 19 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 35.2 19 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 210 no With Any Housing Problems 66.7 140 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 66.7 140 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 66.7 140 0 #### NUMBER NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 45 no With Any Housing Problems 100.0 45 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 100.0 45 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 100.0 45 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 24 no With Any Housing Problems 16.7 4 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 16.7 4 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 16.7 4 0 #### % of Goal 3-5 Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* # of Househ olds in lead-Hazard Housing Total Low Income HIV/AIDS Populatio n Dispropo rtionate Racial/Ethnic Need? Fund Source Plan to Fund? All other hshold Households with a Disabled Member Household Income <=30% MFIRenter All other hshold Large Related Small Related Elderly Owner Large Related Small Related Elderly CPMP Version 1.3 Priority Need? Current Number of Households Current % of Households Housing Needs Table Grantee: Housing Needs -Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data Housing Problems Year 5* Multi-Year HSGNeed 1 CPMP Only complete blue sections. Do NOT type in sections other than blue. Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual % HSHLD # HSHLD % of Goal 3-5 Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* # of Househ olds in lead-Hazard Housing Total Low Income HIV/AIDS Populatio n Dispropo rtionate Racial/Ethnic Need? Fund Source Plan to Fund? Households with a Disabled Member CPMP Version 1.3 Priority Need? Current Number of Households Current % of Households Housing Needs Table Grantee: Housing Needs -Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data Housing Problems Year 5* Multi-Year NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 110 100% 120 yes 168 With Any Housing Problems 77.3 85 0 #### 91.7 110 Cost Burden > 30% 77.3 85 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 54.5 60 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 329 yes With Any Housing Problems 87.8 289 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 83.3 274 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 60.8 200 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 57 yes With Any Housing Problems 100.0 57 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 93.0 53 0 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 43.9 25 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 145 no With Any Housing Problems 100.0 145 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 100.0 145 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 44.8 65 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 140 yes With Any Housing Problems 85.7 120 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 85.7 120 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 60.7 85 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 144 no With Any Housing Problems 97.2 140 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 97.2 140 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 83.3 120 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 75 no With Any Housing Problems 100.0 75 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 100.0 75 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 86.7 65 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 75 yes With Any Housing Problems 86.7 65 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 86.7 65 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 86.7 65 0 #### All other hshold Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI Renter All other hshold Large Related Small Related Elderly Owner Large Related Small Related Elderly HSGNeed 2 CPMP Only complete blue sections. Do NOT type in sections other than blue. Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual % HSHLD # HSHLD % of Goal 3-5 Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* # of Househ olds in lead-Hazard Housing Total Low Income HIV/AIDS Populatio n Dispropo rtionate Racial/Ethnic Need? Fund Source Plan to Fund? Households with a Disabled Member CPMP Version 1.3 Priority Need? Current Number of Households Current % of Households Housing Needs Table Grantee: Housing Needs -Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data Housing Problems Year 5* Multi-Year NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 54 100% 59 no 179 With Any Housing Problems 81.5 44 0 #### 76.3 45 Cost Burden > 30% 74.1 40 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 46.3 25 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 450 yes With Any Housing Problems 78.9 355 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 65.6 295 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 10.0 45 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 150 yes With Any Housing Problems 76.7 115 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 40.0 60 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 16.7 25 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 215 yes With Any Housing Problems 76.7 165 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 76.7 165 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 14.0 30 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 400 no With Any Housing Problems 37.5 150 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 37.5 150 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 13.8 55 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 369 yes With Any Housing Problems 91.9 339 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 90.8 335 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 44.7 165 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 230 yes With Any Housing Problems 84.8 195 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 84.8 195 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 32.6 75 0 #### NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 65 yes With Any Housing Problems 84.6 55 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 84.6 55 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 