HomeMy WebLinkAbout01192022 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II].
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 19, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Watts
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Hagel
ROLL CALL: Hagel, Ruiz, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts
PUBLIC COMMENT
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on
items that appear on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited
to three minutes. For any Public Hearing item on the agenda, each speaker is limited to five minutes .
Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission
Secretary or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting by the Commission
Secretary. Email comments must be submitted to stuart .fisk@Temeculaca.gov. Email comments on all
matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for
public comments. Email comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern in
person public comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one
roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Planning Commission
request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action .
1.Minutes
Approve the Action Minutes of January 5, 2022Recommendation:
Action MinutesAttachments:
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may
appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project at the time of the
hearing. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Commission
Page 1
Planning Commission Agenda January 19, 2022
Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the Planning
Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within fifteen
calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. The appeal must be filed on the appropriate
Community Development Department form and be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee .
2.Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620, 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED “A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE
UPDATED 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND
APPROVING EIR ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL
PLAN”
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Draft Planning Commission Resolution
Exhibit A - City Council Resolution
2021-2029 Revised Housing Element
2021-2029 Revised Housing Element Appendices
FEIR Addendum No. 2021-01
Letter from HCD on 6th Cycle Housing Element
Notice of Public Hearing
Attachments:
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, at
6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The full agenda packet (including staff reports and any supplemental material available after the original posting
of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on the agenda, will be
available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business
hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at
TemeculaCA.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item
on the agenda, please contact the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6444.
Page 2
1
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 5, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Chairperson Watts
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Ruiz
ROLL CALL: Hagel, Ruiz, Telesio, Turley-Trejo (absent), Watts
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.
Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0, Turley-Trejo absent): Motion by Hagel, Second by Ruiz.
The vote reflected unanimous approval with Turley-Trejo absent.
1. Minutes
Recommendation: Approve the Action Minutes of December 1, 2021
2. Director's Hearing Summary Report
Recommendation: Received and Filed Director's Hearing Summary Report
BUSINESS
3. Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission for 2022 Calendar Year
Recommendation: That the Commission:
a) Select its Chair to serve calendar year 2022
b) Select its Vice-Chair to serve calendar year 2022.
c) Recognition of 2021 Chairperson Watts
Approved to reappoint Gary Watts as the Chairperson and reappoint Lanae Turley-Trejo as Vice
Chairperson for calendar year 2022 (4-0, Turley-Trejo absent): Motion by Telesio, Second by
Hagel. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Turley-Trejo absent.
PUBLIC HEARING
4. Planning Application No. PA21-0449, a Development Plan for a fuel station consisting of seven
fueling pumps, a 245 square foot kiosk, an approximately 3,337 square foot retail building, and
an approximately 940 square foot garage and storage space, and PA21-0780, a Tentative Parcel
2
Map (TPM 38189) to subdivide an existing lot into two separate lots located on the southwest
corner of Wolf Store Road and Butterfield Stage Road, Scott Cooper
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA21-0449, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A FUEL STATION
CONSISTING OF SEVEN FUELING PUMPS, A 245 SQUARE FOOT
KIOSK, AN APPROXIMATELY 3,337 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL
BUILDING, AND AN APPROXIMATELY 940 SQUARE FOOT
GARAGE AND STORAGE SPACE LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WOLF STORE ROAD AND
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD, AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 15332 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES (APN:
960-030-013)
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA21-0780, A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM 38189) TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WOLF STORE
ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD., AND MAKING A
FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 15332 OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
GUIDELINES (APN: 960-030-013)
Approved the Staff Recommendation, with revised Conditions of Approval (4-0, Turley-Trejo
absent): Motion by Hagel, Second by Ruiz. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Turley-
Trejo absent.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT
3
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:27 PM, the Planning Commission meeting was formally adjourned to Wednesday, January 19,
2021, at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
Gary Watts, Chairperson
Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
1
STAFF REPORT – PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
DATE OF MEETING: January 19, 2022
PREPARED BY: Brandon Rabidou, Case Planner
PROJECT
SUMMARY:
Long Range Planning Project Number LR18-1620, 2021-2029
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle)
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed Planning Commission Resolution recommending
City Council approval of the amended 2021-2029 Housing Element
Update (6th Cycle) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Addendum to the General Plan
CEQA: Exempt
Section 15164, Addendums to Environmental Impact Reports
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The original City of Temecula General Plan Housing Element was approved in 1993 and updated
in 2002, 2010, and 2014, pursuant to the amendment cycle for local agencies under the jurisdiction
of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). A comprehensive General Plan
Update was adopted by the City Council on April 12, 2005, and a Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) was prepared in association with the comprehensive General Plan Update. Upon
the Housing Element’s most recent update (2014), an Addendum to the City’s General Plan FEIR
was prepared.
State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Sections 65580-65589) requires all
cities and counties to update their Housing Elements at least every eight years to reflect the
community’s changing needs. This update covers the 2021-2029 planning period, pursuant to the
sixth update cycle for jurisdictions within the SCAG region.
In June 2019, the City entered into an agreement with De Novo Planning Group (De Novo) to
assist in the development of the Housing Element update for the current cycle and prepare a
targeted update to the City’s Public Safety Element in accordance with State law. The consultant
and the City have been worked diligently to engage the public, prepare the updated Housing
2
Element and Public Safety Element, and provide a public Draft Housing Element. On September
15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Draft Housing Element and
Public Safety Element. On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted the Housing Element and
Public Safety Element.
The City is required to send the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. HCD has a maximum of 60 days to
provide comments on the Housing Element. On December 3, 2021, HCD provided a comment
letter listing required changes to the Housing Element. A copy of that letter is available as an
attachment.
The City’s consultant has revised the Housing Element and staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the revised Housing Element.
For agencies under the jurisdiction of SCAG, the statutory deadline to adopt an updated Housing
Element is October 15, 2021. The City adopted the Housing Element on October 12, 2021. To
ensure certification of the Housing Element, the city must adopt the revised Housing Element
within 120 days of the statutory due date (February 12, 2022).
Analysis
The purpose of a General Plan Housing Element is to address local and regional housing needs. A
Housing Element is required to:
• Provide housing opportunities to all income segments of the population;
• Provide adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA);
• Remove governmental constraints in maintaining and developing housing;
• Conserve and improve the existing housing stock;
• Implement statutes under State Housing Law;
• Provide equal access to housing opportunities;
• Affirmatively furthering fair housing, and
• Preserve at-risk housing units.
In accordance with State law, staff conducted a housing needs assessment which included the
following components:
• An analysis and update of Temecula’s demographic, household, and housing
characteristics;
• An analysis and update of Temecula’s potential constraints;
• An evaluation of land and resources to address housing needs;
• An evaluation of accomplishments under the adopted Housing Element; and
• A housing plan to address the City’s identified housing needs.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (Proposed Housing Element, 2021-2029)
3
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing
units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the
Housing Element’s statutory planning period. The RHNA is developed by Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) and allocated to cities and counties in the region.
Historically, Temecula has generated thousands of units (including many that were naturally more
affordable) over the past 30 years, often to the benefit of communities that have not produced
adequate units (at all income levels) in major urban centers. In September 2019, the City advocated
for a revision to the proposed methodology relied upon by SCAG to come up with the RHNA
allocation based on various concerns related to infrastructure and consistency with various regional
plans and statewide goals. Many jurisdictions, like the City of Temecula, advocated for a change
to the RHNA allocation, based on various similar concerns. At that time, the City projected that it
would be assigned a RHNA allocation between 6,393-11,231 units. Unexpectedly, SCAG voted
to reverse a historical trend of placing higher RHNA allocations on suburban/inland communities
and increased the responsibility of communities near major employment/urban centers to provide
units. A substantially lower RHNA allocation was provided to the City of Temecula, as described
below.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation was originally anticipated to be adopted in October of
2020. The Final RHNA allocation was not adopted until March 4, 2021 and was not adopted by
the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) until March 22, 2021,
a six-month delay. Upon completion, SCAG distributed the sixth cycle RHNA for all local
agencies under its jurisdiction. RHNA includes targets for Extremely Low, Very Low, Moderate,
and Above Moderate Income categories. The City of Temecula needed to plan for 4,193 new
housing units for people working in our community in the next eight years. Temecula’s 2021-
2029 allocation is distributed among the five standard income categories shown below.
Income Level Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA)
% of Total Allocation
(Rounded)
Extremely Low 679 Units 16%
Very Low 680 Units 16%
Low 801 Units 19%
Moderate 778 Units 19%
Above Moderate 1,255 Units 30%
Total RHNA 4,193 Units 100%
State law requires the City to provide enough suitable sites with appropriate zoning and density to
accommodate the affordable housing needs for of all income levels, listed above. Any units
constructed between July 1, 2021 and the adoption of the Housing Element will be credited to the
6th Cycle RHNA allocation.
5th Cycle Progress (Previous Housing Element, 2014-2021)
The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element addresses housing needs for the City from 2014 through
2021. During the 5th Cycle, the City was required to accommodate 1,494 housing units under the
previous RHNA allocation. The private market then constructs housing units based on market
considerations. The market exceeded the total RHNA allocation goal, with 1,895 housing units
4
being built or under construction. This equates to 127% of the City’s Total 5th Cycle RHNA.
However, while the market was successful in having housing built at the above-moderate income
level, the market did not construct all units at the lower income levels, which is an issue that most
jurisdictions face in California. Three deed restricted workforce/affordable projects (Arrive at
Rancho Highlands, Las Haciendas, and Vine Creek) were approved during the 5th Cycle RHNA
but are expected to be constructed in the next couple of years, during the 6th Cycle RHNA.
Suitable Sites and Capacity
An important component of the Temecula Housing Element is the identification of sites for future
housing development. Equally important is an evaluation of the adequacy of this site inventory in
accommodating the City’s share of regional housing growth. As part of this Housing Element
update, the City conducted a parcel-by-parcel analysis of vacant residential sites based on data
obtained from the City’s geographic information system (GIS). The vacant land inventory for the
City of Temecula includes an estimated development capacity for the identified vacant parcels.
Appendix A of the Housing Element summarizes the available housing unit capacity based on
vacant residential sites. Residential capacity for each vacant parcel is based on the current zoning
for each parcel. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75%-85% of its maximum capacity, which
allows for setbacks, landscaping, right-of-way dedications, and other non-residential uses.
The City has found that it has adequate capacity to accommodate its RHNA allocation at all income
levels. The proposed Housing Element does not include any zone changes or General Plan
amendments to accommodate additional units. Currently, the City has a surplus of 5,006 units
above the 4,193 units already mandated by the RHNA allocation.
Future Municipal Code Amendments
Upon certification of the Housing Element Update by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), at least six Zoning Code Amendments will be required to ensure
that the Temecula Municipal Code complies with State Housing Law. City staff will work with
the City Attorney’s office to draft the necessary amendments, which will be brought before the
Planning Commission and City Council at future hearing dates.
First, the City will update the Zoning Code to comply with Government Code Sections 65660
through 65668 in relation to low barrier navigation centers. A low barrier navigation center is a
Housing First, low-barrier, service enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent
housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals
experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter and housing. The
City’s Municipal Code does not prohibit low barrier navigation centers currently, but State law
requires explicit language that permits low barrier navigations by right in certain zones.
Second, the City will need to develop Municipal Code language to allow for agricultural worker
housing, consistent with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5., 17021.6, and 17021.8.
5
Third, the City will need to develop Municipal Code language for employee housing, consistent
with State law.
Fourth, the City will need to update the Municipal Code to comply with numerous State laws,
including SB 35, SB 330, Government Code Section 65905.5, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1, 65950
and 66300 related to streamlined housing reviews/approvals and affordable housing projects. Staff
is currently working on these changes and will bring these changes forward at a future hearing
date.
Fifth, the City will need to update the Municipal Code to comply with AB 139, which outlines
requirements for emergency shelter parking. Staff is currently working on these changes and will
bring these changes forward at a future hearing date.
Sixth, the City will need to amend Planning Development Overlay Zone 2 and 7 to specifically
allow Accessory Dwelling Units consistent with State law.
Seventh, in compliance with State law, if, during the course of the planning period, the City should
identify additional sites/replacement sites to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income
RHNA, and if the site is vacant and has been included in two prior cycles or is occupied and been
included in one prior cycle, this program requires that the site be added to the City’s AHOZ thereby
providing for by-right development when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower
income households consistent with Government Code section 65583.2(i).
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Comments
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has four areas of
comments on the previously adopted Housing Element. Those areas include:
• Review and Revision
• Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
• Housing Programs
• Public Participation
Staff has worked with the consultant to address the attached comment letter. Some takeaways
from the letter include the need for the city to update certain data, clarifications on specific sections
of the document, revisions to housing programs, and additional programs for mitigating
nongovernmental constrains, previously identified sites, and revisions to the accessory dwelling
unit calculations. Staff has worked with the consultant to make the requested changes.
Outreach
The City conducted significant outreach, even amongst a challenging environment related to
COVID-19 restrictions. The City’s outreach included:
• A dedicated website, TemeculaCA.gov/housing
• A dedicated email list for interested parties
• A dedicated Housing Element brand/presence on social media, “#housethis?”
• 33,000 newsletter mailers that included a Housing Element article
• 63,000 social media impressions
6
• Over 860 survey respondents, which included printed copies for seniors/constituents
without access to a computer
• A virtual workshop, conducted in English and Spanish, and made available online
throughout the duration of the public outreach process
• An in-person workshop, conducted in English, with live Spanish translation available
• Virtual meetings with real estate groups
• Over 10,800 direct emails sent, with thousands of additional emails sent by partners at the
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, local real estate organizations, religious
institutions, and nonprofits
• Direct emails sent to existing affordable housing developments within the City and
prospective affordable housing developers
• Flyers in foods banks, coffee shops, and the public libraries
• Surveys and flyers at the Temecula Help Center (which serves those constituents who are
at risk of becoming homeless or are already homeless)
• Advertisements and educational materials shared on Channel 3 (local broadcast) and the
City’s YouTube channel
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Outreach with a Fair Housing discussion
• Staff presented the Housing Element to the REDI Commission
LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the public hearing was published in The Press-Enterprise on December 23, 2021.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”) for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse
No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also
reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR was prepared in August 2021 which concludes that
the draft General Plan Housing Element does not result in any new or greater environmental
impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. The draft Housing Element was
amended in response to HCD’s comments. The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, as revised
in response to HCD’s comments, does not create any new program or policy that would permit
residential development where it is not otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the
revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update do not result in any new or greater
environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still
appropriate for the City to rely on Addendum 2021-01. It was determined that a supplemental or
subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and no
further environmental review is required.
7
FINDINGS
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is in conformance with the General Plan for
Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City.
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been designed to be consistent with State
Housing Law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for local agencies under
jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and to be internally
consistent with the other elements of the Temecula General Plan with implementation of the
identified programs.
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will not have a significant impact on the
character of the built environment.
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of existing uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the existing or
planned uses, buildings, or structures. The Housing Element Update contains the goals, policies,
and programs that will help guide the production of future housing within the City, in concert with
other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element Update will provide flexibility and
opportunity in the development of residential uses to meet the needs of all economic segments of
the community within the City. The specific programs of the Housing Element Update will provide
opportunity for affordable housing through the identification of appropriate sites and density,
provisions for density bonus law, provisions for transitional, supportive, and employee housing,
as well as establishment of development standards for emergency shelters. The Housing Element
and the City’s current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In
compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has
been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element
do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed,
disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present
to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is
required.
The nature of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will promote the health, safety, comfort and
general welfare of the City and its residents through the goals, policies, and implementation
programs geared towards ensuring adequate housing for all income levels in the community. The
proposed Housing Element Update complies with all statutory requirements and is internally
consistent with the other elements of the General Plan with implementation of the identified
programs. The proposed Housing Element will not expose people to an increased risk of negative
health or public safety impacts and potential impacts related to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community were analyzed in the environmental review and determined to be less
than significant as a result of this project. The Housing Element and the City’s current General
8
Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that
the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater
environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the
conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
2. Exhibit A – City Council Resolution
2021-2029 Revised Housing Element
2021-2029 Revised Housing Element (Appendices)
FEIR Addendum No. 2021-01
3. Letter from HCD on 6th Cycle Housing Element
4. Notice of Public Hearing
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED “A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG
RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND
APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN”
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine, and declare that:
A. The City of Temecula adopted its first Housing Element (Second Cycle) on
November 9, 1993.
B. The City of Temecula first amended its Housing Element (Third Cycle) on October
8, 2002.
C. The City of Temecula adopted a Comprehensive Update of its General Plan on
April 12, 2005.
D. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fourth Cycle) on July 27,
2010.
E. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fifth Cycle) on January,
2014.
F. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) completed the Sixth
Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) on March 4, 2021, with a minor amendment
adopted on July 1, 2021.
G. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
approved the RHNA allocation on March 22, 2021.
H. Government Code Section 65588 establishes October 15, 2021, as the due date for
cities located in the SCAG region to submit their 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the State.
I. The City of Temecula must adopt its updated 2021-2029 Housing Element within
120 days of the above-referenced due date.
J. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an analysis of potential sites that
indicates that the City of Temecula has adequate development capacity under existing zoning
designations to meet its RHNA of 4,139 total units and related affordable housing needs for lower
and moderate income households.
K. On August 17, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was released to the
community for public comment and review including to groups that represent lower income and
special needs populations in Temecula.
L. On August 17, 2021, the City hosted a community open house to introduce the
Draft Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the draft Housing Element.
M. On _____, the City held a public hearing before the Planning Commission where
the draft Housing Element was considered. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Housing Element for submission to
HCD.
N. On October 12, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing where the draft
Housing Element was considered. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council
adopted the draft Housing Element with the understanding that the Housing Element may need to
be further amended in response to any comments received by HCD.
O. On October 27, 2021, the City hosted a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) workshop, which included a discussion on the draft Housing Element.
P. HCD provided a comment letter to the City on December 3, 2021, and staff working
with its consultant, has amended the draft Housing Element in response to HCD’s comments.
Q. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the
City is the lead agency for the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (the Project);
and
R. This Housing Element Update was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by law.
S. The Planning Commission considered the updated 2021-2029 Housing Element
Update of the General Plan and environmental review on January 19, 2022, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity
to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
T. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City
Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, and EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the
General Plan based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
U. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in recommending that the
City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan hereby finds,
determines and declares that:
General Plan Amendment
A. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State
law and other Ordinances of the City.
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been designed to be consistent with
State Housing Law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for local agencies
under jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and to
be internally consistent with the other elements of the Temecula General Plan with
implementation of the identified programs.
B. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan will not
have a significant impact on the character of the built environment;
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is compatible with the nature, condition
and development of existing uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the
existing or planned uses, buildings, or structures. The Housing Element Update contains
the goals, policies, and programs that will help guide the production of future housing
within the City, in concert with other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element
Update will provide flexibility and opportunity in the development of residential uses to
meet the needs of all economic segments of the community within the City. The specific
programs of the Housing Element Update will provide opportunity for affordable housing
through the identification of appropriate sites and density, provisions for density bonus
law, provisions for transitional, supportive, and employee housing, as well as
establishment of development standards for emergency shelters. The Housing Element and
the City’s current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In
compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing
Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously
analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional
environmental review is required.
C. The nature of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Minor Updates
to the Public Safety Element of the General Plan is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community;
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will promote the health, safety, comfort
and general welfare of the City and its residents through the goals, policies, and
implementation programs geared towards ensuring adequate housing for all income levels
in the community. The proposed Housing Element Update complies with all statutory
requirements and is internally consistent with the other elements of the General Plan with
implementation of the identified programs. The proposed Housing Element will not expose
people to an increased risk of negative health or public safety impacts and potential
impacts related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community were analyzed
in the environmental review and determined to be less than significant as a result of this
project. The Housing Element and the City’s current General Plan have adequate capacity
to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an
Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed
updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater
environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of
the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation
of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required.
Section 3. Further Findings. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element has been
prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with
the other elements of the current Temecula General Plan.
Section 4. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection
with the recommendation for approval of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General
Plan, Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620.
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”) for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse
No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also
reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012).
B. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General
Plan FEIR (Addendum 2021-01) was prepared in August 2021 which concludes that the draft
General Plan Housing Element does not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than
were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. No new development is permitted under the
draft Housing Element where it is not currently permitted in the General Plan, and all new
development analyzed in the draft Housing Element is in areas already designated for residential
or mixed use. In addition, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since the
certification of the General Plan EIR. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review
is required. The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD’s comments. The 2021-
2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD’s comments, does not create any
new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise
permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously anal yzed,
disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on Addendum 2021-01.
It was determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and no further environmental review is required.
C. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the General Plan Addendum 2021-01 prepared for this
project that is attached as Exhibit “A” to the draft City Council resolution.
Section 5. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula
herby recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the 2021-2029 Housing
Element Update of the General Plan and General Plan EIR Addendum 2021-01 in substantially
the same form as attached here to as Exhibit “A”.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of January 2022.
Gary Watts, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Luke Watson
Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the forgoing PC Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of January
2022, by the following vote:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Luke Watson
Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPDATED 2021-2029
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (LONG
RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR18-1620) AND
APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ADDENDUM NO. 2021-01 TO THE GENERAL PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby
find, determine, and declare that:
A. The City of Temecula adopted its first Housing Element (Second Cycle) on
November 9, 1993.
B. The City of Temecula first amended its Housing Element (Third Cycle) on October
8, 2002.
C. The City of Temecula adopted a Comprehensive Update of its General Plan on
April 12, 2005.
D. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fourth Cycle) on July 27,
2010.
E. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Fifth Cycle) on January,
2014.
F. The City of Temecula amended its Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) on October 12,
2021.
G. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) completed the Sixth
Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) on March 4, 2021, with a minor amendment
adopted on July 1, 2021.
H. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
approved the RHNA allocation on March 22, 2021.
I. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
provided a comment letter on December 3, 2021.
J. Government Code Section 65588 establishes October 15, 2021, as the due date for
cities located in the SCAG region to submit their 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to the State.
K. The City of Temecula must adopt its 2021-2029 Housing Element within 120 days
of the above-referenced due date.
L. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an analysis of potential sites that
indicates that the City of Temecula has adequate development capacity under existing zoning
designations to meet its RHNA of 4,139 total units and related affordable housing needs for lower
and moderate income households.
M. On August 17, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was released to the
community for public comment and review including to groups that represent lower income and
special needs populations in Temecula; and
N. On August 17, 2021, the City hosted a community open house to introduce the
Draft Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the Housing Element
O. On October 27, 2021, the City hosted a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) workshop, which included a discussion on Housing Element.
P. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the
City is the lead agency for the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element (the Project); and
Q. This Housing Element Update was processed including, but not limited to a public
notice, in the time and manner prescribed by law.
R. The Planning Commission considered the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of
the General Plan and environmental review on January 19, 2022, at a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and
did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter.
S. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-XX recommending that
the City Council adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan, and EIR
Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan, based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
T. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the 2021-2029 Housing Element
(Sixth Cycle) of the General Plan at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which
time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or
in opposition to this matter.
U. At the conclusion of the City Council hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the City Council adopted the EIR Addendum No. 2021-01 to the General Plan and the
2021-2029 Housing Element (Sixth Cycle) of the General Plan, Long Range Planning Project No.
LR18-1620 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
V. All legal preconditions to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.
Section 2. Further Findings. The City Council, in adopting the 2021-2029 Housing
Element Update hereby finds, determines and declares that:
General Plan Amendment
A. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State
law and other Ordinances of the City.
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update has been designed to be consistent with
State Housing Law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for local agencies
under jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and to
be internally consistent with the other elements of the Temecula General Plan with
implementation of the identified programs.
B. The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan will not
have a significant impact on the character of the built environment;
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is compatible with the nature, condition
and development of existing uses, buildings and structures and will not adversely affect the
existing or planned uses, buildings, or structures. The Housing Element Update contains
the goals, policies, and programs that will help guide the production of future housing
within the City, in concert with other elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element
Update will provide flexibility and opportunity in the development of residential uses to
meet the needs of all economic segments of the community within the City. The specific
programs of the Housing Element Update will provide opportunity for affordable housing
through the identification of appropriate sites and density, provisions for density bonus
law, provisions for transitional, supportive, and employee housing, as well as
establishment of development standards for emergency shelters. The Housing Element and
the City’s current General Plan have adequate capacity to accommodate all units. In
compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General Plan Housing
Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously
analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional
environmental review is required.
C. The nature of the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan
is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community;
The proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element Update will promote the health, safety, comfort
and general welfare of the City and its residents through the goals, policies, and
implementation programs geared towards ensuring adequate housing for all income levels
in the community. The proposed Housing Element Update complies with all statutory
requirements and is internally consistent with the other elements of the General Plan with
implementation of the identified programs. The proposed Housing Element will not expose
people to an increased risk of negative health or public safety impacts and potential
impacts related to the health, safety and general welfare of the community were analyzed
in the environmental review and determined to be less than significant as a result of this
project. The Housing Element and the City’s current General Plan have adequate capacity
to accommodate all units. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an
Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed
updates to the General Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater
environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of
the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation
of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required.
Section 3. Further Findings. The Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element has been
prepared to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with
the other elements of the current Temecula General Plan.
Section 4. Environmental Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby
makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the
recommendation for approval of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update of the General Plan,
Long Range Planning Project No. LR18-1620.
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report
(“FEIR”) for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse
No. 2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also
reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012).
B. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an Addendum to the General
Plan FEIR (Addendum 2021-01) was prepared in August 2021 which concludes that the draft
General Plan Housing Element does not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than
were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. No new development is permitted under the
draft Housing Element where it is not currently permitted in the General Plan, and all new
development analyzed in the draft Housing Element is in areas already designated for residential
or mixed use. In addition, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since the
certification of the General Plan EIR. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
are present to require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review
is required. The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD’s comments. The 2021-
2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD’s comments, does not create any
new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not otherwise
permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously anal yzed,
disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on Addendum 2021-01.
It was determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be prepared pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and that no further environmental review is required.
C. Based on the findings set forth in the Resolution, the City Council herby adopts
General Plan Addendum 2021-01 prepared for this project.
Section 4. Adoption. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the
2021-2029 Housing Element Update and General Plan Addendum 2021-01 in substantially the
same form as attached here to as Exhibit “A”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
____ day of February, 2022.
Matt Rahn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the ___ day of February, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
1
January 2022
FINAL HOUSING ELEMENT
2021—2029
HOUSING ELEMENT
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
https://temeculaca.gov/
FINAL HOUSING ELEMENT
2021—2029
HOUSING ELEMENT
PREPARED FOR: CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
PREPARED BY: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
180 E Main Street Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT ORGANIZATION
Part 1: Housing Plan
Part 1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City’s “Housing Plan”, which includes the goals, policies, and
programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure
that decent, safe housing is available to all current and future residents at a cost that is within the reach of the
diverse economic segments which comprise Temecula.
Part 2: Background Report
Part 2 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the “Background Report” which identifies the nature and extent of
Temecula’s housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds),
potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. By examining the City’s
housings, resources, and constraints, the City can then determine a plan of action for providing adequate housing,
as presented in Part 1: Housing Plan. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also
presents information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. This information is instrumental in providing
a better understanding of the community, which in turn is essential for the planning of future housing needs.
Appendix A: Housing Sites Inventory
The Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet
the City’s regional housing need by income level.
Appendix B: Glossary
The Housing Element includes, as Appendix B, a glossary of key terms and phrases.
Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary
As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City hosted numerous opportunities for the community and
key stakeholders to provide feedback on existing housing conditions, housing priorities, priority areas for new
residential growth, and topics related to fair housing. Public engagement was facilitated in both English and
Spanish to further engage the Temecula community. Public participation played an important role in the refinement
of the City’s housing goals and policies and in the development of new housing programs, as included in Part 1:
Housing Plan. The public’s input also helped to validate and expand upon the contextual information included in
Part 2: Background Report. The City’s efforts to engage the community in a meaningful and comprehensive way
are summarized in Appendix C.
Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing
In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides the foundation
and context for the City’s Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as included in Part 2 of the Housing
Element.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
PART 1: HOUSING PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-2
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-3
I. INTRODUCTION
The eight-year plan is the centerpiece of the 2021-2029 Housing Element
for Temecula. The Housing Plan sets forth the City’s goals, policies, and
programs to address the identified housing needs. Housing programs
included in this plan define the specific actions the City will take to achieve
specific goals and policies. The City’s overall strategy for addressing its
housing needs has been defined according to the six goals:
1. Providing adequate housing sites;
2. Assisting in development of affordable and special needs housing;
3. Removing constraints to housing production;
4. Conserving and improving existing housing stock;
5. Affirmatively furthering fair housing; and
6. Promoting public participation.
A. Goals and Policies
Provide Adequate Housing Sites
Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy
the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future
residents of Temecula.
Discussion The City provides for a mix of new housing
opportunities by designating a range of residential densities and promoting
creative design and development of vacant land and reuse of developed
land. By providing for the construction of a range of housing, the needs of
all sectors of the community can be met.
Policy 1.1 Provide an inventory of land at varying densities sufficient to
accommodate the existing and projected housing needs in the
City.
Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of
housing types in terms of cost, density, unit size, configuration,
and type, and presents the opportunity for local residents to live
and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing
types.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-4
Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new
developments around the village centers to enhance their
pedestrian orientation and diversity.
Policy 1.4 Support the use of innovative site planning and architectural
design in residential development.
Policy 1.5 Encourage the use of clustered development to preserve and
enhance important environmental resources and open space,
consistent with sustainability principles.
Policy 1.6 Encourage the development of compatible mixed-use projects
that promote and enhance the village concept, facilitate the
efficient use of public facilities, support alternative transit
options, and provide affordable housing alternatives by
establishing a program of incentives for mixed-use projects.
Policy 1.7 Where feasible, use City-owned or City-controlled land for
affordable housing projects.
Policy 1.8 To the extent feasible, make use of the tools available to the City
to assemble land or sell land at a write-down for affordable
housing.
Policy 1.9 Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s unmet
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income
categories throughout the planning period.
Policy 1.10 Allow by-right approval for housing developments proposed for
non-vacant sites included in one previous housing element
inventory and vacant sites included in two previous housing
elements, provided that the proposed housing development
consists of at least 20 percent lower income and affordable
housing units.
Assist in Development of Affordable and Special Needs
Housing
Goal 2 Provide housing for people of different economic
segments and with special needs.
Discussion The City of Temecula works to provide a variety of
affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of the
community. By coordinating with other government agencies and
nonprofit organizations to access funding sources for affordable housing
and to partner in the creative provision of affordable housing, the City
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-5
helps provide safe and affordable housing for all residents in the
community. The City is also committed to ensuring that adequate housing
opportunities are available for persons with special needs, such as the
elderly, persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental
disabilities, large families, single-parent households, and the homeless.
Policy 2.1 Promote a variety of housing opportunities that accommodate
the needs of all income levels of the population, and provide
opportunities to meet Temecula’s fair share of extremely low-,
very low-, low- and moderate- income housing by promoting the
City’s program of density bonuses and incentives.
Policy 2.2 Support innovative public, private, and nonprofit efforts in the
development of affordable housing, particularly for special needs
groups.
Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of nontraditional housing models, including
single-room occupancy (SRO) or Efficiency Unit Housing
structures and manufactured housing, to meet the needs of
special groups for affordable housing, temporary shelter, and/or
transitional housing.
Policy 2.4 Pursue all available forms of private, local, state, and federal
assistance to support development and implementation of the
City’s housing programs.
Policy 2.5 Require that all new affordable housing developments
incorporate energy- and water-efficient appliances, amenities,
and building materials to reduce overall housing-related costs for
future low- and moderate-income households and families.
Policy 2.6 Establish and maintain a City database to monitor trends in the
economy and Temecula’s demographics to be able to anticipate
shifts in trends, while continuing to provide relevant affordable
housing.
Policy 2.7 Develop and coordinate multi-agency, regional, and cross-
jurisdictional approaches to homelessness and special needs
housing, including transitional housing.
Policy 2.8 Explore the possibility of a housing trust partnership with the
Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG).
Policy 2.9 Explore a voluntary outreach program with private entities to
solicit donations to fund affordable housing programs, possibly
in cooperation with a nonprofit.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-6
Remove Constraints to Housing Production
Goal 3 Reduce and/or remove governmental and non-
governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible.
Discussion The City’s goal is to reduce or remove constraints to
the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing to ensure the
provision of housing affordable to all members of the community.
Governmental requirements for the development and rehabilitation of
housing often add to the cost of the provision of affordable housing and
may result in fewer opportunities for housing affordable to lower-income
households. Although nongovernmental constraints like the cost of land,
construction costs, and the availability of financing are primarily market-
driven and generally outside direct government control, Temecula can
influence and offset the negative impact of nongovernmental constraints
through responsive programs and policies.
Policy 3.1 Expedite processing procedures and fees for new construction
or rehabilitation of housing.
Policy 3.2 Consider mitigating development fees for projects that provide
affordable senior housing, and special needs.
Policy 3.3 Periodically review City development standards to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and to ensure high-quality
affordable housing.
Policy 3.4 Monitor State and federal housing-related legislation, and
update City plans, ordinances, and processes as appropriate to
remove or reduce governmental constraints.
Policy 3.5 Regularly identify and evaluate the impact of nongovernmental
constraints on housing development and implement programs
to reduce negative impacts.
Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock
Goal 4 Conserve the existing housing stock with an emphasis on
affordable housing.
Discussion Along with providing for new affordable housing
opportunities, the City also has a goal to preserve existing affordable housing
opportunities for residents. By providing incentives and programs to
maintain both the affordability and the structural integrity of existing units,
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-7
the City ensures that affordable housing opportunities are preserved as the
housing stock ages.
Policy 4.1 Monitor the number of affordable units eligible for conversion
to market-rate units and continue the means to minimize the
loss of these units.
Policy 4.2 Develop programs directed at rehabilitating and preserving the
integrity of existing housing stock for all income levels.
Policy 4.3 Support the efforts of private and public entities in maintaining
the affordability of units through implementation of energy
conservation and weatherization programs.
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Goal 5 Affirmatively further fair housing, providing equal
housing opportunity for all residents in Temecula.
Discussion In order to make provisions for the housing needs of
all segments of the community, the City must affirmatively further fair
housing and ensure that equal and fair housing opportunities are available
to all residents.
Policy 5.1 Encourage and support the enforcement of laws and regulations
prohibiting discrimination in lending practices and insurance
practices to purchase, sell, rent, and lease property.
Policy 5.2 Support fair housing efforts to ensure that all income segments
of the community have unrestricted access to appropriate
housing.
Policy 5.3 Encourage housing design standards that promote the
accessibility of housing for persons with special needs, such as
the elderly, persons with disabilities, including persons with
developmental disabilities, large families, single-parent
households, and the homeless.
Policy 5.4 Encourage and consider supporting local private nonprofit
groups that address the housing needs of the homeless and other
disadvantaged groups.
Policy 5.5 Prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on
age, familial status, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or
other protected characteristics for all housing projects approved
by the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-8
Policy 5.6 Encourage the equitable spatial distribution of affordable
housing throughout the City, particularly where adequate
support facilities exist (i.e. alternative transportation, jobs, etc.).
Policy 5.7 Educate the public on lower-income and special needs housing
through existing annual reports or other forms of media.
Policy 5.8 Assist in affirmatively furthering and enforcing fair housing
laws by providing support to organizations that provide
outreach and education regarding fair housing rights, receive
and investigate fair housing allegations, monitor compliance
with fair housing laws, and refer possible violations to
enforcing agencies.
Policy 5.9 Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable
waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development
standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Promote Public Participation
Goal 6 Encourage collaboration between housing developers
and neighborhood organizations on affordable housing projects and
addressing neighborhood concerns.
Discussion The promotion of public participation in the planning
process is an important responsibility for local agencies. Residents and
other stakeholders like the development community and neighborhood
organizations are all influenced by the City’s housing plans and programs
and their input must be considered and reflected in the City’s decision-
making process.
Policy 6.1 Use the public participation process to educate the public on
lower-income and special needs housing through existing annual
reports or other forms of media.
Policy 6.2 Strengthen opportunities for participation in the approval
process for all housing projects, including affordable housing.
B. Housing Programs
The goals and policies contained in the Housing Plan address Temecula’s
identified housing needs and are implemented through a series of housing
programs. Housing programs include both programs currently in
operation in the city and new programs that have been introduced to
address the unmet housing needs, affirmatively further fair housing, and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-9
ensure that Temecula’s housing goals, policies, and programs are aligned
with federal and state requirements. This section provides a description of
each housing program and future program goals, along with identifying the
program funding sources, responsible agency, and time frame for
implementation.
Provide Adequate Housing Sites (Goal 1)
A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the
community is the provision of adequate sites for housing of all types, sizes,
and prices. This is an important function in both zoning and General Plan
designations.
1. Land Use Policy and Development Capacity
The Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan and the City’s
Development Code designates land within the city for a range of residential
densities that support residential development suitable for all income
levels. The City of Temecula received a RHNA of 4,193 units for the 2021-
2029 RHNA period. After credits for constructed units constructed after
June 30, 2021 (27) and approved units approved after June 30, 2021 (132)
are taken into consideration, the City of Temecula has a remaining 2021-
2029 RHNA of 4,034 units, including 1,327 extremely/very low-income,
702 low-income, 757 moderate-income and 1,249 above moderate-income
units.
The residential sites inventory consists of accessory dwelling units, vacant
residential land exclusive of Specific Plan areas, and vacant residential land
inside Specific Plan areas. Together, these resources have the capacity to
accommodate at least 9,347 new units at all income levels. These sites can
accommodate the remaining RHNA for all income levels through year
2029. The City will continue to maintain an inventory of available sites for
residential development and will continue to make it available on the City’s
website; it will also be provided to prospective residential developers upon
request. The inventory will be monitored on an ongoing basis as part of
the development review process; the inventory will be updated as-needed
(based on project approval) and findings will be made consistent with No
Net Loss requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 (see
Program 2 for further information).
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will regularly annually monitor the availability of sites
zoned for residential uses to ensure sufficient capacity exists to
accommodate Temecula’s Regional Housing Need Allocation at all
income levels for the duration of the planning period.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-10
The City will continue to maintain an inventory of sites suitable for
residential development and provide that information online and
to interested developers.
The City will encourage the reservation of land that is currently
designated for multiple-family development by providing the
multi-family sites inventory to multi-family housing developers to
solicit development interest. The City will update the multi-family
sites inventory at least once a year.
The City will continue to allow residential mixed use to be
permitted at a density of at least 30 units per acre to encourage the
construction of multi-family housing by right. In addition, the City
will continue to provide appropriate flexible development
standards such as increased building height and shared parking
opportunities for developments with minimum densities of 20
dwelling units per acre in the Zoning Ordinance.
The City will continue to promote its Affordable Housing Overlay
(AHO) Zoning District, which is applicable to over 100 acres in
the City and has resulted in the approval of multiple affordable
housing projects during the prior planning period. Information
related to the AHO will continue to be provided online and
proactively to affordable housing developers working in and
around the City of Temecula. As part of preapplication meetings
(which are provided at no charge), the City will continue to educate
the development community on the AHO and highlight the
opportunities to develop affordable housing in the City of
Temecula.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the
planning period
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-11
2. Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning
Period
The City will monitor the consumption of residential acreage, including
review of proposed General Plan amendments, Zoning map amendments,
and development projects, to ensure an adequate inventory is available to
meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA obligations. The City will develop and
implement a monitoring procedure pursuant to Government Code Section
65863 and will make the findings required by that code section if a site is
proposed for development with fewer units or at a different income level
than shown in the Housing Element. Should an approval of development
result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to
accommodate the remaining need for lower income, moderate, or above
moderate income households, the City will identify and, if necessary,
rezone sufficient sites within 180 days to accommodate the shortfall and
ensure “no net loss” in capacity to accommodate the RHNA, consistent
with State law. Any site rezoned will satisfy the adequate site requirements
of Section 65583.2 and will be consistent with the City’s obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Eight-Year Objectives
Review each housing approval on sites listed in the Housing
Element and make findings required by Government Code Section
65863 if a site is proposed with fewer units or a different income
level than shown in the Housing Element.
If insufficient suitable sites remain at each income level, identify
and, if necessary, rezone sufficient sites within 180 days.
Identify additional sites that may be required to be upzoned to
meet “no net loss” requirements for Housing Element adoption in
2025 (a mid-cycle review). Any site identified to be upzoned will
satisfy the adequate site requirements of Section 65583.2 and will
be consistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair
housing.
Report as required through the HCD annual reporting process.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-12
Timeframe
Ongoing implementation, at time of approval of a project on a site
listed in the Housing Element, and annual reporting throughout
the planning period
3. Public Property Conversion to Housing Program
The City will maintain a list of surplus City-owned lands, including
identification of address, APN, General Plan land use designation, zoning,
current use, parcel size, and status of surplus land or exempt surplus land.
The City will work with non-profits and other public agencies to evaluate
the feasibility of transferring surplus City-owned lands identified to be
feasible for conversion to affordable housing and not committed to other
City purposes for use in the development of affordable housing by the
private sector. The City will also outreach to developers to advertise
available sites, as they are identified. The inventory will be updated annually
in conjunction with the APR (Program 1). Any disposition of surplus
lands shall be conducted consistently with the requirements of
Government Code Section 54220 et. seq.
Eight-Year Objectives
Maintain an accurate list of surplus City-owned lands for the
duration of the planning period
Collaborate with developers of affordable housing to explore
opportunities to develop affordable housing at City-owned lands.
By October 2024, the City will solicit a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the development of affordable housing project(s) on the
City-owned site(s). Prior to disposing of any of the City-owned
sites, the City shall comply with the Surplus Land Act and Surplus
Land Act Guidelines issued by HCD, and consult with HCD
regarding any questions. The City will evaluate whether to sell the
site(s) or ground lease them to one or more an affordable housing
developers.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget and federal and State technical assistance
grants
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-13
Timeframe
Annually
4. Replacement of Affordable Units
Consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section
65583.2(g), development projects on sites in the housing inventory
(Appendix A) that have, or have had within the past five years, residential
uses restricted to rents affordable to low or very low income households
or residential uses occupied by low or very low income households, shall
be conditioned to replace all such units at the same or lower income level
as a condition of any development on the site and such replacement
requirements shall be consistent with Section 65915(c)(3).
Eight-Year Objectives
Identify need for replacement for all project applications and
ensure replacement, if required, is carried out
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget; replacement costs to be borne by
development of any such site
Timeframe
Ongoing
5. Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units
(JADUs) help meet the City’s housing needs for all income levels and also
provide a housing resource for seniors and low- and moderate-income
households throughout the entire community, not just in any single
geographic area. The City will continue to apply Development Code
regulations that allow accessory units (also known as second units or
granny flats) by right in all residential zones, in accordance with State law.
The City of Temecula will continue to amend the ordinance based on
future changes to State law and work with HCD to ensure continued
compliance with State law. The City will also continue to monitor the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-14
extent of ADU production to ensure that the ordinance modifications are
successful and that the Housing Element goals can be met.
Eight-Year Objectives
Survey and evaluate potential methods to encourage ADU
development throughout the community and adopt appropriate
procedures, policies, and regulatory provisions.
Annually Mmonitor State law for future updates to ADU
regulations and update the City’s Development Code to be
consistent with future updates as needed.
Continue educating the community on the opportunity to develop
ADUs and promote the development of ADUs affordable to
lower-income households.
Prepare and adopt “permit ready” ADU plans and make them
available to the public free of charge to promote the development
of ADUs in all geographic areas of the City.
Annually monitor ADU production, as part of the City’s Housing
Element Annual Progress Report
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Adopt “permit ready” ADU plans by December 31, 2022; ongoing
education of ADU development options and distribution of
material online and at City Hall
6. Large Sites
The City will provide for the inclusion of mixed-income housing in future
new growth areas of the city through development agreements, specific
plans, and other mechanisms. To facilitate the development of affordable
housing on large parcels that can accommodate approximately 40 to 270
lower income units, the City will routinely give high priority to processing
subdivision maps that include affordable housing units. Also, an expedited
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-15
review process will be available for the subdivision of larger sites into
buildable lots where the development application can be found consistent
with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan, and program
environmental impact report(s).
The City will offer incentives for the development of affordable housing
on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to:
Streamlining and expediting the approval process for land division
for projects that include affordable housing units,
Deferral of fees related to the subdivision for projects affordable
to lower-income households, and
Providing technical assistance to acquire funding.
Eight-Year Objectives
Identification and consolidation of available incentives by April
2022; distribution of Large Site Incentives Factsheet to the
development community by October 2022; and provide incentives
as projects are submitted.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Identification of incentives by April 2022 and distribution to
development community by October 2022; Ongoing
implementation and education as part of biennial outreach to
developers
Assist in the Development of Affordable and Special Needs
Housing (Goal 2)
New construction is a major source of housing for prospective
homeowners and renters. However, the cost of new construction is
substantially greater than other program options. Incentive programs, such
as density bonuses, offer a cost-effective means of providing affordable
housing. Other programs, such as the County’s First Time Home Buyer
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-16
ProgramMortgage Credit Certificate Program, increase the affordability of
new and existing housing. Additionally, the programs to work with the
development community to promote the production of housing suitable
for persons with special needs can help ensure that equal opportunities are
available for persons of different economic backgrounds and housing
needs.
67. Density Bonus Ordinance
The City will provide for density bonuses consistent with State law,
including provisions for density bonuses and incentives for projects that
contain 100% very low and low income units. The City Attorney will is
responsible for regularly monitoring State law updates which impact
density bonuses. This review will occur at least annually, and the City and
will update local plans and programs as necessary to comply with State law.
At least annually, the City will proactively reach out to developers in the
region to encourage use of the City’s density bonus ordinance.
Eight-Year Objectives
Annual outreach to developers in the region to Ccontinue to
encourage density bonus opportunities which increase the total
allowable density for senior and affordable housing projects.
Monitor State law, at least annually, for updates to density bonus
regulations and update the City’s Development Code as needed.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Annual monitoring of potential State law updates; Oongoing
implementation
78. Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing
Development
The City can utilize CDBG funds to purchase land for the development
of lower- and moderate-income housing. The City will conduct biennial
outreach to the development community to identify potential
opportunities for land assemblage and advertise opportunity sites for
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-17
affordable housing development. To incentivizes developers, the City will
offer a free perpre-application review process and unified permit center to
facilitate a clear and streamlined application and review process. The City
will also post available development sites to the City’s website and
advertise the availability of sites for development through direct contact to
developers in the region on a biennial basis.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to acquire land for use in the provision of
affordable housing.
The City will facilitate the development of housing units affordable
to lower-income households by publicizing its density bonus
program and its incentives, and by making this information
available to developers and nonprofit housing agencies through the
development application process.
The City will offer free pre-application review and a unified permit
center to incentivize the development of affordable housing sites
and will, annually, review additional incentives available to further
support this program.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
CDBG Funds
Timeframe
Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning
Department. The City will publicize program incentives on the
City’s website on an on-going basis. The City will acquire land if,
and when, the City has available funds to do so. The City will begin
a project if and when funds are secured to do so.
Biennial outreach to developers
Annual review of additional potential incentives
89. Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
Under state law, the City shall identify zoning to encourage and
facilitate housing suitable for extremely low-income (ELI) households,
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-18
such as supportive housing and efficiency unit housing. The City
currently allows Efficiency Unit Housing in the Medium and High
Density Residential zoning districts and conditionally permits them in
the Community Commercial and Professional Office zones. The City
will amend its municipal code to provide that supportive housing is a
permitted use in all residential zones (see Program 15).
The City encourages the development of housing for extremely low-
income households through a variety of activities, such as performing
outreach to housing developers on at least a biennial basis, providing
technical assistance, providing expedited processing, identifying grant
and funding opportunities, applying for or supporting applications for
funding on an ongoing basis, reviewing and prioritizing local funding
at least twice in the planning period, and/or offering additional
incentives beyond the density bonus such as fee deferral or
reimbursement.
The needs of larger ELI households may not be adequately addressed
by the availability of Efficiency Unit Housing, which is best-suited to
address the needs of single-person or smaller households. The City will
outreach to developers of affordable and special needs housing to
educate developers on the need to provide larger units affordable to
extremely-low income households. The City will share data and
statistics included in the Housing Element Background Report
regarding larger households earning 30% or less of the area median
income and encourage the inclusion of larger units affordable to this
household income level as part of new affordable housing projects.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to encourage the development of housing
for extremely low-income households through a variety of
activities, such as continuing to conducting outreach to housing
developers on an annual basis, provideing financial assistance
(when feasible) or in-kind technical assistance or land write-downs,
provideing expedited processing, identifying grant and funding
opportunities, applying for or supporting applications for funding
on an ongoing basis, reviewing and prioritizeing local funding at
least twice in the planning period, and/or offering additional
incentives beyond the density bonus. The City will educate the
development community on the need for larger units suitable for
larger ELI households.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-19
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Ongoing, as projects are processed through Planning Department
and annual biennial outreach with local developers
910. Special Needs Housing Construction
Special needs housing developers work to ensure housing
opportunities are available that are accessible to and supportive of
persons and households with special needs, such as persons with
disabilities, including developmental disabilities, seniors, single-parent
households, lower income households, and persons at-risk of
homelessness. The City will continue to encourage qualified housing
developers to pursue development of housing that addresses
populations with special housing needs in the City. The City will
continue to collaborate with housing developers, specifically special
needs housing developers, to identify potential sites, write letters of
support to help secure governmental and private-sector funding, and
offer technical assistance related to the application of City incentive
programs (e.g., density bonus). The City will advertise the opportunity
for development fee deferral/reimbursement (see Program 13),
density bonus incentives (see Program 7), and other incentives to
special needs housing developers as a way to further encourage the
production of special needs housing in Temecula. The City will also
continue to work closely with the Office of the State Fire Marshal
(through Cal Fire and the Riverside County Fire Department), which
is responsible for ensuring the safety of group home with seven or
more residents, to ensure that this coordination does not constrain
future development of special needs housing.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will advise developers regarding the community’s special
needs populations and work with developers to promote the
inclusion of product types and units that meet the needs of the
City’s special needs groups.
The City will advertise, on a biennial basis as part of the City’s
regular outreach efforts, incentives available to encourage the
production of special needs housing.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-20
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Contact with developers at least annually biennially and on an
ongoing basis to implement the above objectives
Advertise available incentives on the City’s website by June 2022
1011. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program
The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program is administered
countywide by the County of Riverside Economic and Development
Agency (EDA) and is a way for the City to further leverage
homeownership assistance. MCCs are certificates issued to income-
qualified first time home buyers authorizing the household to take a credit
against federal income taxes of up to 20% of the annual mortgage interest
paid. This tax credit allows the buyer to qualify more easily for home loans
as it increases the effective income of the buyer. The City of Temecula
already promotes use of the MCC program on the City’s website and
through handouts and will continue to implement the program on an
ongoing basis throughout the planning period as long as the County
continues to fund the program.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to promote the regional Mortgage Credit
Certificate program throughout the planning period to assist an
average of ten households annually by publicizing the program and
making the program known to developers and nonprofit housing
agencies.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-21
Timeframe
Ongoing
1112. Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency
The City will encourage the use of energy conservation features in
residential construction and remodeling.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will partner with Southern California Edison (SCE) and
the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) to promote
energy-saving programs such as the Residential Multifamily Energy
Efficiency Rebate program, the Heating and Cooling Rebate
program, and incentives of up to $4,000 available to SCE and
SoCalGas residential customers.
The City will annually ensure that local building codes are
consistent with state-mandated green building standards.
The City will be responsible for implementing the state’s energy
conservation standards (e.g., Title 24 Energy Standards). This
includes checking building plans and other written documentation
showing compliance and inspecting construction to ensure that the
dwelling units are constructed according to those plans. Applicants
for building permits must show compliance with the state’s energy
conservation requirements at the time building plans are
submitted.
The City will review the General Plan to determine if updates are
needed to support and encourage energy efficiency in existing and
new housing, especially in areas of the City with lower
CalEnviroScreen scores which may suffer from elevated levels of
environmental burdens.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-22
Timeframe
Ongoing, as programs are available. Annually review local building
codes, as projects are processed through Planning Department and
annual outreach with local developers
Remove Constraints to Housing Production (Goal 3)
Under state law, the Temecula Housing Element must address, and where
appropriate and legally possible remove, governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The City must
also consider the role of nongovernmental constraints to housing
development and, to the extent feasible, develop programs to reduce the
impacts of nongovernmental constraints. The following programs are
designed to lessen constraints to housing development.
1213. Development Fees
Developers of affordable/senior housing may qualify to receive from the
City of Temecula a deferral of development fees or a reimbursement of
development fees paid by the developer. Typically, developers of
affordable/senior housing pay the City the required development fees. If
the development qualifies for a deferral of development fees or a
reimbursement of development fees, the developer enters into a contract
with the City or other agency, which then sets the terms of the deferral or
reimburses the developer for the fees paid.
The City will outreach to developers on a biennial basis to discuss
development opportunities in the City and will include, as part of this
outreach, a discussion of development fees and advertise the potential for
deferral and/or reimbursement of development fees. The City will
consider the deferral and/or reimbursement of development fees for
qualified projects throughout the planning period.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City of Temecula will continue to enter into development
agreements with qualifying senior/affordable housing projects on
a case-by-case basis throughout the planning period to provide
deferral and/or reimbursement of development fees.
Advertise the City’s development fee deferral and/or
reimbursement opportunities to the development community on a
biennial basis as part of the City’s regular biennial outreach efforts
and post information to the City’s website.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-23
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning
Department
Advertise available incentives on the City’s website by June 2022
1314. Expedite Processing of Affordable Housing Projects
Under state housing law, residential projects with an affordable
component have priority processing when it comes to the provision of
water service from water purveyors. Similarly, the City of Temecula will
continue to expedite processing of affordable housing projects. The City
will prepare, adopt, and begin implementing objective design standards by
March 1, 2022. The City will proactively outreach to developers biennially
to provide education on the City’s objective design standards, as part of
the City’s regular biennial outreach efforts.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to implement expedited review to all
projects with an affordable housing component.
The City will need to develop, adopt, and begin implementing
objective criteria design standards to evaluate affordable housing
projects, including affordable housing projects, to qualify them for
expedited processing by March 1, 2022.
The City will continue to prioritize projects based on the level of
affordability being proposed in order to meet its regional housing
need.
The City will proactively educate the development community on
the City’s objective design standards on a biennial basis as part of
the City’s regular development community outreach efforts.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-24
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Develop, adopt and implement new objective design standards for
applicable projects by March 1, 2022
Ongoing, as projects are processed through the Planning
Department. The City already prioritizes affordable housing
project processing. The City will advertise via the City’s website.
1415. Emergency Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive Housing
The Temecula Development Code provides for the provision of
emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing within the City
consistent with State law. Emergency shelters are permitted in Medium
and High Density Residential zones and the City has identified sufficient
sites available to accommodate emergency shelters within these zones. The
Development Code shall be revised as necessary to ensure that transitional
and supportive housing are allowed in residential and mixed-use zones in
accordance with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), and to allow
eligible supportive housing in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are
permitted in accordance with Government Code Sections 65650 through
65656.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue toupdate the Development Code to permit
emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing as
identified in the Development Code consistent with Government
Code requirements Sections 65650 through 65656 by December
31, 2022.
The City will continue to work with public agencies and private
entities to provide adequate resources for the community’s
homeless population. The City will also, to the extent feasible,
participate in efforts to unite organizations and entities that
provide services to the homeless.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-25
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Update to the Development Code by December 31, 2022.
Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the
planning period
1516. Periodic Consistency Review of General Plan,
Municipal Code, and State Law
To minimize governmental constraints due to inconsistencies between the
City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, California codes, state law, or
regulatory requirements, the City will conduct a biannual review of the
Municipal Code and General Plan to ensure internal consistency and to
ensure consistency with legislative and regulatory amendments, adoption
of new state laws, and policy changes resulting from case law.
Eight-Year Objectives
City staff will track and stay abreast of changes in state housing law
and work with the City Attorney to incorporate changes into the
General Plan and Municipal Code in order to reduce or remove
housing constraints.
The City Attorney will advise staff on significant case law
interpretations that may cause the need to amend the General Plan
or Municipal Code.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Biannually review for consistency
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-26
1617. Zoning Development Code Amendments –
Housing Constraints
The City shall update the Zoning Development Code to remove
constraints to a variety of housing types and ensure the City’s standards
and permitting requirements are consistent with State law. The update
shall address the following:
A. Low barrier navigation centers: The Zoning Development Code
shall be updated to define and permit low barrier navigation centers
consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65660
through 65668, including treating low barrier navigation centers as a
use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones
permitting multifamily uses.
B. Employee Housing and Agricultural Worker Housing: The
Development Code will be updated to comply with Health and Safety
Code Sections 17021.5, .6, .8. Specifically, the City will only refer to it
as employee housing and not make a distinction between agricultural
worker versus employee housing types.Agricultural worker housing:
The Zoning Code will be updated to define agricultural worker
housing and to identify that any agricultural worker housing consisting
of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces shall
be deemed an agricultural land use and permitted in the same manner
as agricultural uses consistent with Health and Safety Code Section
17021.6. The Zoning Code will also be updated to provide for
streamlined, ministerial approval of agricultural worker housing that
meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 17021.8.
C.B. Employee housing: The Zoning Code will be updated to
define employee housing separately from agricultural worker housing
and to clarify that employee housing serving six or fewer employees
shall be deemed a single family structure and shall be subject to the
same standards for a single family residence in the same zone.
D.C. Streamlined and ministerial review for eligible affordable
housing projects: The Zoning Development Code will be updated to
ensure that eligible multifamily projects with an affordable component
are provided streamlined review and are only subject to objective
design standards consistent with relevant provisions of SB 35 and SB
330 as provided by applicable sections of the Government Code,
including but not limited to Sections 65905.5, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1,
65950, and 66300. State law defines objective design standards as those
that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official
and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-27
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
development applicant and public official prior to submittal.”
E.D. Emergency shelter parking: The Zoning Development
Code will be updated to require sufficient parking to accommodate all
staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do
not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential
or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with AB 139.
E. Accessory Dwelling Units in PDO Zones: The City will amend
Planning Development Ordinance Zones 2 and 7 to specifically allow
for Accessory Dwelling Units consistent with State law.