38.5 25 0 #### Total Any Housing Problem 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 Total 215 Renter 0 493 528 Total 215 Owner 0 3785 Total 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1470 All other hshold Total Disabled All other hshold Small Related Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI Renter Large Related Small Related Elderly Elderly Owner Large Related Elderly 4530 3554 Tot. Elderly Total Lead Hazard Tot. Sm. Related Tot. Lg. Related Total Renters Total Owners HSGNeed 3 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Vacancy Rate 0 & 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedroom Total Substandard Units 1534 2133 1270 4937 47 194 1182 11914 13290 60 7% 80 230 60 370 30 2% 0 29 214 243 38 1808 3574 13458 18840 175 974 1,149 1,617 625 751 867 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vacant Units: For Rent Vacant Units: For Sale Rents: Applicable FMRs (in $s) Housing Market Analysis Complete cells in blue. Jurisdiction Housing Stock Inventory Occupied Units Vacant Units Total Units Occupied & Vacant Rehabilitation Needs (in $s) Public Housing Units Affordability Mismatch Total Units Occupied & Vacant Rent Affordable at 30% of 50% of MFI (in $s) Occupied Units: Renter Occupied Units: Owner HSGMarketAnalysis 4 CPMP Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Actua l % of Goal 148 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0### 66 0 66 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0%H Y 66 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0### 280 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ### Permanent Supportive Housing Total Data Quality CDBG Chronically Homeless Beds Emergency Shelters Transitional Housing Plan to Fund? Y Fund Source: CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG or OtherYear 2 Year 3 Total Priority H, M, L Year 4 3 Part 3: Homeless Needs Table: Individuals Needs Currently Available Gap Goal 5-Year Quantities Year 1 Year 5 1483 Part 1: Homeless Population 14 14 0 0 162 162 0 0 4 4 7. Youth (Under 18 years of age) 0 5 6. Victims of Domestic Violence 4. Veterans 0 23 23 0 19 19 5. Persons with HIV/AIDS 0 5 2. Severely Mentally Ill 0 48 48 3. Chronic Substance Abuse 0 75 75 Un-sheltered Total 0 0 1. Chronically Homeless 0 66 66 1. Homeless Individuals 0 0 148 Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations Total (lines 1 + 2a) 2a. Persons in Homeless with Children Families 2. Homeless Families with Children Sheltered CPMP Version 1.3 Jurisdiction Continuum of Care Homeless Population and Subpopulations ChartSheltered Un-sheltered Total Emergency Transitional Data Quality Homeless 5 CPMP Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Actua l % of Goal 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0### 19 0 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0%H Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0### 33 0 33 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0% Total Priority H, M, L 0 CDBG Plan to Fund? Y Fund Source: CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG or OtherPart 4: Homeless Needs Table: Families Unsheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. Places not meant for human habitation include streets, parks, alleys, parking ramps, parts of the highway system, transportation depots and other parts of transportation systems (e.g. subway tunnels, railroad car), all-night commercial establishments (e.g. movie theaters, laundromats, restaurants), abandoned buildings, building roofs or stairwells, chicken coops and other farm outbuildings, caves, campgrounds, vehicles, and other similar places. Completing Part 1: Homeless Population. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time. The counts must be from: (A) administrative records, (N) enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality of the data presented in each box must be identified as: (A), (N), (S) or (E). Completing Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one-day point in time. The numbers must be from: (A) administrative records, (N) enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality of the data presented in each box must be identified as: (A), (N), (S) or (E). Sheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth residing in shelters for the homeless. “Shelters” include all emergency shelters and transitional shelters for the homeless, including domestic violence shelters, residential programs for runaway/homeless youth, and any hotel/motel/apartment voucher arrangements paid by a public/private agency because the person or family is homeless. Do not count: (1) persons who are living doubled up in conventional housing; (2) formerly homeless persons who are residing in Section 8 SRO, Shelter Plus Care, SHP permanent housing or other permanent housing units; (3) children or youth, who because of their own or a parent’s homelessness or abandonment, now reside temporarily and for a short anticipated duration in hospitals, residential treatment facilities, emergency foster care, detention facilities and the like; and (4) adults living in mental health facilities, chemical dependency facilities, or criminal justice facilities. Beds Needs Currently Available Emergency Shelters Transitional Housing Total Permanent Supportive Housing Gap 5-Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Goal Homeless 6 CPMP Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Comp lete Goal Actua l % of Goal 2245 0 2245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 896 0 896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 318 0 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 553 0 553 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 1774 0 1774 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 1918 0 1918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 7732 0 7732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 1147 0 1147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 480 0 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 1011 0 1011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 1251 0 1251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 809 0 809 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 7460 0 7460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 124 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### 12282 0 12282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### Needs Currently Available 64. Physically Disabled 3-5 Year Quantities Total Year 5* 52. Elderly 67. Public Housing Residents 53. Frail Elderly Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* Total 66. Persons w/HIV/AIDS & their familie Supportive Services Needed60. Elderly 61. Frail Elderly 62. Persons w/Severe Mental Illness 63. Developmentally Disabled 56. Physically Disabled 57. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted 58. Persons w/HIV/AIDS & their familie 59. Public Housing Residents 65. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted GAP Housing Needed Total Non-Homeless Special Needs Including HOPWA 54. Persons w/Severe Mental Illness 55. Developmentally Disabled NonHomeless 7 CPMP Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 Public Facilities and Improvements (General) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03A Senior Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03B Handicapped Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03C Homeless Facilities (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 1 0 1 1 1 0 03D Youth Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03E Neighborhood Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03F Parks, Recreational Facilities 570.201(c) 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 03G Parking Facilities 570.201© 0 0 0 0 0 03H Solid Waste Disposal Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03I Flood Drain Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03J Water/Sewer Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03K Street Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03L Sidewalks 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03M Child Care Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03N Tree Planting 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03O Fire Stations/Equipment 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03P Health Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03Q Abused and Neglected Children Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03R Asbestos Removal 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 03S Facilities for AIDS Patients (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) -Food, Emergency Service 2 0 2 2240 2240 0 05A Senior Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05B Handicapped Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05C Legal Services 570.201(E) 0 0 0 0 0 05D Youth Services 570.201(e) 1 0 1 300 300 0 05E Transportation Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05F Substance Abuse Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05G Battered and Abused Spouses 570.201(e) 1 0 1 250 250 0 05H Employment Training 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05I Crime Awareness 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05J Fair Housing Activities (if CDBG, then subject to 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05K Tenant/Landlord Counseling 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05L Child Care Services 570.201(e) 1 0 1 40 40 0 05M Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05N Abused and Neglected Children 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05O Mental Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 04A Clean-up of Contaminated Sites 570.201(d) Public Facilities and Improvements Year 2 Gap Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative Public Services Needs Current 01 Acquisition of Real Property 570.201(a) 02 Disposition 570.201(b) 04 Clearance and Demolition 570.201(d) Housing and Community Development Activities 5-Year Quantities Year 1 CommunityDev 8 CPMP Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Year 2 Gap Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative Needs CurrentHousing and Community Development Activities 5-Year Quantities Year 1 05P Screening for Lead-Based Paint/Lead Hazards Poison 570.201( 0 0 0 0 0 05Q Subsistence Payments 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 05R Homeownership Assistance (not direct) 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 05S Rental Housing Subsidies (if HOME, not part of 5% 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 05T Security Deposits (if HOME, not part of 5% Admin c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14A Rehab; Single-Unit Residential 570.202 -Solar Systems 0 0 0 0 0 14B Rehab; Multi-Unit Residential 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14C Public Housing Modernization 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14D Rehab; Other Publicly-Owned Residential Buildings 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14E Rehab; Publicly or Privately-Owned Commercial/Indu 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14F Energy Efficiency Improvements 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14G Acquisition -for Rehabilitation 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14H Rehabilitation Administration 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14I Lead-Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17A CI Land Acquisition/Disposition 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 17B CI Infrastructure Development 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 17C CI Building Acquisition, Construction, Rehabilitat 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 17D Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 18A ED Direct Financial Assistance to For-Profits 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 18B ED Technical Assistance 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 18C Micro-Enterprise Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 19A HOME Admin/Planning Costs of PJ (not part of 5% Ad 0 0 0 0 0 19B HOME CHDO Operating Costs (not part of 5% Admin ca 0 0 0 0 0 19C CDBG Non-profit Organization Capacity Building 0 0 0 0 0 19D CDBG Assistance to Institutes of Higher Education 0 0 0 0 0 19E CDBG Operation and Repair of Foreclosed Property 0 0 0 0 0 19F Planned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 