F. Permanent Supportive Housing. The Development Code will be
updated to address permanent supportive housing pursuant to AB
2162.
G. Residential Care Facilities. The City will analyze its Residential Care
Facilities requirements by December 31, 2022 and amend the
Development Code as needed to ensure that it permits residential care
facilities consistent with State law.
F.
Eight-Year Objectives
Ensure that the City’s Zoning Development Code is consistent
with State law and update the Zoning Development Code as
needed to comply with future changes.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Analysis of Residential Care Facilities requirements by December
31, 2022
Zoning Development Code Amendments adopted by February
2023
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-28
18. Provide Adequate Sites for Lower Income
Households on Nonvacant and Vacant Sites
Previously Identified
The City of Temecula will allow developments by-right pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units
are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix
A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously
identified in past housing elements (vacant sites identified in two prior
cycles and nonvacant sites identified in one prior cycle).
The City has identified 60 sites, all of which are vacant, to accommodate a
portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA. Of these 60 sites, 14 have been
included in two prior housing elements. All of these 14 sites are already
designated with the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
(AHOZ) and already allow by-right approval consistent with
Government Code section 65583.2(i).
If, during the course of the planning period, the City should identify
additional sites/replacement sites to accommodate a portion of the City’s
lower-income RHNA, and if the site is vacant and has been included in
two prior cycles or is occupied and been included in one prior cycle, this
program requires that the site be added to the City’s AHOZ thereby
providing for by-right development when 20 percent or more of the units
are affordable to lower income households consistent with Government
Code section 65583.2(i).
Eight-Year Objectives
Allow developments by-right pursuant to Government Code
section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are
affordable to lower income households on sites identified in
Appendix A that were previously identified for both the 5th and 4th
cycle housing elements through implementation of the City’s
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-29
Timeframe
Ongoing implementation during the planning period.
19. Mitigation of Nongovernmental Constraints
The City of Temecula takes a number of proactive steps to address non-
governmental constraints. This includes implementing the City's
Affordable Housing Overlay, providing a fee deferral/reimbursement
program, and streamlining processes. Temecula provides a free pre-
application process where a developer can receive no cost feedback from
all City departments during conceptual, due diligence, and pre-submittal
timeframes.
Eight-Year Objectives
Continue to help implement the City’s Affordable Housing
Overlay by issuing an RFP for development of City-owned sites
within three years of Housing Element adoption
Continue to implement fee deferral/reimbursement opportunities
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Issue RFP for City-owned sites for development of affordable
housing within three years of Housing Element adoption.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-30
Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock (Goal 4)
A community’s existing affordable housing stock is a valuable resource that
should be conserved and, if necessary, improved to meet habitability
requirements.
1720. Preserve At-Risk Housing Units
The City of Temecula will implement the following programs on an
ongoing basis to conserve the community’s affordable housing stock.
a. Monitor Units At Risk: Monitor projects at risk of converting to
market rate within the planning period.
b. Work with Potential Purchasers: Establish contact with public and
nonprofit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at
risk.
c. Tenant Education: The California Legislature passed AB 1701 in 1998,
requiring that property owners give a nine-month notice of their intent
to opt out of low-income restrictions. The City will work with tenants
of at-risk units and provide them with information regarding tenant
rights and conversion procedures. The City will also provide tenants
with information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies through the
Riverside County Housing Authority and other affordable housing
opportunities. The City will implement State Preservation Notice Law
(Gov. Code 65863.10, 65863.11, 65863.13) which requires owners to
provide tenants and affected public entities (including the City) notices
regarding expiring rental restrictions starting three years before
expiration.
d. Proactive Contact: The City will contact property owners of units at
risk of converting to market-rate housing within one year of
affordability expiration to discuss the City’s desire to preserve
complexes as affordable housing. Participation from agencies
interested in purchasing and/or managing at-risk units will be sought.
Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure tenants receive
the required notices at 3 years, 6 months, and 12 months, per California
law.
ed. Assist Tenants of Existing Rent-Restricted Units to Obtain Priority
Status on Section 8 Waiting List: Work with the Riverside Housing
Authority to place tenants displaced from at-risk units on a priority list
for Section 8 rental assistance.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-31
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will monitor the status of affordable projects at risk of
converting to market rate.
The City will identify nonprofit organizations as potential
purchasers/managers of at-risk housing units.
The City will explore funding sources available to preserve the
affordability of projects at risk of converting to market rate or to
provide replacement units.
The City will assist qualified tenants to apply for priority status on
the Section 8 voucher/certificate program immediately should the
owners of the at-risk project choose not to enter into additional
restrictions.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department and Riverside Housing Authority
Funding Sources
CDBG Funds, and Section 8 Vouchers/ Certificates
Timeframe
Annually monitor
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-32
1821. Code Enforcement
While the majority of the existing housing stock in Temecula is less than
30 years old, there is a need to enforce housing maintenance for some of
the older housing units. The City implements a code enforcement program
to correct housing and building code violations. The City has adopted and
enforces the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to seek voluntary compliance for code-
related issues and violations to enforce the UBC and offer
information regarding the City’s housing rehabilitation programs
to low- and moderate-income households cited for code violations.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Ongoing
1922. Residential Improvement Program
The City adopted a Five-Year Consolidated Plan and became a CDBG
Entitlement City as of July 2012. The Five-Year Consolidated Plan
includes funding a new Residential Improvement Program with CDBG
funds. The City will apply for funding on an annual basis.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will utilize CDBG funds or other funds, as available, to
provide financial assistance for minor repairs of homes owned and
occupied by lower-income homeowners. Eligible repairs include
plumbing, electrical, painting, carpentry, roof repairs, and masonry
work.
Apply for funding on an annual basis.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-33
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
CDBG Funds
Timeframe
Ongoing, as funding is available
2023. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
The Section 8 rental assistance program extends rental subsidies to very
low-income families and the elderly that spend more than 30% of their
income on rent. The Section 8 certificate subsidy represents the difference
between the excess of 30% of the monthly income and the actual rent (up
to the federally determined Fair Market Rent (FMR)). Most Section 8
assistance is issued to recipients as vouchers, which permit tenants to
locate their own housing and rent units beyond the FMR, provided the
tenants pay the extra rent increment.
The City contracts with the Riverside County Housing Authority to
administer the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher Program.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to contract with the County of Riverside to
administer the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and provide
rental assistance to at least 105 very low-income Temecula
households.
The City will support the County of Riverside’s applications for
additional Section 8 allocation.
The City will promote the Section 8 program to second unit
owners by publicizing this program and making the information
known to City and County agencies and to housing nonprofits.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
HCD Section 8 allocations
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-34
Timeframe
Ongoing
2124. Mobile Home Assistance Program (MPAP)
To preserve affordable housing opportunities found within mobile home
parks, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) provides financial and technical assistance to low-
income mobile home park residents through the Mobile Home Assistance
Program (MPAP). The MPAP provides loans of up to 50% of the purchase
price plus the conversion costs of the mobile home park so that low-
income residents or organizations formed by low-income residents can
own and/or operate the mobile home park.
Heritage Mobile Home Park is the only mobile home park in Temecula.
The owners have indicated that they intend to operate the park indefinitely.
In the event that the owners decide to close the park, the City will work
with the tenants to acquire funding through the MPAP program.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will provide technical assistance to Heritage Mobile
Home Park residents in pursuing MPAP funds in the event that
the owners propose to close the mobile home park.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Ongoing, as funding is available
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-35
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (Goal 5)
The City of Temecula is committed to implementing programs that
affirmatively further fair housing.
2225. Equal Housing Opportunity
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community, the housing program must include actions
that affirmatively further fair housing and promote housing opportunities
for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, family size, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, age, disability, or other protected
characteristics.
The Riverside County Consortium, of which the City is a member, has
adopted an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice and has
conducted fair housing planning to implement the recommendations
identified in the AI.
The Fair Housing Program of Riverside County maintains a
comprehensive approach to affirmatively further and ensure equal access
to housing for all persons. The three major components of this approach
are education, training/technical/consultant assistance, and fair housing
rights assistance.
The Fair Housing Program of Riverside County is also an advocate for
affordable housing, legislative reform, local compliance, and research
projects relative to fair housing and human rights issues. The agency works
with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and
HUD in the referral, enforcement, and resolution of housing
discrimination cases.
In 2017, the City prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing which included
a thorough analysis of fair housing issues and goals and programs related
to affirmatively furthering fair housing. This Assessment is included as
Appendix D to the Housing Element and provides a detailed roadmap for
addressing fair housing issues. The Housing Plan includes the City’s 2017
Assessment of Fair Housing by reference and directs the City to implement
the programs identified therein in accordance with the Assessment’s
direction.
As part of its 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City has further analyzed fair
housing issues in Temecula and assessed the City’s commitment to
affirmatively furthering fair housing.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-36
Eight-Year Objectives
General
Implement the programs identified in the City of Temecula 2017
Assessment of Fair Housing.
Outreach, Enforcement, and Education
Temecula will continue to participate in the Riverside County
Consortium in implementing the fair housing plan.
The City is committed to annual outreach, enforcement, and
education and will place fair housing brochures at City counters,
public libraries, the Temecula Community Center, and the
Temecula Community Recreation Center. Material will be
provided in English and Spanish. Copies will also be made
available for other venues as requested or identified at later dates.
The City will continue to post information regarding fair housing
services on the City website. Information will be provided in
English and Spanish. Future fair housing workshops can also be
advertised on the City website.
The City will continue to provide referral services to the Fair
Housing Program of Riverside County for residents inquiring
about fair housing issues.
The City will continue to update its fair housing brochures to
conform to state law.
The City will undertake ongoing efforts to educate the public about
affordable housing.
The City will work with the Fair Housing Program of Riverside
County to identify, by October 2022, any specific geographic areas
in the City which have higher levels of discrimination claims and
will target outreach and education to these areas.
The City will continue to utilize CDBG funds to affirmatively
further fair housing choice through the provision of fair housing
education, counseling, anti-discrimination and landlord-tenant
mediation services and to provide equal housing opportunities for
protected classes.
The City will continue to outreach to its Race, Equity, and
Diversity Commission on an annual basis to promote fair housing
policies and identify additional opportunities to support
implementation of Fair Housing laws and regulations.
Housing Mobility Enhancement
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-37
Implement Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development
Capacity
Implement Program 8, Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing
Development
Implement Program 10, Special Needs Housing Construction
Implement Program 17, Development Code Amendments
Implement Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernmental
Constraints
New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas
Implement Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development
Capacity
Implement Program 3, Public Property Conversion to Housing
Program
Implement Program 5, Accessory Dwelling Units
Implement Program 6, Large Sites
Implement Program 14, Expedite Processing of Affordable
Housing Projects
Place-Based Strategies for Community Preservation and
Revitalization
Implement Program 4, Replacement of Affordable Units
Implement Program 20, Preserve At-Risk Housing Units
Implement Program 21, Code Enforcement
Implement Program 22, Residential Rehabilitation Program
Implement Program 24, Mobile Home Assistance Program
Displacement Protection
Implement Program 4, Replacement of Affordable Units
Implement Program 27, Economic Displacement Risk Analysis
Implement Program 28, Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel
Temecula will continue to participate in the Riverside County
Consortium in implementing the fair housing plan.
The City will place fair housing brochures at City counters, public
libraries, the Temecula Community Center, and the Temecula
Community Recreation Center. Material will be provided in
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-38
English and Spanish. Copies will also be made available for other
venues as requested or identified at later dates.
The City will continue to post information regarding fair housing
services on the City website. Information will be provided in
English and Spanish. Future fair housing workshops can also be
advertised on the City website.
The City will continue to provide referral services to the Fair
Housing Program of Riverside County for residents inquiring
about fair housing issues.
The City will continue to update its fair housing brochures to
conform to state law.
The City will undertake ongoing efforts to educate the public about
affordable housing.
The City will work with the Fair Housing Program of Riverside
County to identify any specific geographic areas in the City which
have higher levels of discrimination claims and will target outreach
and education to these areas.
The City will continue to utilize CDBG funds to affirmatively
further fair housing choice through the provision of fair housing
education, counseling, anti-discrimination and landlord-tenant
mediation services and to provide equal housing opportunities for
protected classes.
Implement the programs identified in the City of Temecula 2017
Assessment of Fair Housing
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
CDBG, General Funds, other grant funding sources
Timeframe
Quarterly check-ins with fair housing service providers to review
quarterly reporting information and identify any specific areas of
concern
Annual coordination with fair housing service providers and other
organizations as part of the City’s CDBG planning process
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-39
At least quarterly fair housing advertisements to the City’s social
media accounts directly the public to available resources
OngoingBiennial coordination with the development community
Identify, by October 2022, any specific geographic areas in the City
which have higher levels of discrimination claims and target
outreach and education to these areas by March 2023
Various Program-specific implementation timeframes specified
therein
2326. Housing Referral Directory
The City provides housing referral services through its Housing Referral
Directory. People contacting the City are provided information on housing
projects offering housing specific to a person’s needs.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to offer housing referral services through its
Housing Referral Directory.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Ongoing, as funding is available
2427. Economic Displacement Risk Analysis
The City of Temecula can reduce the impact of displacement when it
occurs by preventing practices that increase or enable displacement. To
determine if market force economic displacement is occurring due to
development of new housing, increased housing costs, or other factors,
the City will conduct a study to determine if individuals and families are
being displaced and to evaluate local conditions that may contribute to
displacement. The study will analyze gentrification locally and will assess
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-40
how new development and community investments may potentially
influence displacement. If this study shows that displacement is occurring,
the City will develop an action program based on the identified causes of
displacement, including specific actions to monitor and mitigate
displacement. Annual review of the action program may result in
modifications to further reduce displacement risk. This program addresses
the fair housing issue of disproportionate housing needs, including
displacement risk.
This program addresses one of the prioritized contributing factors (high
demand for affordable housing, due to the high costs in the community
and the region) identified in the Fair Housing Analysis included in the
Background Report. To address this contributing factor, the City will
monitor how new development has the potential to further exacerbate the
high cost of land and identify strategies and programs to reduce or prevent
economic displacement. Given that the sites identified for new residential
development are currently vacant and already zoned to accommodate
residential uses, the City anticipates that new development will not have a
significant impact on the cost of land but will monitor this condition.
Eight-Year Objectives
Conduct a Displacement Risk Analysis Study to identify the local
conditions that lead to displacement and develop and implement
an action program based on the results. Identify potential partners
to participate in the study that specialize in eviction-related topics
related to displacement. Annually monitor program effectiveness.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Conduct study by December 31, 2023 and begin to establish
resulting programs by June 1, 2024. Ongoing implementation and
annual reporting throughout the planning period.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-41
28. Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel
The City of Temecula is committed to analyzing and improving fair
housing issues in the City. Based on the results of the analysis conducted
for the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and the findings of the
City’s 2017 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report, the City will
assemble a new Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) to annually monitor the
City’s existing fair housing programs, identify any areas of concern, and
make recommendations for program improvements to better address the
concerns of the community. This will include an evaluation of programs
included in the Housing Plan as well as other corresponding efforts
including future updates to the City’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing, CBDGCDBG planning, CIP planning, the budget planning, and
use of other grants and outside funding.
The TAP is expected to include the participation of the City Council
Finance Subcommittee, community groups, nonprofits, and/or other
advisory groups to ensure that community interests are well-represented.
The City will work diligently to specifically engage panelists focused on the
issues of lower-income communities and communities with special needs,
including persons with disabilities and persons experiencing or at risk of
homelessness. The assistance panel TAP will meet in conjunction with the
City’s CDBG annual program review (this is composed of nonprofits,
stakeholders, and agencies) which are conducted near the end of each
calendar year (near the APR timeframe).
As specified in the Housing Element Background Report, the City has
identified the three key contributing factors, in order of priority. These
factors are identified below with a summary of how this program will help
address these factors.
Prioritized Contributing
Factor
Program Response
1. Increased demand of
affordable housing with
supportive services to
serve special needs
populations.
This program will bring together
providers of affordable housing and
providers of supportive services for
special needs populations. Together, the
TAP will consider issues of fair housing
holistically and identify opportunities to
better support the developers/providers
of these services. By linking the timing of
the TAP meeting with the City’s CDBH
annual program review, the City can
identify specific issues and opportunities
in real time and make recommendations
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-42
on how the City can better support the
development of affordable housing with
supportive services to serve special
needs populations.
2. High demand for
affordable housing, due
to the high housing
costs in the community
and the region.
The City has identified
nongovernmental constraints such as
high housing costs in the community
and the region as a priority contributing
factor to fair housing. The City has a
number of other programs, including
implementation of the City’s Affordable
Housing Overlay, which help to address
this contributing factor.
As part of this program, the TAP will
consider ways that the City can help to
reduce nongovernmental constraints or
provide additional funding or
opportunities for the development of
more affordable housing options. This
could include targeted use of the City’s
CDBG funds in a manner consistent
with reducing nongovernmental
constraints and addressing the demand
for additional more affordable housing
options in Temecula.
3. Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies
and organizations.
The TAP will provide input, guidance,
and administrative resources for fair
housing agencies and organizations
serving Temecula. Specifically, the TAP
is expected to serve as a resource to gain
input on fair housing issues as well as
serve as ambassadors for the City’s fair
housing programs. This process will help
enhance the administrative resources
available for fair housing agencies and
organizations by expanding the City’s
education program and integrating
different partners into the fair housing
planning process.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-43
Eight-Year Objectives
Assemble a TAP and meet annually to consider fair housing issues
and identify opportunities to better meet the needs of the
Temecula community.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget
Timeframe
Meet with the TAP annually in conjunction with the City’s CDBG
annual program review
Promote Public Participation (Goal 6)
The City of Temecula values the role the public plays in planning for fair
and equitable housing options for current and future residents.
2529. Housing Element Monitoring and Reporting
To ensure that the housing programs identified in this Housing Element
are implemented and achieve their goals, an accurate monitoring and
reporting system is required.
Service agencies receiving CDBG funding from the City are required to
report on their program accomplishments at least annually. Records from
service agencies help the City assess the extent of housing and supportive
service needs, particularly regarding special needs populations.
The City is also required to submit annual reports to the state addressing
its success in implementing the General Plan and Housing Element. These
reports provide decision-makers with useful information regarding how
successful the housing programs are in meeting the needs of the
community.
Eight-Year Objectives
The City will continue to require that service agencies report their
accomplishments annually. This information will be used by the
City to assess the community’s housing needs and how well these
needs are being met by the existing programs.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-44
The City will continue to submit annual reports to the state
assessing the implementation of the General Plan and Housing
Element.
Responsible Agencies
Planning Department
Funding Sources
Departmental Budget and CDBG Funds
Timeframe
Annually
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-45
II. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
State law requires the Housing Element to include quantified objectives
for the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated
or conserved. Policies and programs establish the strategies to achieve
these objectives. The City’s quantified objectives are described under each
program, and represent the City’s best effort in implementing each of the
programs. Assumptions are based on past program performance and
funding availability, construction trends, land availability, and future
programs that will enhance program effectiveness and achieve full
implementation of the City’s housing goals.
The new construction objectives shown in the table are based on the City’s
RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period for very low-, low and
moderate-income housing, historic trends, and expectations for new
second units. Rehabilitation and conservation objectives are based on
specific program targets, including such programs as use of Section 8 rental
housing vouchers.
The table below summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for housing
during the 2021-2029 planning period.
Table 1: Quantified Objectives 2021-2029
Income Category New
Construction
Rehabilitation Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low 136 0
180256 Very Low 136 35
Low 240 0
Moderate 622 0 0
Above Moderate 1,004 0 0
Totals 2,138 35 180256
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PART 1: HOUSING PLAN HP-46
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
PART 2: BACKGROUND REPORT
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cycle 6 Housing Element Update ....................................................................................................... 1
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
A. Community Context ................................................................................................................................... 1
B. State Policy and Authorization ................................................................................................................... 2
C. Organization of the Housing Element Background Report and Policy Document ..................................... 3
D. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ........................................................................................... 4
E. Data Sources and Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 4
F. Public Participation .................................................................................................................................... 5
II. Accomplishments Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element ............................................................... 11
A. Review of 5th Cycle Housing Element ..................................................................................................... 11
B. Housing Production During 5th Cycle RHNA Period ............................................................................... 11
C. Appropriateness and Effectiveness of 5th Cycle Housing Element ......................................................... 12
III. Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................ 26
1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................... 26
2. Population Trends and Characteristics .................................................................................................... 27
C. Household Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 32
D. Income..................................................................................................................................................... 34
E. Housing Characteristics........................................................................................................................... 38
F. Housing Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 43
G. Future Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................. 52
H. Special Needs Groups ................................................................................................................................. 53
I. Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................................................................ 68
J. Estimates of Housing Need ........................................................................................................................... 73
IV. Constraints on Housing Production ........................................................................................... 74
A. Potential Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................ 74
B. Governmental Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 78
C. State Tax Policies and Regulations ....................................................................................................... 128
D. Infrastructure Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 129
E. Environmental Constraints .................................................................................................................... 130
V. Housing Resources ............................................................................................................. 135
A. Regional Housing Need......................................................................................................................... 135
B. Progress Towards the RHNA ................................................................................................................ 136
C. Sites for Housing Development ............................................................................................................. 139
C. Housing, Financial, and Services Resources ........................................................................................ 154
D. Administrative Resources ...................................................................................................................... 159
E. Environmental Constraints .................................................................................................................... 161
F. Energy Conservation and Climate Change ........................................................................................... 161
G. Consistency with the General Plan ............................................................................................................ 162
H. Relationship to Other City Plans and Policies ............................................................................................ 163
I. Priority for Water and Sewer ........................................................................................................................ 164
VI. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Analysis ................................................................ 165
A. Fair Housing Needs Assessment .......................................................................................................... 166
B. Analysis of Available Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge ......................................... 168
C. Disproportionate Housing Need ............................................................................................................ 245
D. Displacement Risk ................................................................................................................................. 262
E. Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues in Temecula ............................................. 267
F. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686 .................................................................................................... 271
G. Analysis of Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Priorities and Goals ............................................... 274
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-ii CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 5th Cycle Progress ............................................................... 12
Table 2: 5th Cycle Program Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 15
Table 3: Population Trends – Neighboring Jurisdictions ................................................................................ 27
Table 4: Population by Age (2018) ..................................................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Race and Ethnicity (2018) ..................................................................................................................... 29
Table 6: Job Growth and Employment Status................................................................................................... 29
Table 7: Jobs by Industry ................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 8: Jobs by Occupation .............................................................................................................................. 31
Table 9: Travel Time to Work (2018) ................................................................................................................... 31
Table 10: Commute Method (2018) ..................................................................................................................... 31
Table 11: Households by Tenure and Age (2018) ............................................................................................. 33
Table 12: Household Size by Tenure (2018) ...................................................................................................... 34
Table 13: Median Household and Per Capita Income ....................................................................................... 34
Table 14: Household Income for All Households and by Tenure (2018) ......................................................... 35
Table 15: Households by Income Group (2017) ................................................................................................ 36
Table 16: Occupations with Wages for Extremely Low to very Low-Income Households (2020) ................. 37
Table 17: Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020) .................................................................................... 38
Table 18: Vacancy by Type (2018) ...................................................................................................................... 39
Table 19: Housing Stock Conditions (2018) ...................................................................................................... 40
Table 20: Overcrowding by Tenure (2018) ......................................................................................................... 42
Table 21: Household Size by Tenure (2018) ...................................................................................................... 42
Table 22: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure (2018) ............................................................................................ 43
Table 23: Homes for Sale (May 2021) ................................................................................................................. 44
Table 24: Median Home Value by Community .................................................................................................. 45
Table 25: Rental Costs (2018) ............................................................................................................................. 45
Table 26: Rental Rates by Number of Bedrooms .............................................................................................. 46
Table 27: State Income Limits – Riverside County (2021) ................................................................................ 47
Table 28: Housing Affordability by Income Group ........................................................................................... 48
Table 29: Households by Income Level and Overpayment (2017) .................................................................. 50
Table 30: Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units ....................................................................................... 51
Table 31: Mobile Home Parks in Temecula ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 32: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 6th Cycle .............................................................................. 53
Table 33: Senior Population and Households (2010 and 2018) ....................................................................... 54
Table 34: Householder Age by Tenure (2018) ................................................................................................... 55
Table 35: Disabilities by Disability Type (2018)................................................................................................. 57
Table 36: Disabled Persons by Employment Status (2018) ............................................................................. 58
Table 37: Developmentally Disabled Persons by Residence Type (2018) ...................................................... 59
Table 38: Facilities and Services for Disabled Persons ................................................................................... 60
Table 39: Median Income By Household Size (2018) ........................................................................................ 61
Table 40: Household Size versus Bedroom Size by Tenure (2018) ................................................................. 62
Table 41: Families and Female Householder with Children Under 18 (2018) ................................................. 63
Table 42: Homeless Facilities (2020)* ................................................................................................................ 66
Table 43: Facilities and Services for the Homeless .......................................................................................... 67
Table 44: Summary of at-Risk Subsidized Housing Units ............................................................................... 68
Table 45: Summary of Needs .............................................................................................................................. 73
Table 46: Residential Development Standards ................................................................................................. 83
Table 47: Residential Development Standards – Old Town Specific Plan ...................................................... 85
Table 48: Residential Development Standards – Planning Development Overlays ....................................... 86
Table 49: Parking Space Requirements ............................................................................................................. 87
Table 50: Permitted Housing By Zoning District ............................................................................................... 94
Table 51: Permitted Housing By Zoning District ............................................................................................... 96
Table 52: Housing Qualifying for Density Bonus .............................................................................................. 99
Table 53: Density Bonuses Allowed ................................................................................................................ 100
Table 54: Planning Fee Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 107
Table 55: Development Impact Fees For The City of Temecula .................................................................... 109
Table 56: Total Processing and Fees for Typical Single- and Multi-Family Units ........................................ 110
Table 57: Planning and Zoning Approval Authority ....................................................................................... 114
Table 58: Typical Processing Times for Single Family Units (Tract), Multi-Family Units, and Single-Family
(Custom Homes) ................................................................................................................................................ 124
Table 59: Projects with Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments & EIRs * .............................................. 124
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-iii
Table 60: Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021-2029 ............................................................................... 135
Table 61: Progress Towards Meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA ........................................................................... 136
Table 62: Remaining RHNA .............................................................................................................................. 138
Table 63: Vacant Residential Sites (Exclusive of Specific Plans) ................................................................. 143
Table 64: Vacant Residential Land within Specific Plan Areas ..................................................................... 146
Table 65: Large Lot Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 151
Table 66: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Outside of Specific Plans ............................................................ 152
Table 67: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Inside of Specific Plans ............................................................... 153
Table 68: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA .......................................... 154
Table 69: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws ............................................................................................... 173
Table 70: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends .................................................................................................. 177
Table 71: Median Household Incomes ............................................................................................................. 206
Table 72: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity ....................................................................................... 218
Table 73: Overview of ROI Data Point Indicators ............................................................................................ 219
Table 74: People-Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low and Lowest Opportunity Census Tracts,
Temecula ............................................................................................................................................................ 231
Table 75: Place-Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low Opportunity Census Tract, Temecula ...... 231
Table 76: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract ............................................................................. 233
Table 77: Lower Resource Census Tract Analysis ......................................................................................... 234
Table 78: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs ......................................... 246
Table 79: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors .............................................................................. 274
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Median Home Sales Price for Existing Homes .................................................................................. 44
Figure 2 Vacant Developable Parcels in the City of Temecula ...................................................................... 147
Figure 3: Census Tracts within Temecula ....................................................................................................... 171
Figure 4: Diversity Index by Census Block – City of Temecula ..................................................................... 183
Figure 5: Diversity Index by Census Block - Countywide .............................................................................. 185
Figure 6: Female-Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present – City of Temecula .................. 187
Figure 7: Female-Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present - Countywide ........................... 189
Figure 8: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract – City of Temecula ......................... 191
Figure 9: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - Countywide .................................. 193
Figure 10: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract – City of Temecula ........................................ 195
Figure 11: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract – Countywide ................................................. 197
Figure 12: Median Household Income by Block Group – City of Temecula ................................................. 199
Figure 13: Median Household Income by Block Group – Countywide ......................................................... 201
Figure 14: Housing Choice Vouchers .............................................................................................................. 203
Figure 15: Racial Demographics 2010 – City of Temecula ............................................................................. 207
Figure 16: Racial Demographics 2018 – City of Temecula ............................................................................. 209
Figure 17: Racial Demographics 2010 – Countywide ..................................................................................... 212
Figure 18: Racial Demographics 2018 – Countywide ..................................................................................... 214
Figure 19: People-Based Opportunities by Census Tract – City of Temecula ............................................. 221
Figure 20: People-Based Opportunities by Census Tract – Countywide ..................................................... 223
Figure 21: Place-Based Opportunities by Census Tract – City of Temecula ............................................... 225
Figure 22: Place-Based Opportunities by Census Tract – Countywide ........................................................ 227
Figure 23: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map – City of Temecula ................................................................. 241
Figure 24: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map – Countywide ......................................................................... 243
Figure 25: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group – City of Temecula .......................................................... 249
Figure 26: Cost-Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract – City of Temecula .................................. 251
Figure 27: Cost-Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract - Countywide ........................................... 253
Figure 28: Cost-Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract – City of Temecula .................................. 255
Figure 29: Cost-Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract - Countywide ........................................... 257
Figure 30: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract – City of Temecula ................................................. 259
Figure 31: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract – Countywide ......................................................... 265
Figure 32: Displacement Risk – City of Temecula .......................................................................................... 269
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-iv CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Housing Site Inventory
Appendix B – Glossary
Appendix C – Public Engagement Summary
Appendix D – 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing, Temecula
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-1
HOUSING
ELEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Community Context
Nestled in Temecula Valley in southwestern Riverside County, just
north of the San Diego County line, sits the City of Temecula, which
was incorporated in 1989. Having grown from a modest initial
incorporated population of 27,099, the City of Temecula is currently
home to approximately 112,000 residents in an area of roughly 30
square miles. The City is bounded by the City of Murrieta to the north,
unincorporated areas within the County of Riverside to the east, west,
and south, and unincorporated areas within the County of San Diego
to the south. Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 15, a
north/south freeway that connects the Inland Empire region of
Riverside and San Bernardino counties to San Diego County, and State
Route 79, a primarily east/west highway (although it runs concurrent
with I-15 through the City of Temecula) that links Interstate 10 with
Interstate 15, and links Temecula to communities further east in
unincorporated Riverside and San Diego counties.