19G Unplanned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 19H State CDBG Technical Assistance to Grantees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Direct Homeownership Assistance 570.201(n) 12 Construction of Housing 570.201(m) 11 Privately Owned Utilities 570.201(l) 20 Planning 570.205 15 Code Enforcement 570.202(c) 09 Loss of Rental Income 570.201(j) 08 Relocation 570.201(i) 07 Urban Renewal Completion 570.201(h) 10 Removal of Architectural Barriers 570.201(k) 16A Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d) 16B Non-Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d) 06 Interim Assistance 570.201(f) CommunityDev 9 CPMP Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Year 2 Gap Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative Needs CurrentHousing and Community Development Activities 5-Year Quantities Year 1 21A General Program Administration 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21B Indirect Costs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21D Fair Housing Activities (subject to 20% Admin cap) 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21E Submissions or Applications for Federal Programs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21F HOME Rental Subsidy Payments (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 21G HOME Security Deposits (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 21H HOME Admin/Planning Costs of PJ (subject to 5% cap 0 0 0 0 0 21I HOME CHDO Operating Expenses (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31J Facility based housing – development 0 0 0 0 0 31K Facility based housing -operations 0 0 0 0 0 31G Short term rent mortgage utility payments 0 0 0 0 0 31F Tenant based rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 31E Supportive service 0 0 0 0 0 31I Housing information services 0 0 0 0 0 31H Resource identification 0 0 0 0 0 31B Administration -grantee 0 0 0 0 0 31D Administration -project sponsor 0 0 0 0 0 Acquisition of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 Acquisition of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Homeownership assistance 0 0 0 0 0 Acquisition of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 Acquisition of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Homeownership assistance 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 8 0 8 2832 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02833 0 CDBG HOPWA 22 Unprogrammed Funds HOME CommunityDev 10 CPMP BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 1 Special Needs Resources This section outlines the housing and services available to assist special needs populations in the City of Temecula. It is organized by special needs category. The Elderly Figure C‐1. Assisted Living and Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly in Temecula Source: BBC Research & Consulting. 􀂠 Home Instead Senior Care. Home care help to clients and their families who desire assistance with activities. Tasks include everyday home activities like laundry, opening mail, and other tasks that are not as easy as they used to be for many seniors. 􀂠 Home Helpers. Provides home care supportive services and guidance. 􀂠 Mary Phillips Senior Center. Organizes community activities for seniors. Provides transportation to the center Monday through Friday. 􀂠 Maxim HealthCare Services. Provides homecare, companion care, medical staffing, and wellness services nationwide. Assisted Living Residential Care Better Days ARF. Avocado Home LLC. A Dignified Care, Inc. A Beacon of Care, Inc. A Dignified Care, Inc. II Assisted Living and Care for the Elderly at Temecula Mullins Guest Home. Chardonnay Hills Care Home Renee Jennex Small Family Home‐ARF A Dignified Care, Inc. Richardson House A Dignified Care, Inc. II Shady Acre Evergreen Chateau Friends Home Care at Morgan Valley The Hills of Alcoba The Hills of Alcoba II Lydia’s Home Care The Monarch at Indian Knoll Paseo Del Sol Home Care Pebble Brook Senior Home Care Pine Tree Cottage RCFE Redhawk Senior Care Home Sterling at Vintage Hills Tavano Adult Home Temecula Valley Assisted Living Temeku Hills Assisted Living Vineyard home Care Vintage Hills Assisted Living PAGE 2, APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENT BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING 􀂠 Valley Care Home Health Services, Inc. Home health agency providing medical and non‐medical care. Persons Experiencing Homelessness or At Risk of Homelessness There are currently not any homeless shelters located in Temecula. The nearest shelters are : Valley Restart Shelter in Hemet (about 19 miles away); Bread of Life Winter Rescue Mission (about 25 miles away) and Escondido Family Services Salvation Army about 25 miles away. 􀂠 CARE Learning Center and Counseling Services. Provides counseling, life coaching, and career counseling to children, adolescents, and adults. 􀂠 Habitat for Humanity. A nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing organization building simple, decent, affordable housing in partnership with people in need. Builds single family homes, multiple family housing. 􀂠 Hope Program. Supports the Department of Mental Health programs. Partners with housing providers across the continuum of housing options to promote housing development, improve access to housing and to ensure effective supportive housing services to persons served in Riverside County. 􀂠 Project TOUCH. Homeless outreach providing assistance to area homeless and under‐resourced. Previously organized a shelter is in the former MountainView Community Church building, which is owned by Hope Lutheran Church of Temecula. 􀂠 Senior Citizen’s Center of TemeculaRancho Area. Food bank, thrift store and assistance to veterans, seniors, and low‐income families. 􀂠 Springboard. Provides financial counselors and consumer credit management. Housing assistance programs include: mortgage delinquency; default resolution counseling, prepurchase counseling, rental assistance, and housing counseling. 􀂠 Temecula Community Pantry. Serves meals every weekday to homeless individuals and families. Provides temporary assistance, housing, medical needs, or transportation. 