Since its early beginning, the Temecula Valley has always been a place
where the combination of mild climate and beautiful rolling hills have
attracted human settlement. The hillsides were the home of the
Temecula Indians, the first residents of the area. Ancestors of the
Temecula Indians were in this area as early as 900 A.D. The native
people from here to the coast who shared the same language and
culture became commonly known as the Luiseños, because many of
their villages were once under the influence of Mission San Luis Rey.
Temecula’s modern European history began in the 1800s, when Old
Town Temecula played an important role as a stop along the Butterfield
Overland stagecoach line, which was to run between St. Louis and San
Francisco. Old Town Temecula is the historic core of the City and is
located in its western portion. Change from a small agricultural
community to an urbanized City began in earnest in 1964 when Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical purchased the 87,500-acre Vail Ranch.
Development of the ranch occurred under the design of a master plan
that continues to influence the land use pattern and circulation system
of Temecula today. While much of the City’s development pattern has
been guided by master plans over the past 50 years, as the City looks to
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-2 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
accommodate a new generation of residents, future development will
occur in line with new master plans (including “Specific Plans”) which
set the framework for more diverse communities which offer a broader
range of housing and lifestyle choices. Moreover, while there continues
to be vacant land left to develop in Temecula, the majority of it is
currently entitled, under construction, or undevelopable; looking
forward, the City is excited to plan for and implement strategic
programs which reflect this new development pattern.
B. State Policy and Authorization
State Housing Law (Government Code Section 65583) requires that a
“housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of
existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies,
quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for
the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The
housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including
rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobile homes, and shall
make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.” This report is an update of
the Housing Element adopted by the City in 2013.
The assessment and inventory must include all of the following:
• Analysis of population and employment trends, documentation of
projections, and a quantification of the locality's existing and
projected housing needs for all income levels. Such existing and
projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional
housing need in accordance with Section 65584 of the Government
Code.
• Analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including
level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics,
including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.
• An inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment,
and an analysis of the relationship between zoning, public facilities,
and city services to these sites.
• Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all
income levels and for persons with disabilities, including land use
controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements,
fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing
and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that
directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-3
• Analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing
for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the
price of land, the cost of construction, requests to develop housing
at densities below the minimum densities in the inventory of sites,
and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing
development and submittal of an application for building permits
that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional
housing need.
• Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly,
disabled, including developmentally disabled, large families,
farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and
families and persons in need of emergency shelter.
• Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to
residential development.
• Analysis of existing assisted multifamily rental housing
developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing
to market-rate during the next 10 years.
C. Organization of the Housing Element
Background Report and Policy Document
The City faces important housing issues such as preserving the historic
traditions of the community, ensuring that new development is
compatible with the existing character, providing a range of housing
that meets the needs of all residents, ensuring that affordable housing
is available to all segments of the community, and balancing
employment with housing opportunities.
The Background Report of this housing element identifies the nature
and extent of Temecula’s housing needs, including those of special
populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential
constraints to housing production, and energy conservation
opportunities. By examining the City’s housing, resources, and
constraints, the City can then determine a plan of action for providing
adequate housing. This plan is presented in the Housing Plan, which is
the policy component of the Housing Element. In addition to
identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents
information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. This
information is instrumental in providing a better understanding of the
community, which in turn is essential for the planning of future
housing needs.
Since the update of the City’s last Housing Element in 2013, statutory
changes have occurred that must be included in the 2021-2029
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-4 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Temecula Housing Element. These laws have been incorporated in the
appropriate sections throughout this Background Report (Part 2 of the
Housing Element) as well as in its accompanying Housing Plan (Part
1).
D. Relationship to Other General Plan
Elements
The Temecula General Plan comprises the following 10 elements:
(1) Land Use; (2) Circulation; (3) Housing; (4) Open Space/
Conservation; (5) Growth Management/Public Facilities; (6) Public
Safety; (7) Noise; (8) Air Quality; (9) Community Design; and
(10) Economic Development. Background information and policy
direction presented in one element is also reflected in other General
Plan elements. For example, residential development capacities
established in the Land Use Element are incorporated within the
Housing Element. The General Plan goals and policies were reviewed
for consistency with proposals recommended in this Housing Element
update. This Housing Element builds upon other General Plan
elements and is consistent with the goals and policies set forth by the
General Plan. City staff maintains a conscious effort to ensure that
revisions to any element of the General Plan achieve internal
consistency among all General Plan elements.
The City also recognizes that recent changes to State laws require the
updating of various elements of the General Plan, upon update of the
Housing Element, to address the following issues:
● Required amendment to address flood hazards and flood
management, fire hazards, sea level rises, and other climate
change-related issues.
E. Data Sources and Glossary
The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes from
a variety of sources, including the United States Census, the American
Community Survey, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) data, various studies produced by the City of Temecula, the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) approved
data set, the California Department of Finance, the California
Department of Employment Development, local newspapers, and
local real estate agents. These data sources represent the best data
available at the time this Housing Element was prepared.
This Housing Element Background Report, along with the state-
mandated requirements, includes a glossary of terms used in the
element. This glossary has been included to allow readers to better
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-5
understand the terminology used in the Housing Element discussion;
it can be found in Appendix B of this element.
F. Public Participation
State law requires that “the local government shall make a diligent
effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the
community in the development of the housing element . . .”
(Government Code Section 65583).
Residents of Temecula and other key community stakeholders have
had, and will continue to have, several opportunities to provide input
during the development of the Housing Element. In February 2020,
the City launched its Housing Element Update website
(TemeculaCA.gov/housing) to provide the community with an
overview of the project, answer key questions, explain the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation, and host links for community surveys and
workshops.
Housing Survey
● On March 26, 2020, the City released a robust bilingual
Housing Survey (available in English and Spanish) to assess
current conditions and better understand community priorities
regarding housing in Temecula. By the time the survey was
closed at the end of August 2020, the City had received over
850 responses. From March through August 2020, the City
undertook the following activities to promote the Housing
Element Update, educate the community regarding housing
opportunities and challenges, and encourage participation in
the Survey: Newsletter sent to every resident (approximately
33,000 addresses) which included an article about the Housing
Element
● Numerous social media posts using the hashtag #HouseThis?
resulting in 52,000 social media impressions/views and 729
social media impressions generated
● Emails sent to over 10,000 stakeholders
● Targeted advertisements shared with the Temecula Chamber
and Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors
● Advertisements and educational material shared on Channel 3
(local broadcast) and the City’s YouTube channel
● To specifically reach out to lower income residents, Ppaper
copies of the Housing Survey (in English and Spanish) were
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-6 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
made available at City Hall, the Senior Center, area
laundromats, and through the City’s Homeless Liaisons
● The results of the above Public Participation were incorporated
in the City’s Housing Programs. Permit Ready ADUs, Missing
Middle Housing Workshops, and affordable housing programs
were all incorporated into the Housing Plan based on
constituent feedback
The results of the Housing Survey were summarized in a Community
Survey Report which was finalized in October 2020 and posted to the
City’s website for public review and consideration; the Community
Survey Report is included as Appendix C.
Virtual Community Workshop
In an effort to further educate the community regarding the Housing
Element Update, the City hosted a live bilingual (English and Spanish)
Virtual Community Workshop on September 23, 2020 using Zoom due
to social distancing requirements related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Virtual Community Workshop consisted of a recorded
presentation providing an overview of the project, local housing
conditions and socioeconomic information, and key issues and
opportunities which will be addressed in the City’s updated Housing
Element. Videos of the English- and Spanish-language presentations
(which included translated PowerPoint presentations) were made
available on the City’s website following the live presentation. As of
June 1, 2021, the presentation has been viewed 131 times. Through this
process, the City received the following general types of feedback:
● More affordable housing options should be available to meet
the needs of all household incomes
● The historic character of Temecula should be preserved
● New residential growth should be balanced with new
infrastructure improvements
● People who grow up in Temecula should be able to afford to
continue to live here
Draft Housing Element Public Review
The Draft Housing Element was circulated for a 30-day Public Review
on beginning on August 17, 2021 (set to conclude onand concluding
on September 15, 2021). As part of this review period, the City hosted
a community open house on August 17, 2021 to introduce the Draft
Housing Element and solicit public feedback on the Housing Plan. The
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-7
community open house was advertised on social media in English and
Spanish and flyers were posted throughout the community in both
languages. Through this process, the City received the following
feedback, which is also detailed in Appendix C:
To be summarized upon conclusion of Public Review Address
the needs of missing middle housing
Promote the development of more affordable housing options
in the City
Work collaboratively with regional partners to secure additional
funding and plan for housing at a regional level
Work collaboratively with local employers to address the
housing needs of people working in Temecula
Allow for mixed-use development
Be sensitive to existing neighborhoods
As a result of public feedback received on the Draft Housing Element,
two new policies (Policies 2.8 and 2.9) were developed and included in
the Housing Plan.
Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission
The Housing Element was presented to the City’s Race, Equity,
Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Commission on October 14, 2021.
The Commission provided feedback on programs, and the outreach
that the City conducted to ensure that the Housing Element
incorporated programs and a process that included as many members
of the community as possible.
Stakeholder Engagement
The City mailed or emailed meeting notification letters to numerous
stakeholders and interested parties, with a special focus on parties
presenting the needs of lower income residents, including:
● Affirmed Housing
● Amcal Housing
● Assistance League of Temecula Valley
● Atria Senior Living
● Autism Society Inland Empire
● Birth Choice
● Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County
● Bridge Housing
● Building Industry Association
● California Apartment Association Inland Empire
● California State University San Marcos, Temecula
● Canine Support Teams
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-8 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
● Catholic Charities
● Chemo Buddies 4 Life
● Circle of Care Ministries
● City of Murrieta
● City of Temecula
● CityNet
● Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
● Community Access Center
● Community Mission of Hope
● Comprehensive Autism Center
● County of Riverside Department of Social Services
● County of Riverside Economic Development Agency
● County of Riverside Health Department
● Court Appointed Special Advocate of Riverside County
● Desert AIDS
● Economic Development of Southwest California
● Fair Housing Counsel of Riverside County, Inc.
● Foothill AIDS
● Go Banana
● GRID Alternatives
● Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley
● Health to Hope
● Hitzke Consulting
● Homeowners Associations
● Hospice of the Valleys
● Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
● Inland Regional Center
● John Stewart Company
● Ken Follis
● League of Women Voters
● Love of Christ Fellowship Church
● Michelle's Place
● Mission Village Apartments
● OC YMCA
● Our Nicholas Foundation
● Path of Life Ministries
● Pechanga Casino
● Project Touch
● Rancho Community Church
● Rancho Damacitas
● Rancho en Espanol
● Riverbank Village Apartments
● Riverside City and County CoC
● Riverside County Office on Aging
● Riverside County Sheriff
● Riverside Transit Agency
● Riverside County Veterans Services
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-9
● Rose Again Foundation
● SAFE Alternatives for Everyone
● Safety Research Associates, Inc
● Smart Moms
● Solari Enterprises
● Southern California Council of Governments
● Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors
● Southwest Workforce Development Center
● St. Catherine's Catholic Church
● State Council on Developmental Disabilities
● State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development
● Temecula Homeless Coalition
● Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission
● Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
● Temecula Valley Historical Society
● Temecula Valley Unified School District
● Temecula Valley Union School District Adult Transition
Program
● Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association
● The Center for Life Change
● U.S. Vets Initiative
● VA Loma Linda Healthcare
● Various religious institutions
● Voice of Children
● Wells Fargo
● Western Riverside Council of Governments
Final Housing Element
Also pPrior to adoption the of the FinalDraft Housing Element a
Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the local newspaper and
a direct mailing sent to organizations representing the interests of low
and moderate income households and persons with special needs.
Other Comments Received
The City has not yet received any other public comments on the
Housing Element Update separate from those collected through the
above mentioned engagement efforts.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-10 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-11
II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER THE 5TH
CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
The following sections reviews and evaluates the City’s progress in
implementing the 5th Cycle (2014-2021) Housing Element. This
section also analyzes the difference between projected housing need
and actual housing production.
A. Review of 5th Cycle Housing Element
The 5th Cycle Housing Element program strategy focused on the
accomplishment of policies and implementation of programs to
provide adequate housing sites; assist in development of affordable
housing; remove governmental constraints; conserve and improve
existing affordable housing; and promote equal housing opportunity.
The 5th Cycle Housing Element identified the following goals:
GOAL 1: Provide Adequate Housing Sites
Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical,
social, and economic needs of existing and future residents.
GOAL 2: Assist in Development of Affordable Housing
Provide affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula.
GOAL 3: Remove Governmental Constraints
Remove governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement,
and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible.
GOAL 4: Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing
Conserve the existing affordable housing stock.
GOAL 5: Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
Provide equal housing opportunities for all residents in Temecula.
B. Housing Production During 5th Cycle
RHNA Period
The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element specifically addressed housing
needs for the City from 2014 through 2021 and will continue to be
implemented through October 2021, when the City’s 6th Cycle
Housing Element will be adopted.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-12 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 1 below shows the total number of housing units built in the
City during the 5th RHNA cycle to date and compares these units with
the units required to be accommodated under the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) provided by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). During the 2014-2021 RHNA
period, 1,604 units were constructed in the City and another 291 are
under construction and will be delivered on or before June 30, 2021, as
shown in Table 1. Between units built and under construction, the City
will have delivered 1,895 housing units, 127% of its 5th Cycle RHNA.
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 5th Cycle Progress Status Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA
Allocation 187 188 251 271 596 1,493
Built 7 8 0 15 1,574 1,604
Under
Construction/
Permitted
0 0 0 85 206 291
Remaining
Allocation
180 180 251 171 0 (Surplus
of 1,184
units)
0
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
C. Appropriateness and Effectiveness of 5th
Cycle Housing Element
The overarching goals and policies of the 5th Cycle Housing Element
continue to be appropriate to encourage the City’s housing goals. While
most goals, policies, and programs included in the 5th Cycle Housing
Element continue to be appropriate to address the City’s housing
needs, the Housing Plan will be updated to provide clearer guidance,
to remove redundancies, and to provide more specific direction to
encourage affordable and special needs housing at viable sites and
affirmatively further fair housing. The Housing Plan will also be
updated to streamline programs so that they are easier for staff to
implement and to include a matrix of programs that includes mid-cycle
timing priorities to make it easier to identify the applicability and timing
of programs during the planning period. To improve the ease of use of
the Housing Plan, the housing programs will be presented as a user-
friendly table.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-13
As discussed in Table 2, most housing programs have been effective
or are necessary. The intent of these programs will be kept in the
Housing Plan, with revisions to address identified specific housing
needs, constraints, affirmatively furthering fair housing, or other
concerns identified as part of this update. The City implemented many
of the housing programs in the last several years and anticipates that
these changes will further encourage workforce, affordable, and special
needs housing.
The City of Temecula has a variety of affordable housing opportunities
for all economic segments of the community. By partnering with
government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private property
owners, it works to create safe and affordable housing for all residents
of our community. All the affordable housing units located within the
City of Temecula are owned and managed by private property
managers. The City maintains a robust “Affordable Housing Brochure”
which is available online and at City Hall which catalogs all the City’s
affordable multi-family rental units and provides the address, unit
count, and contact information for each property.
The Housing Plan, included as Part 1 to this 2021-2029 Housing
Element includes modifications to make programs more effective,
clarify objectives, and ensure that the programs are implementable. See
the Housing Plan provided for the goals, policies, and programs of this
Housing Element.
While the City took a number of significant steps to promote housing
during the prior planning period, including adopting General Plan
Amendments that added over 3,000 additional residential units to the
City’s housing stock, the experience of Temecula and other small
communities throughout the State demonstrates that it is very difficult
for local governments to meet their fair share housing goals for lower
and moderate income housing when working alone. All cities, including
Temecula, have limited financial and staffing resources and require
substantial state and/or federal assistance, which is not always available
at the levels necessary to support the City’s housing needs, as well as
the technical assistance of area non-profit housing developers and
agencies. Additionally, Temecula is also facing infrastructure
constraints outside of its control, including an immediate need for I-15
improvements and other transportation improvements. As discussed
below, the City has modified some of its existing programs to better
reflect community priorities and meet state housing objectives, and has
introduced a number of new programs to further address short- and
long-term housing needs.
In order to develop an effective housing plan for the 2021–2029 period,
the City must assess the effectiveness of its existing housing programs
and determine the continued appropriateness of such programs in
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-14 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
addressing housing adequacy, affordability, and availability issues. This
section evaluates the accomplishments of each program against the
objectives established in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, explains any
discrepancy in program achievements, and recommends programmatic
changes to the 2021–2029 Housing Element.
Cumulative Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs
Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments
review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and
related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs (e.g.,
low income households, elderly, persons with disabilities, large
households, female headed households, farmworkers, persons
experiencing homelessness, and non-English speakers). As shown in
Table 2, during the 2014-2021 RHNA period, the City worked
diligently to continuously promote housing for special needs groups in
a variety of ways by:
Adoption of the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay to expand
housing opportunities for lower income households;
Continuing to permit emergency shelters in accordance with
State law and providing resources to persons experiencing
homelessness seeking shelter;
Assisting low income and elderly residents that apply for
Section 8 rental assistance;
Amending the Municipal Code to require that
transitional/supportive housing be subject to the same
permit processing procedures as other housing in the same
zone and to require single room occupancy type-units (SROs)
to be permitted by right within all residential zones;
Adoption of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance to allow
for the development of a unique housing option well-suited to
meet the needs of the City’s lower-income and elderly
populations;
Continuing to support and provide resources for individual
homeowners requesting exemptions to zoning and
development standards in order to accommodate a disability
thereby assisting persons with disabilities;
Providing bilingual handouts and other materials on fair
housing to assist non-English speakers.
The City has considered the cumulative efforts to address special
housing needs and finds that the City’s existing programs to address
the community’s special housing needs, particularly for lower income
households, the elderly, persons experiencing homelessness, persons
with disabilities, and non-English speakers, continue to be relevant and
will be continued in the next planning period. Through this review, the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-15
City has identified the need to amend specific Housing Programs to
more thoroughly address the needs of large households, female headed
households, and farmworkers. Programs 9 (Housing for Extremely
Low-Income Households), 10 (Special Needs Housing Construction),
17 (Development Code Amendments), and 25 (Equal Housing
Opportunity) have been amended to further address the community’s
special housing needs. The City will continue to review progress
towards addressing these needs as part of each Housing Element
Annual Progress Report.
Table 2: 5th Cycle Program Evaluation
Program Eight-Year Objective Progress/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/
Delete
Provide Adequate Housing Sites
1. Land Use Element
and Development Code
● The City will monitor the
availability of sites zoned for
residential uses to ensure
sufficient capacity exists to
accommodate Temecula’s
Regional Housing Need
Allocation.
● The City will maintain an
inventory of sites suitable for
residential development
(including underutilized
commercial sites) and
provide that information to
interested developers.
● The City will encourage the
reservation of land that is
currently designated for
multiple-family development
by providing the multi-family
sites inventory to multi-
family housing developers to
solicit development interest.
The City will update the
multi-family sites inventory
at least once a year.
● The City will continue to
allow residential mixed use to
be permitted at a density of
30 units per acre to
encourage the construction
of multi-family housing by
right. In addition, the City
will continue to provide
appropriate flexible
development standards such
as increased building height
and shared parking
opportunities for
developments with minimum
densities of 20 dwelling units
per acre in the Zoning
Ordinance.
The City continues to monitor the
availability of sites suitable for
residential development and has
maintained adequate capacity for
the duration of the current planning
period.
The City maintains an inventory of
suitable housing sites, including
whether the site is developed of
vacant, and provides this inventory
to the development community via
the City’s online GIS dataset, which
includes identification of vacant
land. This includes multi-family sites
that are updated at least once a year.
The City continues to allow
residential mixed use projects to be
developed at densities of at least 30
units per acre.
In 2018 the City adopted its
Affordable Housing Overlay
(AHO) Zoning District (Chapter
17.21 of the Temecula Municipal
Code). The purpose of the AHO is
to facilitate the development of
affordable multifamily housing,
enable the city to meet its housing
goals, and ensure that affordable
housing developments will be
compatible with surrounding land
uses by establishing an affordable
housing overlay zoning district. A
property designated within the
affordable housing overlay may be
developed either in the manner
provided by the AHO or in the
manner provided in the underlying
zoning district. Projects that comply
with the requirements of the AHO
are permitted by right. Two projects
have been entitled in the AHO
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-16 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
● The City will address Zoning
and General Plan Land Use
Designation inconsistencies.
● To accommodate Temecula’s
regional housing need for
units affordable to lower-
income households totaling
2,007 (1381 4th cycle
unaccommodated plus 626
for the 5th planning period),
the City will establish an
Affordable Housing Overlay
(AHO) on the sites identified
in Appendix B, applicable to
at least 100 acres. After
establishment of the AHO,
sites identified in Appendix B
will require the following:
o Minimum densities of
20 units per acre with
a maximum allowable
density of 30 units per
acre under the AHO
o 50 percent of the
remaining need (1,003
units) will be
accommodated on
sites allowing
exclusively residential
uses where no
commercial or mixed
used development is
allowed.
o Multifamily uses at
the densities
established under the
AHO will be allowed
by right, without a
CUP, planned
development permit
or other discretionary
action pursuant to GC
Section 65583.2 (h)
and (i)
o If needed, the City
will amend existing
development
standards to
accommodate the
increased allowable
densities within the
overlay areas.
Zoning District and are moving
forward with construction.
The City will continue to provide
appropriate flexible development
standards such as increased building
height and shared parking
opportunities for developments
with minimum densities of 20
dwelling units per acre in the
Zoning Ordinance.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-17
2. Sites for Emergency
Shelters
● The City will continue to
permit emergency shelters as
identified in the
Development Code.
● The City will continue to
work with public agencies
and private entities to
provide adequate resources
for the community’s
homeless population. The
City will also, to the extent
feasible, participate in efforts
to unite organizations and
entities that provide services
to the homeless.
● The City will develop
standards for emergency
shelters consistent with
Government Code Section
65583.
The City continued to work with the
Riverside County Continuum of
Care and other nonprofit
organizations to provide resources
for homeless persons seeking
shelter. Several nonprofit agencies
continue to provide referrals to
housing facilities for the homeless in
the Temecula Valley area.
The City has utilized CDBG funds
to Support a continuum of services
in Riverside County to prevent and
eliminate homelessness including,
but not limited to, homelessness
prevention programs, emergency
shelter programs and transitional
housing. Since July 1, 2017, the City
has funded $71,647 of CDBG funds
towards the program administered
through the Temecula Help Center
and collaborative efforts to local
Community Based Organization
(CMOH – Community Mission of
Hope). During the City’s
Consolidated Plan Cycle, which the
City is in its 4th year of its 5-year
plan the Program has assisted 453
persons on a projected goal of 350
persons for the 5-year cycle. The
City has continued to focus on this
need and continues to place the high
importance on addressing the City’s
residents facing homelessness and
those at risk of being homeless.
Additionally, the City provides
funding to help support Project
TOUCH, a winter shelter operated
out of the Roadway Inn in
Temecula. For the 2020-2021
season, the City of Temecula
provided financial assistance in the
amount of $10,000 and the facility
provided shelter for 10-12
individuals per night.
The City will continue to permit
emergency shelters in accordance
with State law and is in the process
of development standards for these
shelters.
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-18 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
3. Sites for
Transitional/Supportive
Housing
● The City will amend the
Temecula Municipal Code to
ensure that supportive and
transitional housing are
treated as residential uses
subject only to the same
restrictions that apply to
other residential dwellings of
the same type in the same
zone.
In April 2013 City amended the
Municipal Code to require
transitional/supportive housing to
be subject to the same permit
processing procedures as other
housing in the same zone and to
require SROs to be permitted by
right within residential zones. In
April 2013, the City Council
adopted an Ordinance permitting
transitional and supportive housing,
as well as efficiency unit housing in
residential zones.
Modify: The City has
amended its Municipal
Code as specified in
the prior planning
period’s program.
However, the City will
amend this program to
recognize that further
amendments are
necessary to comply
with State law. The
City will identify new
objectives to ensure
that sites continue to
be available for
transitional/supportive
housing.
Assist in Development of Affordable Housing
4. Density Bonus
Ordinance
● The City will establish a
density bonus program
consistent with State Density
Bonus Law (Government
Code Section 65915).
● The City will inform
residential development
applicants through the pre-
application process and/or
through the Development
Review Committee meeting
of opportunities for density
increases.
In 2018 and 2020, the City adopted
a density bonus program consistent
with State Density Bonus Law
(Ordinance 18-10 and Ordinance
No. 2020-05).
The City continued to encourage
density bonus opportunities which
increase the total allowable density
for senior and affordable housing
projects.
Continue
5. Land Assemblage
and Affordable
Housing Development
● The City will continue to
acquire land for use in the
provision of affordable
housing.
● The City will facilitate the
development of housing
units affordable to lower-
income households by
publicizing its density bonus
program and its incentives,
and by making this
information available to
developers and nonprofit
housing agencies through the
development application
process.
The City approved one deed-
restricted affordable housing
developments during the 2017
calendar year. The project resulted
in the construction of 15 new very
low-income units. The City
approved two deed-restricted
affordable housing developments
during the 2020 calendar year.
Together, they will result in the
construction of 131 affordable
units.
The City issued a Request for
Proposals to develop various city-
owned sites. One land purchase is
underway (Uptown Sports District)
for affordable housing
development.
The City actively participates in
events and seminars with the
development community in order to
advertise and communicate our
incentives. The City also promotes
its Pre-application development
process in which incentive
information is provided in the initial
planning of a future project.
Continue
6. ADUs ● The City will continue
to allow and promote the
The City continued to allow and
promote the construction of
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-19
construction of affordable
second units to result in the
construction of ten new
second units. The City will
also promote the program by
publicizing the program and
notifying owners of
underutilized residential
property.
affordable second units. The City
has developed a comprehensive
website dedicated to sharing
information about the opportunity
to develop second units and is
currently working on preparing
permit-ready ADU plans (not yet
complete).
7. Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program
● The City will continue to
promote the regional
Mortgage Credit Certificate
program to assist an average
of ten households annually
by publicizing the program
and making the program
known to developers and
nonprofit housing agencies.
The City continued to promote the
MCC Program administered by the
Riverside County Economic
Development Agency (EDA). Two
households were assisted under this
program between 2014 and 2020.
The City actively provides
information about the MCC
Program to the general public when
inquiries about homebuyer
assistance programs are received.
Participation in the County’s MCC
Program is approved by the City
Council on an annual basis. Last
year, an article about the program
was published in a local newspaper.
Continue
8. First Time Home
Buyer (FTHB) Program
● The City will work with
Riverside County to establish
a consortium to participate in
the County’s FTHB program.
The City will also review state
Notices of Funding
Availability (NOFAs) as they
are released in an effort to
participate in the state FTHB
program.
The City studied the opportunity to
participate in the County’s FTHB
program but ultimately participation
was not feasible.
Delete
9. Housing for
Extremely Low-Income
Households
● The City will encourage the
development of housing for
extremely low-income
households through a variety
of activities, such as
conducting outreach to
housing developers on an
annual basis, providing
financial assistance (when
feasible) or in-kind technical
assistance or land write-
downs, providing expedited
processing, identifying grant
and funding opportunities,
applying for or supporting
applications for funding on
an ongoing basis, reviewing
and prioritizing local funding
at least twice in the planning
period, and/or offering
additional incentives beyond
the density bonus.
The City conducts regular
inspections of affordable housing
units, and provides them with any
resources they may request. The
City has also syndicated Mission
Village Apartments with a 55-year
covenant, rehabilitation, and project
wide solar equipment to reduce
climate impacts. Additionally,
Rancho California Apartments re-
upped their convent for 55 years,
rehabbed the project, and made
energy improvements.
The City hosts an annual Temecula
Trekkers program to educate real
estate agents on the City’s zoning
process, permitting process, and
available support and services.
The City offers a free pre-
application to all developers to assist
with due diligence.