􀂠 Temecula Redevelopment Agency. A housing program seeking to expand the supply of affordable housing to citizens of Temecula. Constructs new affordable housing developments, rehabilitation of existing housing developments and financial assistance to low‐income households through the Residential Improvement Program and the First Time Homebuyers Program. 􀂠 United Christian Charities. A non‐profit created to assist families in time of need or trouble. Advertises that they provide housing assistance resources. 􀂠 Vineyard of the New Wine Temecula. Program distributes approximately one week worth of food. Agency delivers food on a case‐by‐case basis. In addition to providing food, this program also accommodates individuals with clothing, baby food, diapers, employment referrals and resume assistance. 􀂠 VNW Circle of Care. Soup kitchen and food bank. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 3 􀂠 Western Eagle Foundation. The largest food bank and food assistance in Southern California and located in Temecula. In addition to food also provides clothing, home goods, health and beauty products, and furniture. Victims of Domestic Violence 􀂠 Safe Alternatives for Everyone. Services for children, youth and families who have experienced or are at risk of abuse and violence. Persons with Disabilities: Physical and Developmental 􀂠 Adult Day Service. Non‐residential facilities providing activities for elderly and/or handicapped individuals. Most centers operate 10 – 12 hours per day and provide meals, social/recreational outings, and general supervision. 􀂾 Community Crossings Inc. 􀂾 Kaiser Adult Behavioral Center. 􀂾 Westview Field Adult Development Center. 􀂠 Accommodating Ideas. Disability and language translator services. 􀂠 Canine Support Teams. Provides specially trained assistance/service dogs to people with disabilities to support their personal, social, and occupational independence. 􀂠 Care’Rite Recreational. Specializes in disability services, including: student disability services, services for disabled children and handicapped driver services. 􀂠 Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP). Telephone communications access for all deaf and disabled Californians. 􀂠 The Department of Rehabilitation. Assists with visual impairments in obtaining and retaining employment and maximizing their ability to live independently in their communities. The DOR also provides Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) technical assistance and training and funds 29 Independent Living Centers, which offer information and referral services to assist individuals with disabilities so they may live active, independent lives. 􀂠 Lifesigns, Inc.. Interpreting services for the disabled. 􀂠 Links Sign Language and Interpreting Services. Disability and language translator services. 􀂠 Network Interpreting Service. Disability and language translator services. 􀂠 RoundUp HOPE. Therapy for all types of disabilities cognitive and/or emotional disabilities as well as outreach for the underprivileged families. Conditions served include: Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Down Syndrome, Emotional Challenges, Learning Disabilities, Muscular Dystrophy Spinal Bifida, Spinal Cord Injuries, Visual Impairments, Cancer Patients and the Chronically ill. 􀂠 Toward Maxim Independence. Programs include employment services, community integration, support for people with disabilities. Programmatic research in substance abuse and its relationship to mental illness. Also provide programs in family support services: psychological supports, parental training, and community support. PAGE 4, APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENT BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING 􀂠 Western Interpreting Network. Disability and language translator services. Persons with Severe Mental Illness and/or Substance Abuse Problems 􀂠 I am New Life Ministries. Short‐and long‐term residential treatment for substance abuse. Sliding fee scale (based on income and other factors). Persons with co‐occurring mental and substance abuse disorders, especially seniors/older adult men. 􀂠 Hill Alcohol and Drug Treatment Center. Center for addiction treatment. Provides a day treatment program and an outpatient drug rehab program. 􀂠 Addiction Recovery Center of Temecula. Provides out‐patient care and residential placement for persons struggling with substance abuse. 􀂠 National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) Temecula Valley. Provides access to services, treatment, supports and research in mental health. 􀂠 Toward Maxim Independence. Programs include employment services, community integration, support for people with disabilities. Programmatic research in substance abuse and its relationship to mental illness. Also provide programs in family support services: psychological supports, parental training, and community support. At‐risk Youth Residential care. 􀂠 Planit Life Temecula House. Residential care for children and offers 6 beds. 􀂠 Thesslonika/Rancho Damacitas. Six cottages that cater to the needs of 36 children. Offers a structured level of care to provide children a therapeutic environment that suffer from depression, poor self esteem, poor social skills, and may be significantly behind academically. 􀂠 Transitional Care Facility for Children: None Other supportive services: 􀂠 Boys and Girls Club. Mission is to build character and life‐enhancing skills for youth. Programs include: education and career development, character and leadership skills, health and life skills, arts, and sports/fitness. The program is open youth ages 6–18 years. 􀂠 CARE Learning Center and Counseling Services. Provides counseling, life coaching, and career counseling to children, adolescents, and adults. 􀂠 Indian Child and Family Services. A tribal consortium of 8 tribes that enforces county child protective services removes children who are abused and neglected. Supports the state to issue licenses to foster family agencies for American Indian children. ICFS is the only tribal Foster Family Program in Southern California. 􀂠 International Christian Adoption FFA. Supports and provides services to abused and neglected children through mentoring programs, reunification services and respite care. Other programs include counseling services and support groups to birth parents, adopted children, adoptive BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING APPENDIX C SUPPLEMENT, PAGE 5 parents, foster children and foster parents. Prepare the adoptive and foster families for the special emotional and developmental challenges of children who have been in institutional care. 􀂠 Koinonia Foster Homes Inc. Works with county social service agencies who remove children from their homes due to neglect, abandonment, abuse, delinquency, guardian absence or voluntary placement. The county refers children to private agencies like Koinonia for placement in a program that will best meet their needs. 􀂠 Terra Manor, Inc – Hugs FFA Regional Center. Foster care agency. 􀂠 Toward Maxim Independence. Programs include employment services, community integration, support for people with disabilities. Programmatic research in substance abuse and its relationship to mental illness. Also provide programs in family support services: psychological supports, parental training, and community support. Persons with HIV/AIDS 􀂠 Aspiring Angels. Services for people living with HIV/AIDS. Immigrants 􀂠 Accommodating Ideas. Disability and language translator services. 􀂠 Network Interpreting Service. Provides both language and disability services. 􀂠 Western Interpreting Network. Language and disability interpretive services. American Indians 􀂠 Indian Child and Family Services (ICFS). A community‐based nonprofit organization providing direct services to Indian tribes and county child welfare agencies in the southern California area. Agency recruits, trains, and certifies American Indian foster families for the placement of American Indian foster children. Agency support services include: family preservation, casework, court advocacy, and referrals. 􀂠 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Representatives for the different tribes located in Temecula. 􀂠 RiversideSan Bernardino County Indian Health Inc. (RSBCIHI). Provides culturally sensitive healthcare, respect, and abide by the traditional customs of our Indian Communities, and promote wellness and provide early intervention intervention to achieve healthy lifestyles. APPENDIX D. Open-Ended Survey Reponses and Public Comments If dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are dissatisfied with your home or apartment. n Bathroom needs updating. n Builder used cheap materials (built 1992). n CC&Rs suck. n Children have to cross Temecula to attend TV High School passing one on their way. n City needs to notify Medical that 92592 is part of the city and qualifies patients to belong to Kaiser Permanente Group as city advertises for senior care. n Cost is too high for what we get. n Cost too much. n Flow of traffic. n Foreclosures in area have gone up leaving empty lots. n High cost of HOA. n High taxes. n High traffic. n HOA costs are too high. n HOA too high. n Home owner association fees. n Home too small. n Home value has plummeted. n Homes not built too well (cracking, ant problem, paint fading...). n Horrible city lights (yellow). n I can't safely walk or ride my bike anywhere nearby, other than a bike trail that has no destination. n Impersonal neighbors. n Insufficient usable land. n It's a bit small. n Kitchen needs updating. n Lack of new hospital. n Lack of police presence! n Landscaping could be maintained better. n Leaking sprinkler system -landlord refuses to fix. n Local police officers intimidate and discriminate against residents. n Long commute. n Looming quarry! n Many neighbors NOT maintaining their yards. n Materials are substandard and shoddy construction. n My gate isn't maintained. Breaks all the time. n Narrow driveway. n Need much repairs. n Needs lots of maintenance. n Needs repair. n Needs updating. n Needs work I can't afford to do. n Neighborhood has too many rentals now. n Neighborhood upkeep has decreased with decline in home values. n Neighborhood used as "short cut" for parents dropping off kids at Day Middle School. n Neighboring homes are not being maintained. n Neighbors. n Neighbors park their cars for weeks and don't get towed. n Neighbors with barking dogs and don't clean the poo. If dissatisfied…(continued) n No area for kids to play. n No bathroom window. n No linen or bathroom closets. n No schools access for children in area; no form of transportation at all -busses. n No sidewalks in our neighborhood. n Noise. n Noise from street. n Noise. Uncontrollable HOA. n Old. n Old. n On fixed income. n Owner of home next to me rents out each room of the house while they live somewhere else. n Parking camping equipment (Motor homes) with people living in them -parked on streets. MANY complaints filed. Still there. n Peeling paint on house's trim. n Plumbing codes. n Poor maintenance response. n Property taxes. n Quality of the building. n Quality of the home. n Real estate value. n Rent too high and no rent control. n Road repair makes street travel slow. n Septic not working properly. n Skate boarders jumping over NO TRESPASSING signs. Not enforced. n Small kitchen pantry. n Small, segregated lot. n Some rude neighbors. n Speeding cars. n Street design. n Street needs to be re-black-topped. n Structures need to be upgraded. n Taxes are so high with very little going to the school district. On a $5,771 bill only $82 dollars goes to the district. n The quality of the workmanship in the house is very poor. n Time to access freeways has increased. n Too crowded. n Too expensive. n Too many foreclosures. n Too many stupid codes. n Too much school traffic. n Too small. n Traffic. n Traffic at the off ramps. n Traffic in general. n Traffic is too fast for the Redhawk/Vail Ranch Parkways. Blind corners are dangerous for over 35 and has taken lives. n Traffic Yield lane is very seldom acknowledged at Redhawk Golf Course area. Must be redesigned and has taken lives and held the City responsible. n Unpaved road, within city limits. If dissatisfied…(continued) n Unruly teens!!! n Upside down on loan, therefore cannot make improvements to bring value up. n Value has depreciated by 60%. n Water damage. n We have zero equity due to the crash. Purchased in 2007 with $100,000 down...that plus $100,000 is gone. n We live on what was once a 'view' lot but the neighbors have allowed laurel trees to take