The City conducted an affordable
housing RFP. Two projects are in
the pipeline (Rancho Highlands and
Las Haciendas). Both projects used
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-20 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
streamlining, (AHOZ and Uptown
Temecula Specific Plan). One
additional affordable project, Vine
Creek has also been entitled.
10. Energy
Conservation
● The City will partner with
Southern California Edison
(SCE) and the Southern
California Gas Company
(SoCalGas) to promote
energy-saving programs such
as the Residential Multifamily
Energy Efficiency Rebate
program, the Heating and
Cooling Rebate program, and
incentives of up to $4,000
available to SCE and
SoCalGas residential
customers.
● The City will annually ensure
that local building codes are
consistent with state-
mandated green building
standards.
● The City will be responsible
for implementing the state’s
energy conservation
standards (e.g., Title 24
Energy Standards). This
includes checking building
plans and other written
documentation showing
compliance and inspecting
construction to ensure that
the dwelling units are
constructed according to
those plans. Applicants for
building permits must show
compliance with the state’s
energy conservation
requirements at the time
building plans are submitted.
The City has promoted energy
conservation in a variety of ways,
including:
● 2014 newsletter mailer that
included energy efficiency tips
● Nov. 7 2012 Energy Upgrade
California Workshop held at
library
● Flex Alerts on August 18, 2020
● Oct. 24, 2019 Wildfire Safety
Energy Alert
● July 8, 2018 Wildfire Safety Alert
● November 9, 2020 Recycling
Day
The City continues to review local
building codes to ensure they are
consistent with state-mandated
green building standards. The City
also continues to implement the
state’s energy conservation
standards and requires applicants
for building permits to demonstrate
compliance at the time building
plans are submitted.
Continue
Remove Governmental Constraints
11. Development Fees
Reimbursement
● The City of Temecula will
continue to enter into
development agreements
with qualifying
senior/affordable housing
projects on a case-by-case
basis to provide development
fee reimbursement.
The City continues to approve
Owner Participation Agreements to
assist with the development of
affordable housing and
reimbursement of City fees as
appropriate.
Continue
12. Expedite Processing
of Affordable Housing
Projects
● The City will continue to
implement expedited review
to all projects with an
affordable housing
component.
● The City will need to develop
objective criteria to evaluate
affordable housing projects
to qualify them for expedited
processing.
The City continued to implement
shorter processing times for
affordable housing projects. Three
affordable housing projects received
expedited review and processing
during the 2014-2021 planning
period.
The City continues to implement
expedited review to all projects with
an affordable housing component.
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-21
● The City will continue to
prioritize projects based on
the level of affordability
being proposed in order to
meet its regional housing
need.
The City also establishes priority
based on the level of affordability
being proposed in order to further
meet the RNHA.
As part of the City’s new Affordable
Housing Overlay (AHO) Zoning
District (adopted in 2018), the City
established Regulations and
Development Standards applicable
to projects developed pursuant to
the AHO. The City is currently
undertaking an update to its Zoning
Code to identify potential issues
related to objective/subjective
design standards and will update the
Code to create consistent objective
design standards in accordance with
State law.
13. Periodic
Consistency Review of
General Plan, Municipal
Code and State Law
● City staff will track and stay
abreast of changes in state
housing law and work with
the City Attorney to
incorporate changes into the
General Plan and Municipal
Code.
● The City Attorney will advise
staff on significant case law
interpretations that may
cause the need to amend the
General Plan or Municipal
Code.
The City continued to track and stay
abreast of changes in state housing
law which would require
amendments to the General Plan
and Municipal Code. There were
several housing-related
amendments made to the code
during the 2014-2021 planning
period, including amendments
related to accessory dwelling units,
short-term rentals, and density
bonus. The City also facilitates
weekly meetings with the City
Attorney, Staff receives training
from the City Attorney, and the City
Attorney prepares opinion letters.
Continue
Conserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing
14. Preserve At-
Risk Housing Units
● The City will monitor the
status of affordable projects
at risk of converting to
market rate.
● The City will identify
nonprofit organizations as
potential
purchasers/managers of at-
risk housing units.
● The City will explore funding
sources available to preserve
the affordability of projects at
risk of converting to market
rate or to provide
replacement units.
● The City will assist qualified
tenants to apply for priority
status on the Section 8
voucher/certificate program
immediately should the
owners of the at-risk project
choose not to enter into
additional restrictions.
The City continued to work with
interested parties to renew the
covenants on any expiring
affordable restrictions. Specifically,
the Rancho California Apartments
have been rehabilitated and
upgraded and the property’s Section
8 contract, which was set to expire
in 2013, has been renewed for 55
years (through 2068). The City has
also worked closely with Mission
Village as well.
City staff continues to assist the
general public and tenants with
Section 8 rental information. The
City continues to work with the
Riverside County Housing
Authority regarding displaced
tenants.
The City will continue to explore
funding sources available to
preserve the affordability of projects
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-22 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
at risk of converting to market rate
or to provide replacement units.
The City will continue to assist
qualitied tenants to apply for for
priority status on the Section 8
voucher/certificate program
immediately should the owners of
the at-risk project choose not to
enter into additional restrictions
15. Code Enforcement ● The City will continue to seek
voluntary compliance for
code-related issues and
violations to enforce the
UBC and offer information
regarding the City’s housing
rehabilitation programs to
low- and moderate-income
households cited for code
violations.
The City continued implementation
of Weed Abatement and
Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
programs. Annually during the
2014-2021 planning period, the City
generally conducted 20,444
complaint-driven code case
inspections, 22,015 proactive code
case inspections, [6,488 weed
abatement cases, and 328
abandoned vehicle cases].
Continue
16. Residential
Improvement Program
● The City will utilize CDBG
funds or other funds, as
available, to provide financial
assistance for minor repairs
of homes owned and
occupied by lower-income
homeowners. Eligible repairs
include plumbing, electrical,
painting, carpentry, roof
repairs, and masonry work.
Thirty-four households received
CDBG funds through the Habitat
for Humanity Critical Home
maintenance repair program and an
additional five households were
supported through the CRID
Alternatives Solar Improvements.
During the 2014-2021 planning
period, the City has worked with
Habitat for Humanity on
rehabilitation programs.
Additionally, CDBG-CV2 funds
will be used for mortgage assistance.
Since July 1, 2017, the City has
funded $151,127.00 of CDBG
funds towards the program
administered through Habitat for
Humanity Inland Valley. During the
City’s Consolidated Plan Cycle,
which the City is in its 4th year of its
5-year plan the Program has assisted
18 households on a projected goal
of 15 for the 5-year cycle. The City
has continued to focus on this need
and continues to place the high
importance on assisting low-income
residents with maintaining an
affordable housing stock and
ensuring that owners are able to
address critical repairs needed to
their homes through these grants.
Eligible residents are eligible for
$10,000 grants in address the critical
needs necessary to their household.
Continue
17. Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program
● The City will continue to
contract with the County of
Riverside to administer the
Section 8 Rental Assistance
The Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program is administered by the
Riverside County Housing
Authority. The City assists qualified
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-23
Program and provide rental
assistance to at least 105 very
low-income Temecula
households.
● The City will support the
County of Riverside’s
applications for additional
Section 8 allocation.
● The City will promote the
Section 8 program to second
unit owners by publicizing
this program and making the
information known to City
and County agencies and to
housing nonprofits.
tenants to apply for the Section 8
voucher/certificate program and
provides information about the
Section 8 rental assistance
voucher/certificate program.
Since 2014, 758 units have been
assisted.
City staff provides information on
handouts and on the City website
regarding affordable housing and
contact information for the
Riverside County Housing
Authority regarding Section 8.
18. Mobile Home
Assistance Program
(MPAP)
● The City will provide
technical assistance to
Heritage Mobile Home Park
residents in pursuing MPAP
funds in the event that the
owners propose to close the
mobile home park.
The City will provide technical
assistance to Heritage Mobile Home
Park residents in pursuing MPAP
funds in the event that the owners
propose to close the mobile home
park. There are been no requests for
this assistance during the 2014-2021
planning period.
Continue
Promote Equal Housing Opportunities
19. Equal Housing
Opportunity
● Temecula will continue to
participate in the Riverside
County Consortium in
implementing the fair
housing plan.
● The City will place fair
housing brochures at City
counters, public libraries, the
Temecula Community
Center, and the Temecula
Community Recreation
Center.
● The City will continue to post
information regarding fair
housing services on the City
website. Future fair housing
workshops can also be
advertised on the City
website.
● The City will continue to
provide referral services to
the Fair Housing Program of
Riverside County for
residents inquiring about fair
housing issues.
● The City will continue to
update its fair housing
brochures to conform to
state law.
● The City will undertake
ongoing efforts to educate
the public about affordable
housing.
The City continued to participate in
the Riverside County Consortium in
implementing the fair housing plan,
post information regarding fair
housing services on the City
website, and provide referral
services to the Fair Housing
Program of Riverside County.
City staff placed posters at all
affordable housing locations, City
Hall, public libraries, the
Community Center, and the
Community Recreation Center. All
brochures updated and provided to
the City by the Fair Housing
Council are placed at these locations
for the public to access.
The City actively maintains a
website identifying affordable
housing complexes in Temecula.
To support and ensure equal access
to housing opportunities, the City
has utilizes CDBG funds to
affirmatively further fair housing
choice through the provision of fair
housing education, counseling, anti-
discrimination and landlord-tenant
mediation services, and to provide
equal housing opportunities for
protected classes. Since July 1, 2017,
the City has funded $76,838 of
CDBG funds towards the program
administered through Fair Housing
Council of Riverside County.
During the City’s Consolidated Plan
Cycle, which the City is in its 4th
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-24 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
year of its 5-year plan the Program
has assisted 1,205 households on a
projected goal of 1,750 households
for the 5-year cycle. The City has
continued to focus on this need and
continues to place the high
importance on assisting low-income
residents with fair housing services
for both residents and landlords.
The City of Temecula is an
entitlement City through the
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program. The
CDBG program requires 5 year
consolidated plans that include
specific programming for Fair
Housing. Additionally, the CDBG
program requires annual reporting
on annual accomplishments. The
City also contracts with Fair
Housing Council of Riverside
County to provide services to
residents. Fair Housing Council of
Riverside County provides quarterly
updates on Fair Housing trends,
education, and other resources.
20. Housing Referral
Directory
● The City will continue to
offer housing referral
services through its Housing
Referral Directory.
The City continued to offer housing
referral services through its Housing
Referral Directory.
Continue
21. Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
● The City will continue to
treat licensed residential care
facilities and State-licensed
group homes serving six or
fewer persons no differently
than other by right single-
family housing uses. In
addition, the City will
continue to allow residential
care facilities with seven or
more persons, by right in the
High Residential zone district
and conditionally in all other
residential zones.
● The City will continue to
provide a formalized
reasonable accommodation
process for individual
homeowners requesting
exceptions to zoning and
development standards to
accommodate a disability.
The City continues to implement
the Temecula Municipal Code
which treats licensed residential care
facilities and State-licensed group
homes serving six or fewer persons
no differently than other by right
single-family housing uses.
Implementation of the Municipal
Code also allows residential care
facilities with seven or more persons
by right in the High Residential zone
district and conditionally in all other
residential zones.
The City continues to support and
provide resources for individual
homeowners requesting exemptions
to zoning and development
standards in order to accommodate
a disability.
The City has updated Pala Park to
be more accessible. Separately the
City has invested in Eagle Soar
Splash Pad, an accessible splash pad.
The City also makes significant
investments in specific
programming for people with
special needs and hybrid
programming (helping people with
disabilities interface with those
people without disabilities).
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-25
22. Employee Housing ● The City will amend the
Temecula Municipal Code to
define and permit employee
housing providing
accommodations for six or
fewer employees. Employee
housing shall be deemed a
single-family structure with a
residential land use
designation.
● The City will review, and if
necessary amend the
Temecula Municipal Code to
comply with the other
requirements of the
Employee Housing Act
detailed above.
The City has undertaken a number
of updates to its Municipal Code
during the past planning period to
address State law. The City will
continue to implement amendments
to its Municipal Code to meet all
State law requirements.
Continue
23. Housing Element
Monitoring and
Reporting
● The City will continue to
require that service agencies
report their accomplishments
annually. This information
will be used by the City to
assess the community’s
housing needs and how well
these needs are being met by
the existing programs.
● The City will continue to
submit annual reports to the
state assessing the
implementation of the
General Plan and Housing
Element.
The City continues to submit annual
reports to the state assessing the
implementation of the General Plan
and Housing Element.
Continue
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-26 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
III. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
1. Introduction and Background
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing,
economic, and demographic conditions in Temecula, assess the
demand for housing for households at all income levels, and document
the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The
Housing Needs Assessment also addresses whether assisted housing
projects are at risk of converting to market rate projects. The Housing
Needs Assessment is intended to assist Temecula in developing
housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local
housing needs.
Several sources of data were used to describe existing demographic and
housing conditions, including the following:
• Pre-Certified Local Housing Data package for the City of Temecula
developed by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) and pre-certified by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) for use in 6th cycle housing
elements.
• Data from the 2010 U.S. Census, 2014-2018 U.S. Census American
Community Survey (ACS), California Department of Finance
(DOF), California Employee Development Department (EDD),
and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
is included to provide information on population, household,
housing, income, employment, and other demographic
characteristics.
• Regional information from the Fair Housing Council of Riverside
County.
• Other sources of economic data such as information from the
websites Zillow.com and Apartments.com, and other published
data are used where current Census, ACS, DOF, HUD, and other
standard data sources do not provide relevant data.
• Interviews with key agencies and organizations were conducted to
obtain information on housing needs and, in particular, needs of
populations with special housing needs.
• Research and data related to fair housing, including Census Scope,
Social Science Data Analysis Network, the UC Davis Center for
Regional Change and Rabobank, N.A., and the California Fair
Housing Task Force.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-27
• California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidebook
on online data viewer
• City of Temecula 2017 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Due to the use of multiple data sources (with some varying dates), there
are slight variations in some of the information, such as total
population and total household numbers, presented in this document.
However, these variations do not significantly affect the discussion of
overall housing trends and changes.
2. Population Trends and Characteristics
Population Growth
Table 3 shows population growth for Temecula and other jurisdictions
in the region from 2000 through 2020. According to data prepared by
the California DOF, the population of Temecula in 2020 was 111,970
persons, an increase of approximately 11.9% since 2010. During the
previous decade (2000 to 2010), the City’s population increased by
73.4%. Temecula’s growth rate has been higher than the countywide
growth rate, with Riverside County experiencing significantly lower
population growth rates than Temecula during the 2000 to 2010 period,
and slightly lower population growth rates than Temecula during the
2010 to 2020 period, as shown in Table 3. Factors for growth include
its affordable housing (compared to Los Angeles, Orange County and
San Diego County) desirable climate, high quality education system,
and geographical features. The rapid growth in Temecula during the
2000 to 2010 period can be partially attributed to the annexation of Vail
Ranch in 2001, and Redhawk in 2005. A neighboring jurisdiction, the
City of Murrieta, had both the greatest numeric change in population
(71,279 persons) and the largest percentage change in population
(161%).
Table 3: Population Trends – Neighboring Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 Change
2000-20
% Change
2000-20
Temecula 57,716 100,097 111,970 54,254 94.0%
Lake Elsinore 28,928 51,821 63,453 34,525 119.4%
Hemet 58,812 78,657 85,175 26,363 44.8%
Perris 36,189 68,386 80,201 44,012 121.6%
Murrieta 44,282 103,466 115,561 71,279 161.0%
Riverside County 1,545,387 2,189,641 2,442,304 896,917 58.0%
Sources: US Census, 2000; DOF, 2020
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-28 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Age
Changes in the age groups can indicate future housing needs. Table 4
compares age cohort sizes in 2018 for Temecula and Riverside County.
In Temecula, children under 15 comprise 22.9% of the City’s
population, teens and young adults (15 – 24) represent 14.3%, and
adults in family-forming age groups (25 – 44) comprise 26.5%. Adults
aged 45 to 64 represent 26.1% of the population and seniors (65 and
over) comprise 10.3%. In 2018, the median age in Temecula (34.8
years) was half a year lower than that of Riverside County (35.3 years)
and a year and a half lower than the statewide median age (36.3 years).
The median age of City residents increased, up from 32.8 years in 2010.
Table 4: Population by Age (2018)
Age
Temecula Riverside County
Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 Years 7,165 6.4% 158,008 6.6%
5 to 9 8,474 7.6% 169,403 7.1%
10 to 14 10,027 8.9% 177,796 7.5%
15 to 19 8,768 7.8% 177,697 7.5%
20 to 24 7,232 6.4% 170,153 7.1%
25 to 34 14,834 13.3% 328,917 13.8%
35 to 44 14,957 13.3% 303,627 12.7%
45 to 54 17,390 15.5% 303,884 12.8%
55 to 64 11,849 10.6% 265,192 11.1%
65 to 74 7,363 6.6% 186,772 7.8%
75 to 84 3,039 2.7% 101,900 4.3%
85 and Over 1,132 1.0% 39,937 1.7%
TOTAL 112,230 100% 2,383,286 100%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Race and Ethnicity
Table 5 shows the ethnic composition of Temecula’s population. More
than two-thirds (69.2%) of the City’s population identify as White. The
next largest racial group is “other race” (9.3%), followed by Asian
(8.6%), “two or more races” (6.7%), Black or African American (5.1%),
American Indian or Alaska Native (0.6%), and Native Hawaiian and
Pacific Islander (0.6%). More than one quarter of the population
(29.6%) is of Hispanic or Latino origin. Temecula is a less ethnically
diverse community than the County as a whole, which can influence
buying preferences and the demand for special needs housing (e.g.,
multigenerational housing).
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-29
Table 5: Race and Ethnicity (2018)
Race/Ethnicity
Temecula Riverside County
Number Percent Number Percent
White 77,689 69.2% 1,450,134 60.8%
Black or African American 5,675 5.1% 153,545 6.4%
American Indian or Alaska Native 639 0.6% 19,281 0.8%
Asian 9,656 8.6% 152,130 6.4%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 624 0.6% 6,843 0.3%
Some Other Race 10,440 9.3% 495,241 20.8%
Two or More Races 7,507 6.7% 106,112 4.5%
TOTAL 112,230 100% 2,383,286 100%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 33,194 29.6% 1,154,517 48.40%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Employment
One of the factors that can contribute to an increase in demand for
housing is expansion of the employment base. Table 6 shows the
employment and unemployment rates for persons 16 years and older
that were in the labor force in 2010 and 2018. In 2018, ACS data
indicated that there were 56,371 employed persons in the Temecula
labor force and that the unemployment rate was approximately 6.7%,
a decrease from 8.6% in 2010 as the City (and country) emerged from
the Great Recession. According to the labor report data compiled by
the California EDD, the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Metropolitan Area’s average annual unemployment rate in 2018 was
estimated at 4.3%, Riverside County’s rate was 4.5%, while California’s
was 4.1%.
Table 6: Job Growth and Employment Status
2010 2018
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Persons in Labor Force 49,321 100% 56,371 100%
Employed 45,094 91.4% 52,619 93.3%
Unemployed 4,227 8.6% 3,752 6.7%
Sources: US Census, 2006-2010 ACS and 2014-2018 ACS
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-30 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Industry and Occupations
Of Temecula’s employed residents, the “Educational services, health
care and social assistance” industry employed the most people at
20.7%. The second largest employment sector was the “Arts,
entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services” industry,
which had 16.1% of the total employed persons in Temecula. The top
two employment categories in Riverside County were the “Educational
services, health care and social assistance” industry at 20.7% and the
“Retail trade” industry at 12.9%.
Table 7: Jobs by Industry
Industry Number Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining 228 0.4%
Construction 3,348 6.5%
Manufacturing 4,564 8.8%
Wholesale trade 1,326 2.6%
Retail trade 6,067 11.8%
Transportation, warehousing, utilities 2,872 5.6%
Information 1,131 2.2%
Finance and insurance, real estate and rental and leasing 3,013 5.8%
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, waste mgmt. 5,356 10.4%
Educational services, health care and social assistance 10,691 20.7%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services 7,300 14.2%
Other services 2,470 4.8%
Public administration 3,210 6.2%
TOTAL (Civilian Labor Force) 51,576 100%
Armed Forces 1,043 100%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
The City’s workforce holds a variety of types of jobs as shown in Table
8, with the largest sector (38.8%) working in management, business,
science, and arts occupations, followed by 24.1% in sales and office
occupations. Employment and occupation trends play an important
role in defining housing needs. This relationship extends beyond the
impact of employment growth on housing demand in the City and
includes how wage levels and median earnings affect the type of
housing affordable to workers and households in Temecula. There is a
significant gap, for example, between the median earnings of a resident
employed in management and a resident employed in a service
occupation, and this translates into the type of housing that is needed
in the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-31
Table 8: Jobs by Occupation
Occupation Number Percent Median
Earnings*
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 20,013 38.8% $72,450
Service occupations 10,783 20.9% $22,418
Sales and office occupations 12,429 24.1% $32,454
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 3,622 7.0% $47,230
Production, transportation, and material moving 4,729 9.2% $35,390
*Median earnings in previous 12 months prior to survey
Sources: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package; US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Travel to Work
Approximately 53% of Temecula workers 16 years and over travelled
less than 30 minutes to work. Comparatively, more than a quarter
(25.5%) of workers drive more than 60 minutes to work, which reflects
the fact that many individuals working in Los Angeles, Orange, and San
Diego counties live in Temecula due to its relatively more affordable
home prices. Most Temecula workers, 78.0%, drive alone to work and
11.4% carpool. Table 9 identifies travel time to work and Table 10
identifies commute methods for Temecula workers in 2018.
Table 9: Travel Time to Work (2018)
Number Percent
Less than 10 minutes 5,726 12.1%
10-19 minutes 13,544 28.6%
20-29 minutes 5,702 12.0%
30-44 minutes 5,710 12.0%
45-59 minutes 4,625 9.8%
60 + minutes 12,092 25.5%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Table 10: Commute Method (2018)
Number Percent
Drive Alone 39,867 78.0%
Carpooled 5,827 11.4%
Public Transportation 50 0.1%
Walk 611 1.2%
Other 1,044 2.0%
Work at Home 3,716 7.3%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-32 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
C. Household Characteristics
According to the Census, a household is defined as all persons living
in a housing unit. This definition includes families (related individuals
living together), unrelated individuals living together, and individuals
living alone.
A housing unit is defined by the Census as a house, an apartment, a
mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or
if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters.
Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat
separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct
access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The
occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more
families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated
persons who share living arrangements.
People living in retirement homes or other group living situations are
not considered “households” for the purpose of the U.S. Census count.
The household characteristics in a community, including household
size, income, and the presence of special needs households, are
important factors in determining the size and type of housing needed
in the City.
Table 11 below identifies the ages of householders in Temecula and
Riverside County in 2018 based on ACS data from 2014-2018.
Homeowner households are generally headed by residents early
middle-aged to middle-aged, with 56.4% of homeowner households
headed by a resident 35-59 years of age; however, 13.5% of homeowner
households are headed by someone 65-74 years. Households who rent
their homes trend slightly younger; about 74% of renter households are
headed by a person aged 25-54.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-33
Table 11: Households by Tenure and Age (2018)
Temecula Riverside County
Number % Number %
Total: 33,889 - 718,349 -
Owner Occupied: 22,127 65.3% 472,401 65.8%
Householder 15 to 24 years 172 0.5% 2,850 0.4%
Householder 25 to 34 years 2,425 7.2% 43,381 6.0%
Householder 35 to 44 years 3,843 11.3% 77,261 10.8%
Householder 45 to 54 years 5,896 17.4% 101,801 14.2%
Householder 55 to 59 years 2,742 8.1% 54,048 7.5%
Householder 60 to 64 years 2,214 6.5% 49,348 6.9%
Householder 65 to 74 years 2,977 8.8% 80,773 11.2%
Householder 75 to 84 years 1,384 4.1% 46,189 6.4%
Householder 85 years and older 474 1.4% 16,750 2.3%
Renter Occupied: 11,762 34.7% 245,948 34.2%
Householder 15 to 24 years 565 1.7% 12,648 1.8%
Householder 25 to 34 years 2,604 7.7% 56,200 7.8%
Householder 35 to 44 years 3,037 9.0% 60,241 8.4%
Householder 45 to 54 years 3,039 9.0% 47,171 6.6%
Householder 55 to 59 years 966 2.9% 18,293 2.5%
Householder 60 to 64 years 403 1.2% 14,055 2.0%
Householder 65 to 74 years 809 2.4% 21,041 2.9%
Householder 75 to 84 years 239 0.7% 10,839 1.5%
Householder 85 years and older 100 0.3% 5,460 0.8%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Data Profile (Table B25007)
Table 12 identifies the household sizes by housing tenure. In 2018, the
majority of households consisted of 2 to 4 persons, which is consistent
with the County’s profile although Temecula’s percentage was higher
(70.5% vs. 60.3%). Large households of 5 or more persons made up
15.6% of the total households in Temecula. The average household size
was 3.31 persons in Temecula, compared to 3.27 persons for the
County. Additionally, the average household size in 2018 for an owner-
occupied unit was 3.34 persons per household and 3.25 persons per
household for a renter-occupied unit.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-34 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 12: Household Size by Tenure (2018)
Temecula Riverside County
Number % Number %
Owner Households 22,127 100.0% 472,401 100.0%
Householder living alone 2,659 12.0% 94,214 19.9%
Households 2–4 persons 16,040 72.5% 297,075 62.9%
Large households 5+
persons 3,428 15.5% 81,112 17.2%
Average Household Size 3.34 persons 3.25 persons
Renter Households 11,762 100.0% 245,948 100.0%
Householder living alone 2,065 17.6% 61,899 25.2%
Households 2–4 persons 7,852 66.8% 135,765 55.2%
Large households 5+
persons 1,845 15.7% 48,284 19.6%
Average Household Size 3.25 persons 3.3 persons
Total Households 33,889 100.0% 718,349 100.0%
Householder living alone 4,724 13.9% 156,113 21.7%
Households 2–4 persons 23,892 70.5% 432,840 60.3%
Large households 5+
persons 5,273 15.6% 129,396 18.0%
Average Household Size 3.31 persons 3.27 persons
Sources: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS; 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Data Profile (Table
B25009)
D. Income
Household Income
From 2000 to 2018, the median household income increased by 52.8%
to $90,964 and the per capita income increased by 58.3% to $34,135.
From 2010 to 2018, there was an increase in both per capita and median
household incomes. Table 13 identifies the per capita and median
household incomes.
Table 13: Median Household and Per Capita Income
2000 2010 2018
Median Household Income $59,516 $77,850 $90,964
Per Capita Income $21,557 $29,089 $34,135
Sources: US Census, 2000; US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
In 2018, the majority (76.9%) of Temecula’s households earned in
excess of $50,000 per year. The incidence of households earning less
than $35,000 per year was significantly higher among renter households
(25.5%) than owner households (9.7%). Table 14 identifies household
income by tenure. As shown in Table 14, the median income of owner
households is approximately $43,000 more than renter households.
Compared to the County, median household incomes are higher for
both owner and renter households – by 37.6% and 50.9%, respectively.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-35
Table 14: Household Income for All Households and by Tenure (2018)
All Households Owner Households Renter Households
Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $5,000 485 1.4% 195 0.9% 290 2.5%
$5,000 to $9,999 328 1.0% 65 0.3% 263 2.2%
$10,000 to $14,999 706 2.1% 327 1.5% 379 3.2%
$15,000 to $19,999 707 2.1% 256 1.2% 451 3.8%
$20,000 to $24,999 901 2.7% 268 1.2% 633 5.4%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,008 5.9% 1,026 4.6% 982 8.3%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,706 8.0% 1,391 6.3% 1,315 11.2%
$50,000 to $74,999 5,585 16.5% 3,250 14.7% 2,335 19.9%
$75,000 to $99,999 5,173 15.3% 3,331 15.1% 1,842 15.7%
$100,000 to $149,999 7,904 23.3% 5,770 26.1% 2,134 18.1%
$150,000 or more 7,386 21.8% 6,248 28.2% 1,138 9.7%
Median Household Income
– Temecula $90,964 $107,349 $64,060
Median Household Income
– Riverside County $63,948 $77,991 $42,445
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Households by Income Group
A special aggregation of 2013-2017 ACS data performed by HUD –
titled the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data
– provides a breakdown of households by income group by tenure. The
number of households in extremely low, very low, low, and
moderate/above moderate-income groups is shown in Table 15.
Nearly 80% of all households are at or above moderate income. The
HUD CHAS data indicates the extremely low-income group represents
5.6% of households, and a higher proportion are renters (1,315) than
owners (565). The very low-income group represents 6.6% of
households and the low-income group represents 10.4% of
households. The City’s RHNA (see Table 32) identifies the City’s share
of regional housing needs for extremely low, very low, and low-income
households, as well as for moderate and above moderate-income
households. As shown in Table 15, there is a larger proportion of
renters in the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups, while
there is a larger proportion of moderate and above moderate-income
groups in owner households.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-36 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 15: Households by Income Group (2017)
Income Group Total Owner Renter
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low (<30% AMI) 1,880 5.6% 565 2.6% 1,315 10.9%
Very Low (31–50% AMI) 2,210 6.6% 705 3.3% 1,505 12.5%
Low (51–80% AMI) 3,510 10.4% 1,900 8.8% 1,610 13.4%
Moderate and Above Moderate (>80%
AMI) 26,050 77.4% 18,430 85.3% 7,620 63.3%
TOTAL 33,645 100% 21,600 100% 12,045 100%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
Available: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
Poverty Levels
The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that 1,632 (5.9%) of all Temecula
families and 7,678 individuals (6.9%) had incomes at or below the
poverty level. According to the ACS data, poverty rates are disparate
between races and economic indicators are greatest for those identified
as Black or African American. In 2018, those identified as Black or
African American had a poverty rate of 11.8% compared to 9.2% for
American Indian and Alaska Natives, 8.7% for “some other race
alone,” 7.8% for Hispanics/Latinos, 7.0% for Asians, and 6.4% for
Whites.