seed and grow too tall for us to see anything anymore. n We live within a circular drive that surrounds our neighborhood. During school months it is treacherous to try to enter that circle since parents are racing their kids to school. n Would like more trees. n Would like newer and larger home. n Would like to be in a different high school boundary.. n You can tell the homes were built quick. If you could change one thing about your current living situation, what would it be? n Crazy obnoxious neighbors should be stopped from ruining neighborhoods. n Have some specific repairs we want to do on our current home which we own. n HOA cost. n I don't want to be here. n I would decrease the traffic noise behind my house. n I would have more space with neighbors further apart. n I would like a better interest rate and lower HOA dues. n I would like a larger front yard (safe distance from street) and would enjoy a larger backyard for my children. n I would like a smaller home. n I would like to see more cultured and non xenophobic residents. n I would like to sell and move...market down. n I would not have lived where I hear freeway noise. n Large number of rentals and foreclosures bringing down house prices. n Larger house. n Live in a home on larger piece of land, less crammed in together in tract housing. n Make repairs. n More bike paths, better walkability, more parks with water (lakes, ponds), more dog parks. n More job opportunities in Temecula. n Proximity to neighbors. n Smaller house. n Something with privacy gates to prevent solicitation and amenities. n That our HOA would enforce codes. n Wish it was closer for commuting to Orange County. If you would like to live in another part of Temecula, where would that be? n Anywhere with good freeway access, that doesn't look neglected. n Chardonnay hills or Meadowview. n Closer to Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage area. n Closer to Temecula Valley High School. n Closer to the Lake...at Harveston Would have loved to live south of Date Street. n Crowne Hill. n Crowne Hill. If you would like to live in another part of Temecula…(continued) n Crowne Hill. n Crowne Hill. n De luz. n French Valley. n Further south, closer to 79. We are near Winchester Road. n Gated Community. n Gated community or condo with security. n If we had the money we'd love to live on a property with more land, in Wine Country or Meadowview. n In the city limits. n Meadowview. n Meadowview. n Meadowview. n Meadowview. n Meadowview or Ranchos Santiago. n Morgan Hill. n Morgan Hill. n Morgan Hill or Crowne Hill. n Morgan Hill. n Not sure.....basically away from Temecula. n Not Temecula. n Off Temecula Parkway. n Old Town. n Paloma del Sol. n Paloma Del Sol or Paseo Del Sol. n Paseo del Sol. n Paseo or Paloma Del Sol. n Redhawk/Vail Ranch area. n Santiago Estates. n Santiago Estates or Chardonnay Hills. n Somewhere with a little more property. I prefer to have a little more space between my house and my neighbors. n South Temecula. n South Temecula. n The Red Hawk area. n Up in the hills like South Temecula. n Wine country. n Wine country. n Wine country. n Wine country. n Wine country. n Wine country or Meadowview. n Wine country, de luz. n Wine country. n Wineries. n Within Great Oak High School boundaries in newer and larger home. If you want to buy a home in Temecula, why haven’t you? n Everytime that we put an offer on a home we lose to some investor that offers all cash. n Have not found a home without a HOA attached to it. n Homes in Temecula are plain and resemble each other too much. n I did own a house in Temecula at one time..But lost it like many others in Temecula...Now we rent in Temecula. n The majority of homes I'm interested in purchasing are short sale, forclosure or bank owned making the process very long and arduous. n The mortgage industry is hopelessly corrupt and there are no instruments available other than outright cash purchase and that isn't feasible at current high prices. n Waiting for my spouse to qualify. Potential Barriers to Fair Housing (Other responses) n Difficulty obtaining fire insurance renewal with a company we have been with for many years. We have never fileds a claim or had a fire. n Housing prices are too inflated to invite realistic home purchases... of course this is relative to incomes --so so if incomes doubled housing could be close to normal again. n We bought in 2003 and obviously the market has changed a lot since then! n I bought my home in 2001. In 2006 I bought out my ex-husband's share of the home as part of our divorce and it was appraised at a ridiculously-high price. The market was already coming down but the "value" came in at twice what we had paid. n Lenders lent to people who couldn't afford the house they bought. Lends lent/people borrowed beyond their means. n We could not get rid of our smaller home in order to buy a larger home for our growing family. We are worried about maintaining our rental. We are way too upside-down to sell it. n The inspector missed A LOT of problems. n Homes being FHA approved were hard to find. Have you ever tried to find affordable housing in Temecula and could not? If “Yes,” please specify where: n 92592 n All Temecula. n As a single parent I needed a rental anywhere in Temecula. Income requirements were extremely and unreasonably high for property managemet companies and complexes. Had to find a trusting owner that believed with my steady (but not high) income and high FICO that I would pay the rent. n As many places as I could find. n Central and southern Temecula. n Everywhere. n Everywhere in Southern California. n Everywhere; been in Temecula for 21 years and want to stay here. n Harveston. n Newer homes. n Red Hawk/Morgan Hill area. n Redhawk, Morgan Hill. n Redhawk, Pechanga etc. n South Temecula. n Summer Breeze? Not affordable at all. Rents were the same or more than apartments. If "Yes," what type of housing? n Anything. I ended up in a condo in Murrieta. n Apartments. n Family. n Housing, condos, apartments. n Looking for low income housing for my son (age 24), who just married and is making little money. n Low income. n Ownership. n Rental single family home. n Single family and condos. n Single family home. n Single family home. n Single