The level of poverty in a jurisdiction often influences the need for
housing to accommodate those persons and families in the very low
and low-income categories. The U.S. Census Bureau measures poverty
by using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and
composition of who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than
the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is
considered in poverty. For example, the poverty threshold for a family
of two with no children would be $17,120, a household of two with a
householder aged 65 or older and no children has a poverty threshold
of $15,453, and the poverty threshold of a family of four with two
children under the age of 18 would be $25,926. (U.S. Census Bureau,
2019).
Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as those earning
up to 30% of the area median household income. For Riverside
County, the median household income in 2020 was $75,300. For ELI
households in Temecula (and the rest of Riverside County), this results
in an income of $26,200 or less for a four-person household or $15,850
for a one-person household. ELI households have a variety of housing
situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-37
receiving only public assistance, such as social security disability
insurance or disability insurance, qualify as ELI households.
Table 16 provides representative occupations with hourly wages that
are close to, but not within, the ELI income range as reported by the
Employment Development Department. Note that all occupations
indicated median annual wages above the ELI income threshold for a
one-person household, perhaps suggesting that any employment in
Temecula could lift a household out of the extremely low-income
group. As shown in Table 15, ELI households make up 5.6% of all
households in Temecula. Based on Table 29, 86.4% of ELI
households in Temecula pay more than 30% of their incomes for
housing.
Table 16: Occupations with Wages for Extremely Low to very Low-Income Households (2020)
Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage
Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $12.67
Bartenders $12.64
Gaming Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $12.63
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee
Shop $12.59
Cooks, Fast Food $12.58
Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $12.57
Amusement and Recreation Attendants $12.56
Waiters and Waitresses $12.56
Dishwashers $12.40
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $12.36
Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products $12.33
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $12.32
Gaming Dealers $12.23
Door-to-Door Sales Workers, News and Street
Vendors, and Related Workers $12.20
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $12.20
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender
Helpers $12.15
Source: Employment Development Department, Long-Term Occupational Projections 2018-2028 (accessed May 2021)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 50% of
Temecula’s very low-income regional housing needs assigned by HCD
are projected to be extremely low-income households. As a result, from
the very low-income need of 1,359 units (see Table 32), the City has a
projected need of 679 units for extremely low-income households (i.e.,
households earning 30% or less of the area median income). Based on
current figures, extremely low-income households will most likely be
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-38 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
facing an overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing
conditions. Some extremely low-income households could include
individuals with mental or other disabilities and special needs. To
address the range of needs of ELI households, the City will implement
several programs including the following programs (refer to the
Housing Element Policy DocumentPlan for more detailed descriptions
of these programs):
Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units
Program 78: Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing
Development
Program 89: Housing for Extremely Low-Income
Households
Program 810: Special Needs Housing Construction
Program 1415: Emergency Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive Housing
Program 1720: Preserve At-Risk Housing Units
Program 2023: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
Program 2225: Equal Housing Opportunity
Program 2326: Housing Referral Directory
Program 2427: Economic Displacement Risk Analysis
Program 28: Fair Housing Assistance Panel
E. Housing Characteristics
Housing Type
Table 17 identifies the types of housing units in Temecula in 2020. The
table summarizes total housing stock according to the type of structure.
As shown in the table, the majority of housing in Temecula is single-
family detached housing, which accounted for 78.5% of units in 2020.
Mobile homes represent 0.4% of the housing stock. Multifamily units
represent 17.5% of the housing stock, with duplex through fourplex
units accounting for 2.3% and multifamily developments with five or
more units accounting for 15.2%. Single-family attached homes
represent 7.2% of housing units.
Table 17: Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020)
Total Single Family Multifamily Mobile
Homes Occupied Vacant Detached Attached 2 – 4 5 + Units
Units 36,550 28,701 1,300 847 5,540 162 34,511 2,039
Percent 100% 78.5% 7.2% 2.3% 15.2% 0.4% 94.4% 5.6%
Sources: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package; DOF E-5 Report 2020
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-39
Vacancy Rate
Table 18 also shows the number and percentage of occupied units and
the percentage of vacant units. It is important to note that these counts
include all vacant units, including those units that are newly constructed
but not yet occupied. In order for the housing market to function
properly in a city there should always be some level of housing vacancy,
otherwise rents or housing prices could skyrocket. The 5.6% vacancy
in Temecula is in line with the historical equilibrium in California (5.5%
for rental vacancy and 1.2% for homeownership vacancy). 1
The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that there were 2,047 vacant units
in 2018. As shown in Table 18, of the total vacant units in 2018, 717
were for rent, 169 were for sale, 180 were rented or sold but not yet
occupied, and 503 were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.
The overall vacancy rate in Temecula in 2018 was 6.0%, a rate which
has fluctuated since 2010.
Table 18: Vacancy by Type (2018)
Vacancy Type Number Percent
For rent 717 35.0%
Rented, not occupied 117 5.7%
For sale only 169 8.3%
Sold, not occupied 63 3.1%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional
use 503 24.6%
For migrant workers 0 0.0%
Other vacant 478 23.4%
TOTAL 2,047 100%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Housing Conditions
The U.S. Census provides only limited data that can be used to infer
the condition of Temecula’s housing stock. In most cases, the age of a
community’s housing stock is a good indicator of the condition of the
housing stock. Moreover, many federal and state programs also use the
age of housing as one factor in determining housing rehabilitation
needs. Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have
rehabilitation needs that may include plumbing, roof repairs, electrical
repairs, foundation rehabilitation, or other significant improvements.
The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that only a small percentage (1.9%)
of the housing in the City is greater than 50 years old (i.e., built before
1970). Another 5.3% of units were built between 1970 and 1979. The
majority of housing in the city (92.8%) was built after 1980. The age of
1 “California’s low residential vacancy rates signal more construction,” First Tuesday Journal (February 15, 2021).
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-40 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
the housing stock indicates that while the need for maintenance and
rehabilitation assistance may grow during the planning period, it will
likely be attributable to only a small proportion of total housing. Units
built prior to 1970 may require aesthetic and maintenance repairs
including roof, window, and paint improvements and some units in this
age range may also require significant upgrades to structural,
foundation, electrical, plumbing, and other systems.
When examining a housing stock to determine what condition it is in,
there are certain factors that the Census considers. For example, older
units may not have plumbing that is fully functional or the plumbing
might be substandard. Table 19 indicates that a small percentage of
occupied dwelling units (0.2%) lacked complete plumbing facilities in
2018.
Table 19: Housing Stock Conditions (2018)
Year Structure Built
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2014 or later 539 2.4% 108 0.9% 647 1.9%
2010 to 2013 879 4.0% 390 3.3% 1,269 3.7%
2000 to 2009 7,136 32.3% 4,406 37.5% 11,542 34.1%
1990 to 1999 7,643 34.5% 3,470 29.5% 11,113 32.8%
1980 to 1989 4,516 20.4% 2,356 20.0% 6,872 20.3%
1970 to 1979 1,004 4.5% 808 6.9% 1,812 5.3%
1960 to 1969 226 1.0% 71 0.6% 297 0.9%
1950 to 1959 93 0.4% 50 0.4% 143 0.4%
1940 to 1949 27 0.1% 44 0.4% 71 0.2%
1939 or earlier 64 0.3% 59 0.5% 123 0.4%
TOTAL 22,127 100% 11,762 100% 33,889 100%
Plumbing Facilities (Occupied Units)
Units with Complete Plumbing Facilities 22,095 99.9% 11,727 99.7% 33,822 99.8%
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 32 0.1% 35 0.3% 67 0.2%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS (Table B25036)
As noted, the City’s housing stock is relatively new with only 7.2% of
dwelling units in Temecula having been constructed prior to 1980. As
such, while structural deterioration and maintenance problems may
exist, only a small portion is likely to require rehabilitation.
To supplement the Census information regarding housing conditions,
the City of Temecula included specific questions pertaining to the
quality of the City’s housing stock in its Housing Element Update
community survey, which was available on the City’s website from
March 26 through September 30, 2020 (this is further detailed in
Appendix B). When asked to rate the physical condition of the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-41
residence they lived in, the majority (46.4%) responded that their home
shows signs of minor deferred maintenance such as peeling paint or
chipped stucco, while 33.2% indicated that their home was in excellent
condition. Another 12.6% of respondents indicated that their home
was in need of a modest repair (like a new roof or new siding) and only
5.0% reported that their home needed a major repair (such as new
foundation, complete new plumbing, or complete new electrical).
Homeowners were more likely than renters to respond that their
residence was in excellent condition (40% to 16%).
Community members were also asked to report the type of home
improvements they have considered making to their homes. The most
popular answers that applied were improvements for painting, “does
not apply” (meaning they are not considering any improvements at this
time), solar, and new heating and air conditioning (HVAC).
Additionally, the City’s Planning Division has identified homes built
prior to 1990 as potentially in need of rehabilitation and multifamily
homes built prior to 2000 may be in need of energy efficiency retrofits
and other rehabilitation. The City will continue to implement its
Program 22, Residential Improvement Program, using CDBG funds to
help lower-income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing.
Overcrowding
Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more
than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more
than 1.5 persons per room. Table 20 summarizes overcrowding data
for Temecula. It should be noted that kitchenettes, strip or Pullman
kitchens, bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, half-rooms,
utility rooms, unfinished attics, basements, or other space for storage
are not defined as rooms for Census purposes.
Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of
affordable housing available. Households that cannot afford housing
units suitably sized for their families are often forced to live in housing
that is too small for their needs, which may result in poor physical
condition of the dwelling unit. In 2018, 994 housing units (2.9% of the
total occupied units) were overcrowded, which represented 2% of
owner units and 4.7% of renter units.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-42 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 20: Overcrowding by Tenure (2018)
Persons per Room
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1.00 or less 21,682 98.0% 11,213 95.3% 32,895 97.1%
1.01 to 1.50 378 1.7% 396 3.4% 774 2.3%
1.51 or more 67 0.3% 153 1.3% 220 0.6%
TOTAL 22,127 100% 11,762 100% 33,889 100%
Overcrowded 445 2.0% 549 4.7% 994 2.9%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
As shown in Table 21, the average household size in Temecula was
3.31 persons in 2018, which was slightly higher than the City’s average
household size in 2010 (3.15). Table 21 shows Temecula’s household
sizes for owner, renter, and all households. The average household size
was higher for owners (3.34 persons). Renter households had an
average size of 3.25 persons. The majority (72.5%) of owner
households had two to four persons, compared to 66.8% of renter
households that were two to four persons in size. Table 22 identifies
bedrooms by tenure. Although large owner households and large renter
households are proportionally equivalent (15.5% vs. 15.7%), the
proportion of larger homes (4 or more bedrooms) is significantly
higher for owner households.
Table 21: Household Size by Tenure (2018)
Household Size
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-person 2,659 12.0% 2,065 17.6% 4,724 13.9%
2-person 6,974 31.5% 3,182 27.1% 10,156 30.0%
3-person 4,326 19.6% 2,137 18.2% 6,463 19.1%
4-person 4,740 21.4% 2,533 21.5% 7,273 21.5%
5-person 2,300 10.4% 1,334 11.3% 3,634 10.7%
6-person 749 3.4% 325 2.8% 1,074 3.2%
7-or-more-person 379 1.7% 186 1.6% 565 1.7%
TOTAL 22,127 100% (65.3% of
total) 11,762 100% (34.7% of
total) 33,889 100%
Average Household Size 3.34 3.25 3.31
Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-43
Table 22: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure (2018)
Bedroom Type
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
No bedroom 65 0.3% 172 1.5% 237 0.7%
1-bedroom 6 0.0% 1,396 11.9% 1,402 4.1%
2-bedroom 1,375 6.2% 3,941 33.5% 5,316 15.7%
3-bedroom 8,416 38.0% 3,177 27.0% 11,593 34.2%
4-bedroom 9,090 41.1% 2,348 20.0% 11,438 33.8%
5 or more bedroom 3,175 14.3% 728 6.2% 3,903 11.5%
TOTAL 22,127 100% 11,762 100% 33,889 100%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
F. Housing Costs
As shown in Figure 1, between 2000 and 2018, median home sales
prices in Temecula increased 134% while prices in the SCAG region
increased 151%. The 2018 median home sales price in Temecula was
$460,000, down from a high of $491,500 experienced in 2006. Prices in
the City have ranged from a low of 76.5% of the SCAG region median
in 2008 to a high of 97.4% in 2004.
In May 2021, there were 172 homes listed for sale on Zillow.com with
prices ranging from $79,000 (manufactured home) to $6,900,000 for a
9 bed/10 bath home. Of these homes, there were 149 detached single-
family homes with sales prices beginning at $429,999. As shown in
Table 23, most homes for sale are in the $700,000+ price range
(55.2%), with 32.6% of homes in the $500,000 to $699,999 range and
12.2% of homes priced under $500,000. Zillow identified the April
2021 median sales price as $586,159. While the median sales price is
not affordable to lower and moderate-income households (see Table
28), the City’s home sales prices, which are more than $100,000 higher
compared to Riverside County (Zillow reported a median home sales
price of $475,454 for the County in April 2021), could result in demand
from the above-moderate income group who seek higher priced units
that may offer more space or amenities than other homes in the
southern California region, including Los Angeles, Orange, and San
Diego counties. Additionally, the long-term home cost impacts related
to the COVID-19 pandemic remain to be seen. While it is possible that
some price impacts are temporary (i.e., higher than average rental rates),
it is possible that the pandemic will leave a permanent impact on the
housing market; the City will continue to monitor these changes and
work proactively to address issues related to home availability and cost
as defined in the Housing Plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-44 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 23: Homes for Sale (May 2021)
Price Homes Percent
$700,000 and more 95 55.2%
$600,000 - $699,999 27 15.7%
$500,000 - $599,999 29 16.9%
$400,000 - $499,999 20 11.6%
$300,000 - $399,999 0 0%
$200,000 - $299,999 0 0%
$100,000 - $199,999 0 0%
$0 - $99,999 1 0.6%
Source: Zillow.com, 2021
Figure 1: Median Home Sales Price for Existing Homes
Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package
Housing costs are affected by supply and demand and can affect the
affordability of the housing in the City of Temecula. Table 24 shows
the median home value in Temecula was $426,400 in 2018. Home
values in Temecula are some of the highest in the region, highlighting
the importance of Temecula’s commitment to continue to provide
additional opportunities for more affordable and attainable housing
options.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-45
Table 24: Median Home Value by Community
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Perris $261,000
Menifee $329,800
Murrieta $400,300
Temecula $426,400
Lake Elsinore $333,600
Riverside County $347,600
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.
Rental Housing
Table 25 summarizes rents paid in Temecula in 2018 by rental range.
The range with the highest percentage of units rented was between
$1,500 and $1,999 at 33.4% (3,809 units). Only 8.7% of rentals were
under $1,000 per month. Almost one-third (35.7%) of all rentals were
over $2,000 per month.
Based on a review of rental ads on Zillow.com, Hotpads.com, and
Apartments.com, the median rent in Temecula is $2,435 per month.
There were 120 rentals available in May 2021. Rents ranged from
$1,460 to $3,000 for 2 bed/2 bath homes to $2,400 and more for a
four-bedroom home. It should be noted that this data was collected
during the COVID-19 pandemic, when rental rates are at an all-time
high due to limited supply, public health concerns, and renters’ inability
to secure other safe and affordable housing options. Table 25 below
reflects rental costs as of 2018, which may be more indicative of long-
term rental rates than the units specifically listed for rent during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 25: Rental Costs (2018)
Rent Range Number Percent
Less than $500 215 1.9%
$500 to $999 774 6.8%
$1,000 to $1,499 2,520 22.1%
$1,500 to $1,999 3,809 33.4%
$2,000 to $2,499 2,575 22.6%
$2,500 to $2,999 1,137 10.0%
$3,000 or more 358 3.1%
Median (dollars) $ 1,787
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-46 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 26: Rental Rates by Number of Bedrooms
Bedroom Type Rental Survey
Units Available Range Average Rent
Studio 0 N/A N/A
1 bed 7 $1,345 - $2,850 $1,632
2 bed 80 $1,460 - $3,000 $1,816
3 bed 20 $2,000 - $3,600 $2,290
4 bed or more 13 $2,400+ N/A
Sources: Zillow.com and Apartments.com, May 2021
Income Groups
The California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) publishes household income data annually for areas in
California. Table 27 shows the maximum annual income level for each
income group adjusted for household size for Riverside County. The
maximum annual income data is then utilized to calculate the maximum
affordable housing payments for different households (varying by
income level) and their eligibility for housing assistance programs.
• Extremely Low-Income Households have a combined income at
or lower than 30% of area median income (AMI), as established by
the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD).
• Very Low-Income Households have a combined income between
30 and 50% of AMI, as established by HCD.
• Low-Income Households have a combined income between 50
and 80% of AMI, as established by HCD.
• Moderate-Income Households have a combined income between
80 and 120% of AMI, as established by HCD.
• Above Moderate-Income Households have a combined income
greater than 120% of AMI, as established by HCD.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-47
Table 27: State Income Limits – Riverside County (2021)
Income Group 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6
Person
7
Person
8
Person
Extremely Low $16,600 $19,000 $21,960 $26,500 $31,040 $35,580 $40,120 $44,660
Very Low $27,650 $31,600 $35,550 $39,500 $42,700 $45,850 $49,000 $52,150
Low $44,250 $50,600 $56,900 $63,200 $68,300 $73,350 $78,400 $83,450
Moderate $65,100 $74,400 $83,700 $93,000 $100,450 $107,900 $115,300 $122,750
Above Moderate $65,100+ $74,400+ $83,700+ $93,000+ $100,450+ $107,900+ $115,300+ $122,750+
Source: HCD 2021 Riverside County Income Limits
Housing Affordability
Table 28 shows the estimated maximum rents and sales prices,
respectively, that are affordable to very low, low, moderate, and above
moderate-income households. Affordability is based on a household
spending 30% or less of their total household income for shelter.
Affordability is based on the maximum household income levels
established by HCD (Table 27). The annual income limits established
by HCD are similar to those used by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) for administering various affordable
housing programs. Maximum affordable sales price is based generally
on the following assumptions: 4% interest rate, 30-year fixed loan, and
down payments that vary with income level, as described in Table 3-
25.
Comparing the maximum affordable housing costs in Table 28 to the
rental rates in Table 25 and Table 26, rental rates in Temecula as of
mid-2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic which has increased
housing costs across the board, are generally affordable to moderate-
income and above moderate-income households. While there may be
some units affordable to lower-income households, units are generally
scarce. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Temecula, like
cities all over the country, has seen limited supply and increased
demand for safe and affordable housing. It can be expected that as the
City recovers from the impacts related to COVID-19, housing options
will increase to pre-pandemic levels and home costs may become more
affordable. In May 2021, there were no rental units available under
$1,345 a month – meaning available units are not affordable for
extremely low or very low-income groups. Moderate and above
moderate-income households can afford a broad range of available
housing.
Although there are homes for sale in Temecula available to very low,
low, moderate, and above moderate income groups based on a
comparison of Table 24 and Table 28, the majority of homes (i.e. in
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-48 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
the $700,000+ range) are affordable to only above moderate-income
households.
Table 28: Housing Affordability by Income Group
Income Group
One Person Two Person Four Person Six Person
Home
Sale Price*
Monthly
Rent or
Housing
Cost
Home
Sale Price*
Monthly
Rent or
Housing
Cost
Home
Sale Price*
Monthly
Rent or
Housing
Cost
Home
Sale Price*
Monthly
Rent or
Housing
Cost
Extremely Low $55,163 $396 $63,941 $453 $92,887 $655 $126,874 $879
Very Low $100,051 $660 $114,682 $754 $143,945 $941 $167,550 $1,093
Low $165,423 $1,055 $188,833 $1,205 $235,848 $1,506 $270,347 $1,748
Moderate $255,004 $1,581 $290,315 $1,808 $360,740 $2,259 $417,119 $2,620
Above Moderate $255,004+ $1,581+ $290,315+ $1,808+ $360,740+ $2,259+ $417,119+ $2,620+
*Maximum affordable sales price is based on the following assumptions: 4.0% interest rate, 30-year fixed loan; down payment: $5,000 –
extremely low, $10,000 – very low; $15,000 – low, $25,000 – moderate; property tax, utilities, and homeowners insurance as 30% of
monthly housing cost (extremely low/very low), 28% of monthly housing cost (low), and 25% of monthly housing cost (moderate/above
moderate). Homes sales prices are rounded to nearest $100.
Source: De Novo Planning Group, 2021
Extremely Low-income Households
As previously described, extremely low-income households earn less
than 30% of the County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on
the household size, these households can afford rents between $396
and $879 per month and homes priced at $55,163 to $126,874. As of
May 2021, there were no rental homes listed on Zillow or
Apartments.com that would be affordable to extremely low-income
households. However, based on US Census data, approximately 8% of
renters pay monthly rents affordable to extremely low-income
households. Extremely low-income households may be able to afford
to purchase a mobile home in Temecula; however, real estate listings
for these homes indicate that homes affordable at this price point may
have age restrictions and are in very limited supply.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-49
Very Low-income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31% and 50% of the
County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size,
these households can afford rents between $660 to $1,093 per month
and homes priced at $100,051 and $167,550. As of May 2021, there
were no rental homes listed on Zillow or Apartments.com that could
be affordable to very low-income households. However, based on US
Census data, approximately 9% of renters pay monthly rents affordable
to very low-income households (inclusive of units also affordable to
extremely low-income). Very low-income households may be able
afford to purchase a mobile home in Temecula; however, even those
affordable to very low-income households may have age restrictions
and there continues to be a very limited supply.
Low-income Households
Low-income households earn between 51% and 80% of the County
Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size, these
households can afford rents between $1,055 to $1,748 per month and
homes priced at $165,423 to $270,347. As of May 2021, some rentals
listed on Zillow or Apartments.com would be affordable to low-
income households; these units include one- and two-bedroom
options. Based on US Census data, about one-third (30.8%) of renters
pay monthly rents affordable to larger low-income households,
meaning the rent is less than $1,748 per month. However, it should be
noted that most renters are not six-person households, so the actual
affordability by household size may be significantly more limited. Low-
income households may be able to afford to purchase a mobile home
in Temecula; however, even those affordable to low-income
households may have age restrictions and there continues to be a very
limited supply.
Moderate-income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 80% and 120% of the
County Area Median Income (AMI). Depending on the household size,
these households can afford rents between $1,581 to $2,620 per month
and homes priced at $255,004 to $417,119. As of May 2021, most rental
units available were affordable to moderate-income households; these
units included multifamily homes as well as single-family homes listed
for rent by the homeowner. As of mid-2021, moderate-income
households still cannot afford the vast majority of homes listed for sale
as of May 2021 (which are primarily single-family detached homes), but
may be able to afford other housing choices such as mobile homes and
multifamily homes. This is further confirmed by US Census data.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-50 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Overpayment
As with most communities, the location of the home is one of the
biggest factors with regard to price. Relative to Riverside County,
housing in Temecula is more expensive. Furthermore, housing is
generally not affordable to extremely low, very low, and low-income
households of smaller sizes.
As shown in Table 29, 49.9% of renters in Temecula and 29.7% of
homeowners overpay for housing. The majority of renters that overpay
are in the lower income groups, with 79.8% in the extremely low-
income group and 73.1% in the very low-income group severely
overpaying for housing (over 50% of their monthly income).
Comparatively, 77.9% of extremely low-income owners and 66% of
very low-income owners are severely overpaying. Therefore, while
overpayment is more predominate among lower income renter
households, overpayment is an issue for both renter and owner
households. More than one-third (37%) of all households in Temecula
overpay for housing.
Table 29: Households by Income Level and Overpayment (2017)
Household Overpayment Renters Owners Total % of
Income Category
Extremely Low-Income Households 1,315 565 1,880 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 1,115 / 84.8% 505 / 89.4% 1,625 86.4%
With Cost Burden >50% 1,050 / 79.8% 440 / 77.9% 1,495 79.5%
Very Low-Income Households 1,505 705 2,210 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 1,300 / 86.4% 560 / 79.4% 1,855 83.9%
With Cost Burden >50% 1,100 / 73.1% 465 / 66% 1,565 70.8%
Low-Income Households 1,610 1,900 3,510 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 1,375 / 85.4% 1,200 / 63.2% 2,580 73.5%
With Cost Burden >50% 810 / 50.3% 770 / 40.5% 1,585 45.2%
Total Extremely Low, Very Low, and
Low-Income Households Paying >30% 3,790 / 85.6% 2,265 / 71.5% 6,060 80% of lower income
households
Moderate and Above Moderate-Income
Households 7,620 18,430 26,050 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 2,225 / 29.2% 4,160 / 22.6% 6,385 24.5%
With Cost Burden >50% 210 / 2.8% 520 / 2.8% 735 2.8%
Total Households 12,045 21,600 33,645 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 6,015 / 49.9% 6,425 / 29.7% 12,445 37.0%
With Cost Burden >50% 3,170 / 26.3% 2,195 / 10.2% 5,365 15.9%
Note: Data is rounded to the nearest 5.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-51
Affordable Housing Inventory
The City uses various funding sources to preserve and increase the
supply of affordable housing through new construction and the
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of renter-occupied units. Affordability
covenants in Temecula include developments that hold federal subsidy
contracts, received tax credits or mortgage revenue bonds, and/or were
financed by redevelopment funds or non-profit developers.
Table 30 shows assisted units with covenants that require rents to be
maintained at affordable levels for various agreed upon periods of time.
In 2020, Temecula had 759 total deed-restricted affordable units. A
recorded deed restriction serves as an affordability covenant that
restricts the income level of a person who occupies the property, and
ensures the property will remain available for low to moderate-income
persons through the foreseeable future.
Table 30: Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units
Project Name Address Type
No. of
Restricted
Units
No. of Total
Units
Cameron Historical Building 41925 5th St., Temecula CA
92590
Equal Opportunity
Housing
24 24
Cottages of Old Town Varies 17 17
Creekside Apts. 28955 Pujol St., Temecula CA
92590
49 49
Front Street Plaza 28693 Old Town Front St.,
Temecula CA 92590 Family/Seniors 23 23
Habitat I Varies 2 2
Habitat II Varies 7 7
Madera Vista Apts. 44155 Margarita Rd., Temecula
CA 92592
Family/Seniors 110 110
Mission Village Apts. 28497 Pujol St., Temecula CA
92590
Family 75 76
Oaktree Apts. 42176 Lyndie Ln., Temecula CA
92591
Family 44 45
Palomar Heritage
Apartments
41955 5th St., Temecula CA
92590
Family 22 22
Portola Terrace Apts. 28701 Pujol St., Temecula CA
92590
Family/Seniors 44 45
Rancho California Apts. 29210 Stonewood Rd., Temecula
CA 92591
Family 54 55
Rancho Creek Apts. 28464 Felix Valdez Rd., Temecula
CA 92590
Family 30 30
Rancho West Apts. 42200 Main St., Temecula CA
92590
Family 150 150
Riverbank Apts. 28500 Pujol St., Temecula CA
92590
Senior 65 66
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-52 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Temecula Reflections
Townhomes
31111 Black Maple Dr., Temecula
CA 92592
Family 11 11
Warehouse at Creekside
Apts.
42081 Third St., Temecula CA
92590
Family 32 32
Total 759 764
Sources: California Housing Partnership, 2021; National Housing Preservation Database, 2021; US Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 2021
Mobile Homes
Mobile homes offer a more affordable option for those interested in
homeownership. The median value of a mobile home in Riverside
County in 2018 was $60,200 (2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profile).
Overall, 161 mobile homes are located in Temecula (DOF, Table 2: E-
5, 1/1/2019). As shown by Table 31, there is one mobile home park
in the City with a total of 196 permitted spaces.
In addition to the cost of a mobile home, owners must either purchase
a residential site or rent a mobile home space. And although they
present a more affordable alternative, mobile home rents have risen
steadily throughout southern California since 2009. 2
Table 31: Mobile Home Parks in Temecula
Park Name/Address Operator MH Spaces
HERITAGE MH COMMUNITY (33-0386-MP) 31130 S.
GENERAL KEARNY RD, TEMECULA, CA 92591 CAREFREE COMMUNITIES CA, LLC 196
Total Mobile Home Spaces 196
Source: HCD 2019 Mobile Home Park Listings
G. Future Housing Needs
A Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) is mandated by the State of
California (Government Code Section 65584) for regions to address
housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the
area. The RHNP for Temecula is developed by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), and allocates a “fair share” of
regional housing needs to individual cities. The intent of the RHNP is
to ensure that local jurisdictions address not only the needs of their
immediate areas but also that needs for the entire region are fairly
distributed to all communities. A major goal of the RHNP is to ensure
that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of affordable
housing to all economic segments of its population.
2 Jeff Collins, “Soaring rents jolt senior tenants at mobile home park,” OC Registrar (July 20, 2018).
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-53
As the regional planning agency, SCAG determines the City’s fair share
of housing through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
process. This Housing Element addresses SCAG’s RHNA schedule for
the 6th Cycle, from 2021 through 2029. The City will need to plan to
accommodate 4,193 new units, which includes 679 extremely low-
income units, 680 very low, 801 low, 778 moderate, and 1,255 above
moderate-income units. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65583(a)(1), 50% of Temecula’s very low-income regional housing
needs assigned by HCD are extremely low-income households, and
hence the 679 ELI units. Table 32 summarizes Temecula’s fair share,
progress to date, and remaining units.
Table 32: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 6th Cycle
Status Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate TOTAL
RHNA Allocation 679 680 801 778 1,255 4,193
Constructed/
Under Construction/
Permits Issued
(Since 6/30/2021)
0 0 0 21 6 27
Approved/Entitled/
In Process
24 8 99 0 0 132
Remaining Allocation 656 671 702 757 1,249 4,034
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020; City of Temecula, 2021
H. Special Needs Groups
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires a housing element to
address special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with
disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section
4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers;
families with female heads of households; and families and persons in
need of emergency shelter. The needs of these groups often call for
targeted program responses, such as temporary housing, preservation
of residential hotels, housing with features to make it more accessible,
and the development of four-bedroom apartments. Special needs
groups have been identified and, to the degree possible, responsive
programs are provided. A principal emphasis in addressing the needs
of these groups is to continue to seek state technical assistance grants
to identify the extent and location of those with special needs and
identify ways and means to assist them. Local government budget
limitations may act to limit effectiveness in implementing programs for
these groups. Please refer to Section 6E of this Element for a
discussion of agencies and programs that serve special needs
populations in Temecula.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-54 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Seniors
Seniors are considered persons age 65 or older in this Housing
Element. However, it must be noted that some funding programs have
lower age limits for persons to be eligible for their senior housing
projects. Seniors have special housing needs primarily resulting from
physical disabilities and limitations, fixed or limited income, and health
care costs. Additionally, senior households also have other needs to
preserve their independence including supportive services to maintain
their health and safety, in-home support services to perform activities
of daily living, conservators to assist with personal care and financial
affairs, public administration assistance to manage and resolve estate
issues, and networks of care to provide a wide variety of services and
daily assistance.
Various portions of the Housing Element describe characteristics of
the senior population, the extent of their needs for affordable housing,
housing designated for seniors, and City provisions to accommodate
their need. Senior household growth in Temecula from 2010 to 2018 is
shown in Table 33.
Table 33: Senior Population and Households (2010 and 2018)
Population 2010 2018
Number 7,009 11,534
Percent Change - 64.6%
Annual Percent Change - 8.1%
Households 2010 2018
Number 3,694 5,983
Percent Change - 62.0%
Annual Percent Change - 7.7%
Source: HCD 2019 Mobile Home Park Listings
The large increase in elderly persons is likely due to the residential
growth experienced in Temecula as well as aging in place of Temecula’s
residents. Senior households increased by 62% from 2010 to 2018.
While seniors represent approximately 10% of the City’s population,
senior households represent approximately 18% of total households,
which is primarily due to the smaller senior household size.
Table 34 summarizes senior households by age and tenure. The
majority of senior households are owners, 4,835 or approximately 81%,
whereas approximately 19% of senior households, 1,148, are renters.
Temecula has a lower percentage of both owner-occupied elderly
households than in Riverside County (14.3% vs. 20%) and renter-
occupied elderly households (3.4% vs. 5.2%). Elderly renters tend to
prefer affordable units in smaller single-story structures or multi-story
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-55
structures with an elevator, close to health facilities, services,
transportation, and entertainment.
During the planning period, senior households are anticipated to
increase at a rate commensurate with overall population and household
growth. Senior housing types can include market rate homes, senior
single-family housing communities, senior apartments, and mobile
homes.
Table 34: Householder Age by Tenure (2018)
Age Group Owners Renters
Number Percent Number Percent
65-74 years 2,977 61.6% 809 70.5%
75-84 years 1,384 28.6% 239 20.8%
85 plus years 474 9.8% 100 8.7%
TOTAL 4,835 80.8%
(of total) 1,148 19.2%
(of total)
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS (Table B25007)
The median income of households with a head of household that is 65
years and over is $64,955, significantly less (36.4%) than the median
household income of $90,964.
Senior Housing
There is increasing variety in the types of housing available to the senior
population. This section focuses on three basic types.
Independent Living – Housing for healthy seniors who are self-
sufficient and want the freedom and privacy of their own separate
apartment or house. Many seniors remain in their original homes, and
others move to special residential communities which provide a greater
level of security and social activities of a senior community.
Group Living – Shared living arrangements in which seniors live in
close proximity to their peers and have access to activities and special
services.
Assisted Living – Provides the greatest level of support, including
meal preparation and assistance with other activities of daily living.
Temecula permits residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons
by right in all residential zones, and those serving more than six persons
by conditional use permit in residential and commercial zones. The
California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing
Division reports that as of May 2021, 18 residential care facilities serve
the elderly in Temecula. Seniors and their caregivers also utilize larger
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-56 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
scale residential care facilities for the elderly. There are four
commercially operating assisted living residential care facilities for the
elderly in the City:
• Highgate Senior Living-Temecula, 42301 Moraga Rd. – assisted
living facility offering memory care and couples care
• Temecula Memory Care, 44280 Campanula Way – memory care
facility
• Vineyard Ranch at Temecula, 27350 Nicolas Rd. – assisted living
community offering memory care services
• The Chateau at Harveston, 40024 Harveston Dr. – senior
independent living with additional third party services
Several programs address the non-housing needs of seniors in
Temecula. Additional support for senior residents is provided by the
city-operated Mary Phillips Senior Center (MPSC), which serves as the
primary site for senior services programs offered by the City and non-
profits. Some of the programs and services provided at the MPSC
include nutrition/meal programs, health screening and general medical
exams, transportation programs, library and computers with internet
access, and recreational activities. The City also partners with RTA to
provide senior transportation services, including Dial-A-Ride,
throughout Temecula.
Disabled Persons
A “disability” includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental
disability as defined in California Government Code Section 12926. A
“mental disability” involves having any mental or psychological
disorder or condition that limits a major life activity. A “physical
disability” involves having any physiological disease, disorder,
condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that affects body
systems. In addition, a mental or physical disability limits a major life
activity by making the achievement of major life activities difficult
including physical, mental, and social activities and working.
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities could prevent a
person from working, restrict a person’s mobility, or make caring for
oneself difficult. Therefore, disabled persons often require special
housing needs related to potential limited earning capacity, the lack of
accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated
with disabilities. Additionally, people with disabilities require a wide
range of different housing, depending on the type and severity of their
disability. Housing needs can range from institutional care facilities to
facilities that support partial or full independence (i.e., group care
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-57
homes). Supportive services such as daily living skills and employment
assistance need to be integrated in the housing situation.
• Individuals with a mobility, visual, or hearing limitation may require
housing that is physically accessible. Examples of accessibility in
housing include widened doorways and hallways, ramps, bathroom
modifications (e.g., lowered countertops, grab bars, adjustable
shower heads, etc.) and special sensory devices including smoke
alarms and flashing lights.
• Individuals with self-care limitations (which can include persons
with mobility difficulties) may require residential environments that
include in-home or on-site support services ranging from
congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include
medical therapy, daily living assistance, congregate dining, and
related services.
• Individuals with developmental disabilities and other physical and
mental conditions that prevent them from functioning
independently may require assisted care or group home
environments.
• Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet
their housing needs because a higher percentage than the
population at large are low-income and their special housing needs
are often costlier than conventional housing.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, there were 9,442 persons with one
or more disabilities in Temecula. Of the disabled population, 62.8%
were aged 5 to 64, 36.1% were aged 65 and over, and 1.2% were aged
5 and under. Table 35 identifies disabilities by type of disability.
Table 35: Disabilities by Disability Type (2018)
Type of Disability Persons Ages 5-64 Persons Ages 65+ Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Hearing Difficulty 1,393 23.5% 1,552 45.59% 2,991 31.7%
Vision Difficulty 821 13.9% 591 17.36% 1,479 15.7%
Cognitive Difficulty 2,796 47.2% 648 19.04% 3,444 36.5%
Ambulatory Difficulty 1,835 31.0% 1,937 56.90% 3,772 39.9%
Self-Care Difficulty 953 16.1% 741 21.77% 1,694 17.9%
Independent Living Difficulty 1,628 27.5% 1,645 48.33% 3,273 34.7%
Total Persons with One or
More Disabilities1 5,925 100% / 62.8%
of disabled 3,404
100% /
36.1% of
disabled
9,442 100%
1A person may have more than one disability, so the total disabilities may exceed the total persons with a disability
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-58 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
As shown in Table 36, the 2014-2018 ACS indicates that for
individuals between the ages of 16 and 64, approximately 2,562 persons
had some form or type of disability and were not in the labor force.
This indicates that their disability may impede their ability to earn an
adequate income, which in turn could affect their ability to afford
suitable housing accommodations to meet their special needs.
Therefore, many in this group may be in need of housing assistance.
Table 36: Disabled Persons by Employment Status (2018)
Ages 16 to 64 Percent
Employed with Disability 2,190 42.8%
Unemployed with Disability 369 7.2%
Not in Labor Force with Disability 2,562 50%
Total 5,121 100%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
While recent Census data does not provide income levels or
overpayment data for persons with a disability, the 2014-2018 ACS
survey does report on indicators that relate to a disabled person’s or
household’s income. The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that 733
persons with a disability are below the poverty level. It is likely that a
portion of these disabled persons are in households that overpay for
housing due to their limited income. The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates
that 24.8% of households receiving food stamps or similar assistance
have a disabled member. Of the 6,932 households with a disabled
member, 447 households receive food stamps or similar assistance. The
2014-2018 ACS data indicates that the median earnings for males 16
years and over with a disability were $49,500 compared with $52,107
for males with no disability. Median earnings for females 16 years and
over with a disability were $31,993 compared to $29,632 for females
with no disability (which may be the result of disabled females receiving
disability and SSI benefits).
The persons in the “with a disability” category in Table 35 and Table
36 include persons with developmental disabilities. “Developmental
disability” means “a disability that originates before an individual
attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue,
indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual.”
This term includes an intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy,
autism, and disabling conditions found to be closely related to
intellectual disabilities or to require treatment similar to that required
for individuals with an intellectual disability, but does not include other
handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.
While the U.S. Census reports on a broad range of disabilities, the
Census does not identify the subpopulation that has a developmental
disability. The California Department of Developmental Services
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-59
(DDS) maintains data regarding people with developmental disabilities,
defined as those with severe, life-long disabilities attributable to mental
and/or physical impairments. The DDS data is reported by zip code,
so the data reflects a larger area than the City of Temecula; however,
the data was joined at the jurisdiction level by SCAG to approximate
the counts for Temecula. The DDS/SCAG data indicates that 272
developmentally disabled persons reside in zip codes 92592, 92591, and
92590. Table 37 breaks down the developmentally disabled population
by residence type. Of these persons, the majority (262) live at home
with a parent or guardian and only 5 live independently.
Table 37: Developmentally Disabled Persons by Residence Type (2018)
Home of
Parent/
Guardian
Independent/
Supported
Living
Community
Care Facility
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster/ Family
Home Other TOTAL
Temecula* 262 5 0 0 5 0 272
*Data is for the Temecula portion of zip codes 92592, 92591, and 92590
Sources: CA DDS, 2019; SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package
Housing for Disabled Persons
Households with a disabled member will require a mixture of housing
units with accessibility features, in-home care, or group care housing
facilities. Some of these households will have a member with a
developmental disability and are expected to have special housing
needs. Developmentally disabled persons may live with a family in a
typical single-family or multifamily home, but some developmentally
disabled persons with more severe disabilities may have special housing
needs that may include extended family homes, group homes, small and
large residential care facilities, intermediate care, and skilled nursing
facilities and affordable housing such as extremely low/very low/low-
income housing (both rental and ownership), Section 8/Housing
Choice Vouchers, and single room occupancy-type units.
Although there are no assisted living residential care facilities for adults
with special needs, including physical, mental, and developmental
disabilities in Temecula, there are a number of resources available
throughout the County to serve the disabled residents of Temecula.
Table 38 identifies some of the organizations in or near Temecula that
specialize in providing services for the disabled and developmentally
disabled population.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-60 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 38: Facilities and Services for Disabled Persons
Organization Name Type of Service Provided Homeless Population Served
Towards Maximum Independence (TMI) Employment and family support
services Disabled adults
California Department of Rehabilitation Vocational rehabilitation, independent
living Developmentally disabled adults
Coyne & Assoc. Early start, behavioral services for
children 12 months to 12 years
Goodwill Industries of the Inland Counties Vocational evaluation, training, and
employment opportunities
Adults with physical, psychiatric, and
developmental disabilities
Inland Respite, Inc. Caregivers and companion care Developmentally disabled adults
Maxim Homecare Services Home healthcare, autism services Mentally disabled persons
Project T.O.U.C.H. (Together Our Unity
Conquers Homelessness) Shelter and homeless services Disabled adults
CARE Learning Center and Counseling
Services Educational and counseling services Disabled children and adults
A.C.C.E.S.S. Therapeutic services Developmentally disabled children and
adolescents
Community Access Center (CAC) Advocacy, assistive technology Disabled adults
The 2014-2018 ACS data indicates that for individuals between the ages
of 5 and 64, approximately 1.6% of the total population of Temecula
have an ambulatory difficulty, 0.7% have a vision difficulty, 1.2% have
a hearing difficulty, and 1.5% have an independent living difficulty.
These types of disabilities may impede their ability to find suitable
housing accommodations to meet their special needs. Therefore, many
in these groups may be in need of housing assistance. Households
containing physically handicapped persons may also need housing with
universal design measures or special features to allow better physical
mobility for occupants.
The 2014-18 ACS data also indicates that 6,932 households (20.5%) in
Temecula had one or more disabled persons, including
developmentally disabled persons. It is anticipated that this rate will
remain the same during the planning period. Housing needed for
persons with a disability during the planning period is anticipated to
include community care facilities or at-home supportive services for
persons with an independent living difficulty or self-care difficulty
(approximately 4.9% of the population), as well as housing that is
equipped to serve persons with ambulatory and sensory disabilities.
Approximately 20.5% of the RHNA, 860 units, may be needed to have
universal design measures or be accessible to persons with a disability.
The City of Temecula is committed to improving the housing options
for persons with special needs by proactively working with the
development community. In 2015, a developer requesting a General
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-61
Plan change was required to offer construction options on the
development in order to provide better for-sale options for those who
may need unique construction requirements (in the special needs
community), but cannot afford expensive retrofits of existing units.
These options included:
Sound absorbent ceilings and walls
Tempered glass windows and mirrors
Natural light with sky lights or sun tubes
Clerestory lighting
Bathrooms with 4’ tiled walls and flooring with floor drains
Bathroom plumbing with scaled prevention
Fiberglass and Dutch doors
Automatic swinging door operations
Pre-wiring for security systems
Wider doors
Large Family Households
Large family households are defined as households of five or more
persons. Large family households are considered a special needs group
because there is often a limited supply of adequately sized housing to
accommodate their needs. The more persons in a household, the more
rooms are needed to accommodate that household. Specifically, a five-
person household would require three or four bedrooms, a six-person
household would require four bedrooms, and a seven-person
household would require four to six bedrooms.
In Temecula, 5,273 households, 15.6% of all households, have five or
more persons as described in Table 21. Of the large households, 65%
own their home and 35% rent. Typically, there are more owner-
occupied large households that are cost burdened when compared to
renter households and the population as a whole. However, the 2014-
2018 ACS survey does not provide data regarding overpayment for
large households. Table 39 compares the median income for
households with five or more persons to the citywide median income
for 2018. For each large family category, the median household income
was higher versus the citywide median of $90,964.
Table 39: Median Income By Household Size (2018)
Size Median Income
5-Person Households $109,958
6-Person Households $115,667
7 or More Person Households $113,556
Median Household Income (All Households) $90,964
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-62 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Large families can have a difficult time finding housing units large
enough to meet their needs. In Temecula, there appears to be a
significant amount of both ownership housing and rental housing
available to provide units with enough bedrooms for larger households.
Table 40 identifies the number of large households by household size
versus the number of large owner and rental units. While there are
adequate units in Temecula to accommodate large owner and renter
households, it does not mean that there is a match between housing
units that exist and large families. As described in Table 20, 2% of
owner-occupied homes and 4.7% of renter-occupied homes are
overcrowded.
Table 40: Household Size versus Bedroom Size by Tenure (2018)
Tenure 3 BR
Units
5 Person Households
4+ BR Units
6 Person and Larger
Households
Households Shortfall/
Excess Households Shortfall/
Excess
Owner 8,416 2,300 6,116 12,265 1,128 11,137
Renter 3,177 1,334 1,843 3,076 511 2,565
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
Large households require housing units with more bedrooms than
housing units needed by smaller households. In general, housing for
these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children
and should be located to provide convenient access to schools and
child care facilities. These types of needs can pose problems particularly
for large families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses.
Based on the proportion of the City’s households that are at least five
persons, it is anticipated that approximately 16% of the regional
housing needs allocation units will be needed to accommodate large
households and an emphasis should be placed on ensuring rental units
are available to large households.
The City has amended Program 10 to encourage the development of
housing units sized appropriate for larger households.
Single Parent and Female Headed Households
Single parent households are households with children under the age
of 18 at home and include both male- and female-headed households.
These households generally have a higher ratio between their income
and their living expenses (that is, living expenses take up a larger share
of income than is generally the case in two-parent households).
Therefore, finding affordable, decent, and safe housing is often more
difficult for single parent and female-headed households. Additionally,
single parent and female-headed households have special needs
involving access to daycare or childcare, health care, and other
supportive services.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-63
While the majority of households in Temecula are either two-spouse
couples or single person households, 20.5% of family households are
headed by a single male or single female. There are 1,393 male heads
of household with no wife present and 581 of these households have
children under 18. There is a larger number of female householders
with no husband present – 4,296 households or 15.5% of family
households – and 2,488 of these female-headed households have
children under 18. Table 41 identifies single parent households by
gender of the householder and presence of children.
The median income of female-headed households (no husband
present) is $53,651, 23.8% less than the median income of a male-
headed, no wife present family ($70,432) and 41% less than the median
income of all households in the City ($90,964). Approximately 4.8% of
all households are under the poverty level; 26.4% of female-headed
households with related children under 18 are under the poverty level.
Table 41: Families and Female Householder with Children Under 18 (2018)
Category Number Percent
Total Families 27,657 100%
Male householder, no wife present 1,393 5%
With children under 18 581 2%
Female householder, no husband present 4,296 15.5%
With children under 18 2,488 9%
Source: US Census, 2014-2018 ACS
As Temecula’s population and households grow, there will be a
continued need for supportive services for single parent households
with children present. To address both the housing and supportive
services needs of single parent households, additional multifamily
housing should be developed that includes childcare facilities (allowing
single parents to actively seek employment).
In addition, the creation of innovative housing for female-headed
households could include co-housing developments where childcare
and meal preparation responsibilities can be shared. The economies of
scale available in this type of housing would be advantageous to this
special needs group as well as all other low-income household groups.
Limited equity cooperatives sponsored by non-profit housing
developers are another financing structure that could be considered for
the benefit of all special needs groups.
Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary
incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor.
Agricultural lands have historically been one of Riverside County’s
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-64 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
most important land uses and agriculture continues to play a large role
in the local economy. While Riverside County has recently experienced
an unprecedented level of population growth leading to a more diverse
economic base that includes manufacturing, technology, and service-
oriented sectors, it remains strongly tied to an agricultural base.
Nonetheless, there are only two very minor agricultural operations in
the City and no agricultural zoning district exists although agricultural
uses are permitted in the residential districts.
Despite this fact, the 2014-2018 ACS data estimates that only 228
(0.4% of the working population) of Temecula’s residents were
employed in agriculture (or related industries – forestry, fishing and
hunting, mining) in 2018. It is possible (although statistics are not
available) that the number of residents employed in agriculture as
opposed to those employed in forestry, fishing and hunting, or mining
is smaller than 228. In addition, it is possible (although statistics are not
available) that a number of active farmworkers are not full-time
residents of Temecula, and migrate into the area depending on seasonal
crop harvest. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
estimates that there were 1,684 migrant farmworkers in Riverside
County in 2017. USDA estimates that 5,607 farmworkers worked
seasonally (hired for a period of less than 150 days) in Riverside County
in 2017, while 5,758 farmworkers in Riverside County were permanent
(hired for a period of greater than or equal to 150 days). Such
farmworkers may find temporary housing by living with relatives, or
short-term rental of a single unit for several families, resulting in
overcrowded conditions.
Homeless Persons
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires that the Housing
Element include an analysis of the needs of homeless persons and
families. Homeless persons are defined as those who lack a fixed and
adequate residence. People who are homeless may be chronically
homeless (perhaps due to substance abuse or mental health issues) or
situationally homeless (perhaps resulting from job loss or family strife).
Homeless people face critical housing challenges due to their very low
incomes and lack of appropriate housing. Thus, State law requires
jurisdictions to plan to help meet the needs of their homeless
populations.
The law also requires that each jurisdiction address community needs
and available resources for special housing opportunities known as
transitional and supportive housing. These housing types provide the
opportunity for families and individuals to “transition” from a
homeless condition to permanent housing, often with the assistance of
supportive services to assist individuals in gaining necessary life skills
in support of independent living.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-65
Homeless Estimates
Counting the homeless population is problematic due to their transient
nature; however, through the efforts of the Riverside County
Continuum of Care (CoC) estimates have been developed. The
Riverside County CoC is a consortium of individuals and organizations
with the common purpose of developing and implementing a strategy
to address homelessness in Riverside County. The Riverside County
CoC is responsible for managing U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) funds for homelessness, and is uniquely
positioned to identify system needs and take steps to address them with
the collaboration and partnership of community stakeholders.
As the primary coordinating body for homeless issues and assistance
for the entire County, the Riverside County CoC accomplishes a host
of activities and programs vital to the County, including an annual
point-in-time “snapshot” survey to identify and assess the needs of
both the sheltered and unsheltered homeless. Riverside County’s 2020
Point-in-Time (PIT) Count was conducted on January 29, 2020 and
was planned, coordinated, and carried out by County agencies, city
municipalities, non-profit service providers, and volunteers, including
those experiencing homelessness.
The 2020 PIT Count identified 59 people in the City of Temecula
experiencing homelessness, representing 2.0% of Riverside County’s
total homeless count (2,884 individuals). The 59 people identified in
Temecula were unsheltered.
For Riverside County, an estimated 729 (25.3%) of the 2,884 homeless
individuals were sheltered and an estimated 2,155 (75%) were
unsheltered. The County’s 2020 count was 3% higher than the count
in 2019. Compared to 2019, the sheltered count decreased 5%, while
the unsheltered count increased 5%. In Riverside County from 2018 to
2019 there was a 21% increase in the overall number of homeless
persons counted, from 2,316 to 2,811 in 2019. The count in the City of
Temecula in 2019 was a total of 59 unsheltered homeless
individuals.The 59 people identified in Temecula were unsheltered.
Housing Accommodations
The Temecula Zoning Code allows emergency shelters by right in the
Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential zones,
subject to compliance with objective standards consistent with the
requirements identified in Government Code Section 65583(a)(4).
Emergency shelters are also permitted by way of conditional use permit
in all other residential zones and in all commercial, office, and industrial
districts. Likewise, transitional and supportive housing are allowed by
right in the Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-66 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
zones and subject only to the same requirements for residential uses of
the same type (e.g., single-family or multifamily) in the same zone.
Transitional and supportive housing are also permitted by way of
conditional use permit in all other residential zones and in all
commercial, office, and industrial districts. Housing Program 16 17 will
amend the Zoning Code to ensure that the Code complies with SB 745
and allows transitional and supportive housing by right in all zones
allowing residential uses and are not subject to any restrictions (e.g.,
occupancy limit) not imposed on similar dwellings in the same zone.
The Housing Plan includes policies and programs directed to
encourage the provision of housing and services for the homeless
population as well as persons and households at risk of homelessness.
There are two emergency shelters operating in the City – Project
T.O.U.C.H. (130 beds) and Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission.
Furthermore, Temecula supports a regional effort to provide
emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing among the
various local agencies making up the Riverside County CoC.
The most recent inventory of resources available within Riverside
County for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent
supportive housing units comes from the 2020 Housing Inventory
reported to HUD by the Riverside County CoC. Table 42 shows the
total beds offered by homeless facilities in the Riverside County CoC
area.
Table 42: Homeless Facilities (2020)*
Facility Type
Riverside City & County CoC
Family Units Family Beds Adult-Only Beds Total Year-Round
Beds
Emergency Shelter 80 310 505 839
Transitional Housing 11 42 50 92
Permanent Supportive Housing 112 414 1,330 1,744
Rapid Re-Housing 69 238 80 318
TOTAL UNITS/BEDS 272 1,004 1,965 2,993
*Numbers are for the total Riverside County Continuum of Care region for which Temecula is a participating member
Source: HUD 2020 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs, Housing Inventory Count Report
• Emergency Shelters – An emergency shelter is defined as housing
with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is
limited to occupancy of six months or less. Furthermore, no
individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because
of an inability to pay.
• Transitional Housing – Sometimes referred to as “bridge” housing,
provides housing accommodations and support services for
persons and families, but restricts occupancy to no more than 24
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-67
months. In the Riverside County CoC region, a total of 92
transitional housing beds are provided.
• Permanent Supportive Housing – Supportive housing has no limit
on length of stay and is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist
residents in retaining the housing, improving their health status,
and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
community. A total of 1,744 permanent housing beds are provided
in the Riverside County CoC region.
• Rapid Re-Housing – Rapid re-housing provides short-term rental
assistance and services. The goals are to help people obtain housing
quickly, increase self-sufficiency, and stay housed.
A network of local and regional service providers operates a number
of programs to serve the needs of varied homeless subpopulations.
Table 43 provides a list of emergency and transitional shelters and
available services for the homeless population in and around Temecula.
Table 43: Facilities and Services for the Homeless
Organization Name Type of Service Provided Homeless Population
Served Number of Beds
Project TOUCH - Temecula Transitional housing,
emergency shelter All 215
Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission - Temecula Emergency shelter All N.A.
Set Free Ranch - Lake Elsinore Transitional housing,
substance abuse counseling
People with substance
abuse problems,
people with mental
illness, domestic-
violence survivors
80 men;
30 women
Salvation Army Emergency Shelter - Hemet Transitional housing,
emergency shelter All N.A.
Valley Restart Shelter - Hemet Emergency shelter, All 35
Interfaith Community Services Coastal Service
Center - Oceanside
Transitional and permanent
housing, emergency shelter,
employment development
All,
Veterans 49+
Operation HOPE - Vista Emergency shelter Women and families N.A.
Jericho House Transitional housing Men with substance
abuse problems N.A.
Social Work Action Group (SWAG) 90-day stabilization program Substance Problems 20
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-68 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Assessment of Need
Based on the available information, there is a countywide homeless
population of 2,884 persons and 2,993 beds, indicating sufficient
supply for homeless persons. It is noted that the 2020 point-in-time
survey identified 729 sheltered homeless persons and 2,155 unsheltered
homeless persons. The discrepancy between sheltered homeless
persons and the county’s total capacity to house homeless persons
indicates a need for additional community services resources to assist
and match the homeless population with the countywide shelter and
housing resources.
I. Units at Risk of Conversion
Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
California housing element law requires jurisdictions to provide an
analysis of low-income, assisted multifamily housing units that are
eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10
years (2021-2031) due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use (Government Code
65583). These units risk the termination of various subsidy groups
which could convert certain multifamily housing from affordable to
market rate. State law requires housing elements to assess at-risk
housing in order to project any potential loss of affordable housing.
The California Housing Partnership (CHP) provides data on assisted
housing units, including those in Temecula. Table 44 indicates the
extent of subsidized multifamily rental housing in the City, the subsidy
programs that are in place for each project, and the likelihood of
current housing assisted projects to convert to market rate projects that
would not provide assistance to lower income residents.
Table 44: Summary of at-Risk Subsidized Housing Units
Project/Address No. & Type of
Units Type of Subsidy Current Owner Earliest Date of
Conversion Risk
Cameron Historical Building
41925 5th St.
Temecula CA 92590
24 Family RDA Loan WINCHESTER 12
PARTNERS LP 2062 Low
Cottages of Old Town
Address Varies 17 RDA Loan Individual Property
Owners 2047 Low
Creekside Apts.
28955 Pujol St.
Temecula CA 92590
48
LIHTC
Section 515,
Section 538,
Section 521
RC Investment Group
A – California LP 2040 Low
Front Street Plaza
28693 Old Town Front St.
Temecula CA 92590
23 Family &
Seniors RDA Loan FRONT STREET
PLAZA PARTNERS 2069 Low
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-69
FT-02-029
32504 Strigel Court
Temecula CA 92592
1 LIHTC Individual Property
Owner 2027 ModerateHig
h
Habitat I & II 9 Land/Cash
Contribution
Individual Property
Owners 2047 Low
Madera Vista Apts.