family home. n Single family home. n Single family homes. n Single family. Have you ever tried to get public transit in Temecula and could not? If “Yes,” where from? n A taxi from the mall n All over town; Temecula Parkway. n Anywhere in Temecula on a weekend. n Anywhere in Temecula to any school in Temecula. n Auto mall area. n Calle Medusa. n Crowne Hill. n French Valley. n Harveston. n Highway 79 South. n La Serena and Calle Medusa. n Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway. n Off Luzon, Nicolas Road. n Old Town. n Old Town. n Paloma del Sol neighborhood in Temecula. n Redhawk. n Redhawk. n Redhawk. n Temecula in the evenings/weekends. n Temecula Valley High. n Temecula. n Temecula. n Temecula. n Temeku Hills. n We need Harveston Trolley stops on the north side of Date street. Also, the Harveston Trolley route is confusing near YBES. n Winchester. n Wolf Creek. If yes, where to? n Anywhere without transfers and within the school day. Trying to plan field trips on public transportation for special needs students and we don't have time within a school morning. n Anywhere. n Anywhere. n Anywhere except Murrieta on a weekend. n Chaparral High School. n Jefferson /Hospital in Murrieta. n Mall. n Mid town and out of town. n MSJC. n Murrieta. n Murrieta Hot Springs Road x Margarita in Murrieta. n North side of town. n Old Town. n Old Town, west of town. n Promenade Mall. n Promenade Mall and Old Town. n Riverside. n San Diego. n San Diego. n San Diego. n San Diego by bus. Can go to Oceanside and get train, but it's very long and not worth the bother. n San Diego in the evenings/weekends. n San Diego, Mira Mar area. n Schools for my children. n To residential areas near Temecula Valley High School. Do you agree with the this statement: “I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula.” If “Disagree,” why do you not feel welcome? n I personally feel welcome here because I have made my footprint by being very involved in schools and community activities, but in general I don't see that there is much room for single-parent families. I served on a school site council where a future mayor of the city of Temecula touted the wonder of Temecula based on its low percentage of single-parent families, and the low percentage of apartment dwellers. I was very insulted since both applied to me at the time. n As a divorced single mother, I find Temecula is not as welcoming as it was when I moved here as in intact family in 1993. This has to do with the "culture" of the community, as well as the social offerings. Because of this, I intend to move away from Temecula as soon as my high school freshman daughter goes to college. n Both. I feel that there are issues concerning racism in the community. n Except!!!! The lack of proactive policing!!!! To many robberies, breakins etc and they are allowed. Bad kids should be Punished!!!! n However I do have a special needs child and believe that law enforcement could be better trained on how to deal with situations that arise. n I feel people like me are welcome but only peoplle like me are welcome here, most of the people that are like me are extremley xenophobic in this town and cannot deal with other cultures Do you agree with the this statement…(continued) n I happy to be in a same sex relationship. I don't expect everyone to jump up for joy but I do expect for people to be respectful and tolerant. I don't have the "gay pride" flag flowing from my awning so the super conservatives might want to consider compromising a bit as well. Who ever told "Jesus" to find another home other than Margarita and Winchester, I would like to personally give them a hug. I remember, not too long ago when prop 8 was under way and I had to listen to that individual yell terrible, hateful things to the crowd. I believe strongly in free spreach but sometimes which Temeculas were a bit more moderate. I would also like to personally thank our City Council for sticking up for peoples freedom of religion by okaying the Mosque. I am proud to have elected you and thank you. Other than that I love this city. Oh and a HUGE THANK YOU for widening Winchester by the Highschool. That is my neck of the woods and it has really helped with congestion. Thanks again. n I have been in Temecula since 1988. Married (now) I feel welcome. As a single parent, it was very difficult. Affordable after school programs were nearly non-existent. Transportation to and from school were not affordable if you don't live near school. It is very expensive to participate in sports, school or otherwise.As far as not feeling welcome, it is evolving somewhat now, but this city is very "traditional family friendly", but if your family deviates from the norm it is not welcoming. n Most of temecula is stuck up soccer mom mentality n My family is mixed race and are consistently ignored in shopping centers or given undue unwanted negative attention. n No much help for fixed income seniors n No place for teens to have safe INDOOR fun....bowling, skating, Advertising signs all along grass on main streets. Campers parked on neighborhood streets with people living in them. Code enforcement was useless. This happened 2x on our block..one camper STILL there. n We are not members of a Christian religion If “Yes,” what was the reason you were discriminated against? n I believe my home was foreclosed without Countrywide making a reasonable effort to allow us to keep it. Also I believe my income was inflated to qualify in 2005. n I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in. n In Orange County we were once denied a rental because we had children. n Realtor steering us away from certain homes. n Single parent. n We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller. If "Yes," please specify who you would contact to report housing discrimination: n California Department of Real Estate n ACLU n Department of Housing and Urban Develoment (HUD) n Fair Housing n Fair housing n Fair Housing of Riverside County, but only because I work for the County do I know that. n Fair Housing Tip Line (to report an incident of housing discrimination): 1-800-896-7743 n Federal housing administration n HUD n I would look it up on the Internet n lawyer n Lawyers n My lawyer!!! n Riverside County Fair Housing