44155 Margarita Rd.
Temecula CA 92592
110 Family &
Seniors LIHTC
Summerhouse
Housing Associates
LP
2068 Low
Mission Village Apts.
28497 Pujol St.
Temecula CA 92590
75 Family LIHTC Affirmed Housing
Group 2029 ModerateHig
h
Oaktree Apts.
42176 Lyndie Ln.
Temecula CA 92591
39 Family
LIHTC
Section 515,
Section 538,
Section 521
Highland Property
Development 2040 Low
Palomar Building
41955 5th St.
Temecula CA 92590
22 Family RDA Loan CROSSROADS AT
WINCHESTER 2062 Low
Portola Terrace Apts.
28701 Pujol St.
Temecula CA 92590
44 Family &
Seniors LIHTC AMCAL Pujol Fund LP 2067 Low
Rancho California Apts.
29210 Stonewood Rd. Temecula CA
92591
54 Family LIHTC Rancho California LP 2067 Low
Rancho West Apts.
42200 Main St.
Temecula CA 92590
150 Family RDA Loan WESTMINSTER 2708
HOLDING 2026 High
Rancho Creek Apts.
28464 Felix Valdez Rd. Temecula CA
92590
30 Family RDA Loan 1717 SUNSET PLAZA
DR 2026 High
Riverbank Apts./Pujol Street Senior
Apartments
28500 Pujol St.
Temecula CA 92590
65 Senior LIHTC Corp for Better
Housing 2058 Low
Temecula Reflections (Temecula
Lane)
31111 Black Maple Dr.
Temecula CA 92592
11 Family
Builder
Financed/Develo
pment Rights
Individual Property
Owners 2065 Low
Warehouse at Creekside Apts.
42081 3rd St.
Temecula CA 92590
32 Family RDA Loan WAREHOUSE AT
CREEKSIDE 2065 Low
Sources: California Housing Partnership, May 2021; National Housing Partnership Database, 2021
Preservation Options
Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different
options may be used to preserve or replace the units. The following
discussion highlights ways that the City’s at-risk units could be
preserved as affordable housing. All of the presented financial
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-70 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
alternatives are costly and beyond the ability of the City of Temecula
to manage without large amounts of subsidy from federal and/or state
resources; however, the City can engage in a number of organizational
efforts to preserve at-risk units.
Replacement Through New Construction
The construction of new lower income housing units is a means of
replacing the at-risk units should they be converted to market rate. The
cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors such
as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of
construction. Assuming an average development cost of $143,000 per
unit for multifamily rental housing (1,200 square foot unit),
replacement of the 256180 high at-risk units would require
approximately $25.736.6 million dollars, excluding land costs, which
vary depending upon location.
Purchase of Replacement Units
One preservation option is for a non-profit organization to purchase
similar units. By purchasing similar units, a non-profit organization can
secure lower-income restrictions and potentially enable the project to
become eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. The
cost of purchasing similar units depends on a number of factors,
including the market conditions at the time, occupancy rate, and
physical conditions of the units to be acquired.
Current market value for the at-risk units is estimated on the basis of
the units’ potential annual income, and operating and maintenance
expenses. The actual market value at time of sale would depend on
market and property conditions, lease-out/turnover rates, among other
factors. According to Zillow, the average cost of a multifamily unit in
Temecula as of April 2021 was $419,000. As previously discussed, the
City has identified 256 high at-risk units; the cost to purchase
replacement units would be approximately $107 million dollars.
Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to
provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects as
affordable housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest
rate on the remaining loan balance, and/or supplementing the subsidy
amount received to market levels.
To purchase the affordability covenant on these projects, an incentive
package should include interest subsidies at or below what the property
owners can obtain in the open market. To enhance the attractiveness
of the incentive package, the interest subsidies may need to be
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-71
combined with rent subsidies that supplement the HUD fair market
rent levels.
Rental Assistance
Tenant-based rent subsidies could be used to preserve the affordability
of housing. Similar to Housing Choice Vouchers, the City, through a
variety of potential funding sources, could provide rent subsidies to
very low-income households. The level of the subsidy required to
preserve the at-risk units is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent
(FMR) for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low-
income household. Approximately $14,080 in rent subsidies would be
required monthly (or $168,960 annually). Assuming a 55-year
affordability period, the total subsidy is about $9.3 million.
Cost Comparison
In terms of cost effectiveness for preservation of the 256 at-risk units,
55 years’ worth of rental subsidies ($9.3 million) appears to be the most
effective financial option. While the cost of purchasing the affordability
covenants is unknown, it is possible that it would provide a cost-
effective strategy for preserving the at-risk units and should be explored
to further support the City’s preservation objectives.
Nonprofit Entities with Capacity to Acquire and/or
Manage At-Risk Units
Nonprofit entities serving Riverside County, including Temecula, can
be contacted to gauge their interest and ability in acquiring and/or
managing units at risk of conversion. A partial listing of entities with
resources in the Riverside County area includes:
Alternatives for Domestic Violence
Shelter from the Storm
Nexus for Affordable Housing
Catholic Charities
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
Fair Housing Council of Riverside County
Family Service Association of Riverside County
Habitat for Humanity
Lutheran Social Services
BUILD Leadership Development
Potential Funding Sources to Preserve At-Risk Units
A partial list of potential federal, State, and local funding sources that
can be used to preserve at-risk units include:
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-72 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Predevelopment funds
Tax-exempt bonds
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant
HOME funds
Local housing trust funds
Organizational Efforts
The City will develop procedures for monitoring and preserving at-risk
units, which will include the following:
Monitor the Risk Assessment report published by the
California Housing Partnership Corporation;
Maintain regular contact with the local HUD office regarding
early warnings of possible opt-outs;
Maintain contact with the owners and managers of existing
affordable housing to determine if there are plans to opt out in
the future and offer assistance in locating eligible buyers;
Develop and maintain a list of potential purchasers of at-risk
units and act as a liaison between owners and eligible
purchasers; and
Contact property owners of units at risk of converting to
market-rate housing within one year of affordability expiration
to discuss the City’s desire to preserve complexes as affordable
housing. Participation from agencies interested in purchasing
and/or managing at-risk units will be sought. Coordinate with
owners of expiring subsidies to ensure tenants receive the
required notices at 3 years, 6 months, and 12 months, per
California law.
The City has included Program 20 to seek to preserve all at-risk units.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-73
J. Estimates of Housing Need
Several factors influence the degree of demand, or “need,” for housing
in Temecula. The major needs categories considered in this Element
include:
• Housing needs resulting from the overcrowding of units
• Housing needs that result when households pay more than they can
afford for housing
• Housing needs of “special needs groups” such as elderly, large
families, female-headed households, households with a disabled
person, farmworkers, and the homeless
State law requires that cities quantify existing housing need in their
Housing Element. Table 45 summarizes the findings.
Table 45: Summary of Needs
Summary of Households/Persons with Identified Housing Need Percent of Total
Population/Households
Households Overpaying for Housing:
Renter Households Overpaying 11.3% of households
Owner Households Overpaying 6.7% of households
Extremely Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 4.8% of households
Very Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 5.5% of households
Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 7.7% of households
Overcrowded Households:
Overcrowded Renter Households 1.6% of households
Overcrowded Owner Households 1.3% of households
All Overcrowded Households 2.9% of households
Special Needs Groups:
Elderly Households 17.7% of households
Disabled Persons 8.5% of pop.
Developmentally Disabled Persons 0.2% of pop.
Large Households 15.6% of households
Female Headed Households 12.7% of households
Female Headed Households with Children 7.3% of households
Farmworkers 0.2% of pop.
Homeless 0.05% of pop.
Affordable Housing Units At Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Costs 180 256 units
Sources: US Census, 2014‐2018 ACS; Riverside County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-74 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
IV. CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING
PRODUCTION
Constraints to housing development are defined as government
measures or non-government conditions that limit the amount or
timing of residential development.
Government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of
housing available in a community if the regulations limit the
opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that
unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the
development process so arduous as to discourage housing developers.
State law requires housing elements to contain an analysis of the
governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and
development (Government Code, Section 65583(a) (4)).
Non-governmental constraints (required to be analyzed under
Government Code, Section 65583(a) (5)) cover land prices,
construction costs, and financing. While local governments cannot
control prices or costs, identification of these constraints can be helpful
to Temecula in formulating housing programs.
A. Potential Non-Governmental Constraints
The City of Temecula takes a number of proactive steps to address
non-governmental constraints. This includes implementing the City's
Affordable Housing Overlay, providing a fee deferral/reimbursement
program, and streamlining processes. Temecula provides a free pre-
application process where a developer can receive no cost feedback
from all City departments during conceptual, due diligence, and pre-
submittal timeframes. Many cities charge thousands of dollars for this
process, which adds to development costs and potentially discourages
developers from evaluating projects. The City’s digital review is
another developer friendly process that is minimizing time and
reducing costs for the development community. Prior to COVID-19,
the City undertook extensive information system upgrades to enable
digital reviews. The cost savings add up quickly, with printing cost and
permit running costs reaching well over $10,000 just for printing.
Temecula hosts Temecula Trekkers (annually), a multi-day educational
session, that educates real estate agents on the Planning Department
and provides a direct liaison for future projects.
The City has included Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernment
Constraints, to address these constraints, to the extent feasible.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-75
1. Land and Construction Costs
A major cost associated with developing new housing is the cost of
land. Most vacant residential parcels in Temecula have been
subdivided, while others are contained within planned communities.
The cost of to develop housing is influenced by the cost of the raw
land, the cost of holding the land during the development process, and
the cost of providing services to meet City standards for development.
The cost of raw land is influenced by variables such as scarcity, location,
availability of public utilities, zoning, general plan designation, and
unique features like trees, water frontage, views, and adjoining uses. A
review of lots for sale and recently sold indicates that land prices range
from approximately $20,000 to $80,000 per acre for land approved for
residential development based on a review of Zillow and Loopnet
listings.
A number of underdeveloped parcels with a single-family unit that
could be redeveloped with larger, single-family homes (with ADUs)
have been sold for $359,000 to $3.2 million or approximately $14 to
$55 per square foot, largely depending on the location within the
community.
A review of multifamily developments for sale and recently sold using
Zillow and LoopNet listings found several multi-family units: a
condominium unit sold for $320,000 or approximately $81 per square
foot; a townhome sold for $565,000 or approximately $177 per square
foot; and a three-unit property sold for $1.3 million (approximately
$433,333 per unit) or $111 per square foot.
Construction cost is determined primarily by the cost of labor and
materials. The relative importance of each is a function of the
complexity of the construction job and the desired quality of the
finished product. As a result, builders are under constant pressure to
complete a job for as low a price as possible while still providing a
quality product. This pressure has led (and is still leading) to an
emphasis on labor-saving materials and construction techniques.
The International Code Council (ICC) provides estimates for the
average cost of labor and materials for typical Type VA protected
wood-frame housing. Estimates are based on “good-quality”
construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the
minimum required by state and local building codes. In the 2020 edition
of the Building Safety Journal, the ICC estimated that the average per
square-foot cost for good-quality housing in the region was
approximately $118 for multi-family housing, $131 for single-family
homes, and $148 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Although
construction costs are a substantial portion of the overall development
cost, they are consistent throughout the region and therefore are not
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-76 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
considered a major constraint to housing production. The 2020
COVID-19 pandemic social distancing guidelines may increase
constructions costs for an unknown period.
Construction cost increases, like land cost increases, affect the ability
of consumers to pay for housing. Construction cost increases occur
due to the cost of materials, labor, and higher government imposed
standards (e.g., energy conservation requirements). The development
community is currently producing market rate for-sale housing that is
affordable to moderate and above moderate income households.
Through Programs 3, 6, and 8, and theand the City will continue to
make available City-owned land for affordable housing development to
help alleviate potential constraints associated with land and
construction costs.
2. Availability of Financing
Financing is critical to the housing market. Developers require
construction financing, and buyers require permanent financing. The
two principal ways in which financing can serve as a constraint to new
residential development are the availability and cost of construction
financing and the availability and cost of permanent financing.
• If financing is not easily available, then more equity may be required
for developing new projects and fewer homebuyers can purchase
homes, since higher down payments are required.
• Higher construction period interest rates for developers result in
higher development costs. For homebuyers, higher interest rates
translate into higher mortgage payments (for the same loan
amount), and therefore reduces the purchasing power of
homebuyers.
On February 25, 2021, the reported average rate for a 30-year mortgage
was 2.97% with 0.6 points (FreddieMac, 2019). From 2005 through
2021, average monthly mortgage rates have ranged from a high of
6.76% in July 2006 to today’s record lows. For homebuyers, it is
necessary to pay a higher down payment than in the immediate past,
and demonstrate credit worthiness and adequate incomes, so that loan
applications meet standard underwriting criteria. While adherence to
strict underwriting criteria was not required during the early and mid-
2000s, the return to stricter standards is consistent with loan standards
prior to 2001.
Interest rates at the present time are not a constraint to affordable
housing. Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is
generally available in Riverside County subject to normal underwriting
standards. A more critical impediment to homeownership involves
both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-77
buyers to fulfill down-payment requirements. Conventional home
loans typically require five to 20 percent of the sales price as a down
payment, which is the largest constraint to first-time homebuyers. This
indicates a need for flexible loan programs and a method to bridge the
gap between the down payment and a potential homeowner’s available
funds. The availability of financing for developers under current
economic conditions may also pose a constraint on development
outside of the City’s control.
As described in Program 11, the City will continue to support the
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program managed by the County of
Riverside, a government assistance program, to help address this issue.
3. Affordable Housing Development Constraints
In addition to the constraints to market rate housing development
discussed above, affordable housing projects face additional
constraints. While there is a range of sites available for potential
affordable housing projects, as well as projects that focus on special
needs populations, financial assistance for the development of
affordable housing is limited and highly competitive.
Multiple funding sources are needed to construct an affordable housing
project, since substantial subsidies are required to make the units
affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households. It
is not unusual to see five or more financing sources required to make a
project financially feasible. Each of these sources may have different
requirements and application deadlines, and some sources may require
that the project has already successfully secured financing
commitments. Since financing is so critical and is also generally
competitive, organizations and agencies that provide funding often can
effectively dictate the type and sizes of projects. Thus, in some years
senior housing may be favored by financing programs, while in other
years family housing may be preferred. Target income levels can also
vary from year to year.
This situation has worsened in recent years. Federal and state funding
has decreased and limited amounts of housing funds are available and
the process to obtain funds is extremely competitive. Tax credits, often
a fundamental source of funds for affordable housing, are no longer
selling on a one for one basis. In other words, once a project has
received authorization to sell a specified amount of tax credits to equity
investors, the investors are no longer purchasing the credits at face
value, but are purchasing them at a discount. (Tax credits are not worth
as much to investors if their incomes have dropped.)
As described in Program 10, Special Needs Housing Construction, the
City will continue to support the developers of affordable and special
needs housing and encourage the expansion of these development
types in the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-78 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
4. Building Permit Timing
Typically, single family home developers apply for the first building
permits for a subdivision upon receipt of a grading permit. For simple
projects or projects that must remain static in their design, building
permits may be processed concurrently with grading plan reviews.
Building permits typically take 60-90 days, assuming two to three plan
checks. Building permits can be issued in as few as 30 days if there are
no corrections, but this is rarely the case for residential subdivisions or
multifamily projects. Typically, it takes approximately 6-18 months
between approval of a project and request for/issuance of building
permits. This varies widely depending on the complexity of the project
and required permits or environmental review.
The City will continue to work proactively with applicants to ensure
that applications for building permits are complete and can be reviewed
and granted in an expeditious way. The City has identified Program 14
to expedite the processing of affordable housing projects and Program
17 to review key sections of its Zoning Code to evaluate and amend, if
necessary, provisions to further streamline the permit process.
B. Governmental Constraints
Housing affordability is affected by factors in both the private and
public sectors. Actions by the City can have an impact on the price and
availability of housing in Temecula. Land use controls, site
improvement requirements, building codes, fees, and other local
programs intended to improve the overall quality of housing may serve
as a constraint to housing development. These governmental
constraints can limit the operations of the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing
and limiting supply in a region. All City zoning, development standards,
specific plans, and fees are posted online and available to the public,
consistent with the requirements of AB 1483 and Government Code
Section 65940.1(a)(1).
In this section. the City has considered all relevant land use controls
impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. In some
cases, as described below, the City has identified a particular control as
a constraint to housing development and has included Program 17 to
modify the City’s Zoning Code, as needed, to remove the constraint.
1. Land Use Controls
The Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan and
corresponding Development Code provide for a range of residential
types and densities dispersed throughout the City. The Land Use
Element identifies an allowable range of dwelling units per net acre for
each residential land use category (see Table 46).
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-79
Maximum residential densities, in terms of dwelling units per acre
(DU/Ac), in Temecula cover a wide spectrum, including the following
categories:
Hillside Residential (HR) (0.1 DU/Ac)
Rural (RR) (0.2 DU/Ac)
Very Low Density Residential (VL) (0.4 DU/Ac)
Low Density Residential-1 (L-1) (2 DU/Ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (6 DU/Ac)
Medium Density Residential (M) (12 DU/Ac)
High Density Residential (H) (20 DU/Ac)
The Land Use Element also establishes target residential density
levels for the following residential uses:
Hillside Residential (HR) (0.10 DU/Ac)
Rural Residential (RR) (0.20 DU/Ac)
Very Low Density Residential (VL) (0.3 DU/Ac)
Low Density Residential-1 (L-1) (1.5 DU/Ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (4.5 DU/Ac)
The Land Use Element also establishes Mmaximum residential
densities as follows, in terms of dwelling units per acre (DU/Ac), in
Temecula cover a wide spectrum, including the following categories:
Hillside Residential (HR) (0.1 DU/Ac)
Rural (RR) (0.2 DU/Ac)
Very Low Density Residential (VL) (0.4 DU/Ac)
Low Density Residential-1 (L-1) (2 DU/Ac)
Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (6 DU/Ac)
Medium Density Residential (M) (12 DU/Ac)
High Density Residential (H) (20 DU/Ac)
For residential projects, development at a density between the target
and maximum levels may only occur forin the Hillside, Rural, Very
Low, Low and Low Medium designations, if the development meets
the criteria set forth in Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.06.050(A),
Residential Density Incentives, as determined by at the discretion of
the Planning Commission and City Council. (a target level of density is
not established for the Medium and High density residential
designations, so as not to preclude or discourage the development of
affordable housing).
In accordance Temecula Development Code Section 17.06.0500.50,
the amount of the increased intensity shall not exceed the maximum of
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-80 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
the density range stated in the general plan for the specific land use
designation. In addition, the City Engineer must determine if the
project at the increased density does not create unmitigable impacts
upon the traffic circulation in the area or overburden the utilities
serving the area. The City Council shall consider the following factors
in determining if an increase in the residential density is justified:
1. The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and
exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment,
fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. Examples
include the provision of affordable housing with proximity to
convenient shopping and employment, accessibility to mass transit
facilities, and creative mixtures of housing types and densities.
2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscape
design amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for
the city. Examples include extraordinary architectural design,
landscaped entry features in the public right-of-way, public trail
systems, or public plazas and recreational features in excess of what
is required by this development code.
3. The project provides new public facilities which are needed by the
city. Examples of such facilities include: the provision of
community meeting centers, needed transportation improvements,
off-site traffic signalization, police or fire stations, public recreation
facilities, and common parking areas or structures to serve the
community.
For the Medium and High density residential designations, the City
does not impose a target density, but rather only relies on maximum
density levels. As such, projects in Medium and High density
residential designations are not subject to Temecula Municipal Code
Section 17.06.050.
For purposes of determining capacity to accommodate the City’s
RHNA (Appendix A), the City has calculated capacity based on the
target density (not maximum density) for residentially designated
and zoned sites.
During the prior planning period, no project approved by the Planning
Commission at a density between the target and maximum density has
beenwas appealed to the City Council. Moreover, the City has not
received any feedback from the development community that this
processthe process to increase the residential density above the target
density creates a constraint to potential development and no applicant has
changed their project proposal (size, number of units, affordability level,
etc.) because of this e target density review or approval process.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-81
The City has considered whether this process represents a constraint to
development and has found that the plan review process, including the
application of a target density, is not considered a constraint to housing.
In 2022 the City initiated a comprehensive update to its General Plan; as
part of this effort, the City will evaluate the use of target densities and will
revise the Land Use Element as necessary to provide higher levels of
approval certainty for projects seeking to achieve the maximum
development capacity allowed within the City’s residential land use areas.
In addition, the Land Use Element includes a Mixed-Use Overlay that
adds residential uses to permitted uses and increases the maximum
density and target floor-to-area ratio (FAR). As stated in the General
Plan Land Use Element, for each area, a daily trip cap is defined, based
on the maximum number of daily trips permitted. Within the daily trip
cap for each area, flexible, high-quality design and creative mixes of
adjacent uses are encouraged. Development project proposals that
exceed the specified trip caps will not be approved. Residential
densities would average approximately 28 units per net acre. According
to the Land Use Element, the total number of units possible in Mixed-
Use Overlay areas ranges from approximately 1,173 to 2,348 units. The
trip caps for each Mixed Use Overlay area are as follows: Area 1 –
15,000 trips; Area 2 – 30,000 trips; Area 3 – 6,000 trips. The total
number of trips, 51,000, is equivalent to 8,500 residential dwelling units
(at 6 trips per unit for high-density residential development), or 102
acres of commercial development (at 500 trips per acre), or a
combination of the two. Residential uses are allowed in the Mixed-Use
Overlay without a commercial component (i.e., 100% residential uses
are allowed in the Mixed-Use Overlay).
Approved and Built Densities
While the City’s regulations identify minimum and maximum densities
that may be developed in the City (exclusive of most Specific Plans,
including Old Town, Altair, and Harveston), individual developers may
opt to build at the lower, mid-range, or higher end of allowed densities.
Recent projects in Temecula that are built or are under construction
are consistent with the densities anticipated by the City’s General Plan,
Specific Plans, and Zoning Code and typically built within 5% of the
maximum allowable density. The City has received feedback from the
development community that the maximum density levels are realistic
and achievable, and the City expects to continue to see projects built at
or around the maximum allowable density.
Requests to Build at Lower Densities
As discussed above, the vast majority of projects in Temecula develop
at or within 5% of their maximum density. However, there have been
a limited number of instances where projects have developed at lower
densities, largely due to unanticipated site constraints or unusual market
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-82 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
conditions (i.e., the Great Recession, COVID-19, etc.). Rancho
Highlands (Arrive) had the opportunity to develop at 30 units per acre,
but the market and site topography determined that they could support
21.92 dwelling units per acre. The project of Roripaugh also initially
anticipated developing at the lower end of the density range, but with
recent modifications to the land use plan the project is expected to
develop at within 5% of the maximum units allowed. The City of
Temecula has no reason to expect that developers will request to
develop at densities significantly below the allowable density.
Short Term Rentals
In 2017, the City identified illegal short-term rentals as a potential
quality of life issue and housing affordability issue. At the start of the
community outreach process, it was determined that over 350 short-
term rentals existed in the market. Over 75% of the units were
determined to be removing potential long term rental units. In 2020,
Thethe cCity adopted an ordinance re-affirmeding its existing ban on
short-term rentals, and has reduced the number of illegal rentals to
under 30 units. Literature reviews have postured that removing short-
term rentals can reduce rental prices. More recent journals suggest that
removing short-term rentals may reduce housing rental prices by 2%.
The City’s ordinance had a positive impact in returning housing stock
to the market.
2. Residential Development Standards
Temecula’s residential development and parking standards are
summarized in Tables 46 and 47through 49. The City’s development
standards are also available on the City’s website. Residential standards
have been adopted by the City to protect the safety and welfare of
Temecula residents. The Development Code and General Plan allow
for modification and flexibility in the development standards through
the provision of a Mixed-Use Overlay, Village Center Overlay,
Affordable Housing Overlay, and Planned Development Overlay.
Flexibility in planning for overlay areas is allowed to promote a greater
range of housing opportunities within the City, promote development
of affordable housing options, and affirmatively further fair housing.
Diversity of housing, including affordable housing, is one of the
performance standards for the Village Center Overlay and is a central
component of the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay. The Planned
Development Overlay zoning district also encourages the provision of
additional housing opportunities for the community.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN H‐83 Table 46: Residential Development Standards HR RR VL L-1 L-2 LM M NC CC HT PO SP PDO H4 HR-SM Minimum Net Lot Area (square feet) – – – – – 7,200 7,200 30,000 30,000 20,000 40,000 For SP-5, see Table H-26ATable 47. For all others, refer to individual specific plans. See Table H-26BTable 48 – – Minimum Average Net Lot Area per Dwelling Unit 10 acres 5 acres 2.5 acres 1.0 acre 0.5 acres – – - - - - – 10 acres Density Range (Dwelling Units per Net Acre)1 <0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.4 0.5-2.9 0.5-2.9 3.0-6.9 7.0-12.9 20.05 30.05 30.05 30.05 13.0-20.0 <0.1 Lot Dimensions Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Line 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. - - - - For SP-5, see Table H-26ATable 47. For all others, refer to individual specific plans. See Table H-26BTable 48 30 ft. 50 ft. Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front Property Line 40 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. - - - - 20 ft. 40 ft. Minimum Width at Required Front Setback Area 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 70 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 30 ft. 100 ft. Minimum Average Width 100 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. - - - - 50 ft. 100 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 150 ft. 150 ft. 120 ft. 100 ft. 90 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 120 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft. Setbacks Minimum Front Yard2 40 ft. 40 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 15 ft. 2 10 ft. 2 10 ft. 2 - - - - For SP-5, see Table H-26ATable 47. For all others, refer to individual specific plans. See Table H-26BTable 48 20 ft. 2 40 ft. Minimum Corner Side Yard 40 ft. 40 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - - - - 15 ft. 40 ft. Minimum Interior Side Yard3 25 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Variable3 Variable3 0 0 0 0 Variable3 25 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN HBR-84 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HR RR VL L-1 L-2 LM M NC CC HT PO SP PDO H4 HR-SM Other Requirements Maximum Height 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft. 35 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. For SP-5, see Table H-26ATable 47. For all others, refer to individual specific plans. See Table H-26BTable 48 50 ft. 2 floors, 30–40 ft. from foundation Maximum % of Lot Coverage 10% 15% 20% 25% 25% 35% 35% 25% 30% 30% 50% 30% 2 floors, 30–40 ft. from foundation Open Space Required 90 % 75% 70 % 60% 40% 25% 25% 25% 20% 20% 25% For SP-5, see Table H-26ATable 47. For all others, refer to individual specific plans. 30% 2 floors, 30–40 ft. from foundation Private Open Space Per Unit NA NA NA NA NA NA 200 NA NA NA NA 150 2 floors, 30–40 ft. from foundation SOURCE: The City of Temecula Municipal Code, Sections 17.06.040 and 17.06.080. Accessed June 2021. Notes: 1. Affordable housing and congregate care facilities may exceed the stated densities pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.10.020M. 2. In the H residential zoning district, dwelling units with entrances that have direct access to the street, such that the predominant features of the home fronting the street are the windows and the front door, may have a minimum setback of 15 feet. 3. In order to allow for more flexible site planning, variable interior yard setback for both sides must equal at least LM zoning district: The combined interior side yard setback for both sides must equal at least 15 feet. One side shall have at least 5 feet and the other side shall have at least 10 feet and shall be located on the same side as the driveway to provide for potential vehicular access to the rear of the property. M and H zoning districts: The combined interior side yard setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet. This is intended to permit a zero lot line arrangement with a zero setback on one side yard and 10 feet on the opposite side yard. 4. Except as otherwise stated in the Temecula Municipal Code, the objective standards and regulations applicable to multifamily projects in the high density residential zoning district, as outlined in Chapter 17.06, shall apply to all projects developed pursuant to the Affordable Housing Overlay. 5. As allowed by the Affordable Housing Overlay.
C ITY OF T EMECULA G ENERAL P LAN
H‐85
Table 47: Residential Development Standards – Old Town Specific Plan
District DTC R/LMU NR
Minimum Net Lot Area (square feet) 3,500 3,125 3,750
Minimum Average Net Lot Area per Dwelling Unit - - -
Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre1 70 70 35
Lot Dimensions
Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Line 25 25 50
Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front Property Line - - -
Minimum Width at Required Front Setback Area 10 10 -
Minimum Average Width - - -
Minimum Lot Depth 140 125 75
Setbacks
Minimum Front Yard 20 20 20
Minimum Corner Side Yard - - 5
Minimum Interior Side Yard - - 5
Minimum Rear Yard 5 5 10
Other Requirements
Maximum Height 50 50 50
Maximum % of Lot Coverage - - -
Open Space Required - - -
Private Open Space Per Unit 75-100 50-75 100
SOURCE: City Of Temecula, Old Town Specific Plan
Notes:
Rear yard setback is 0 feet where an alley occurs, or 5 feet in NR
District.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-86 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 48: Residential Development Standards – Planning Development Overlays
PDO-2 PDO-5 PDO-6 PDO-7 PDO-10 PDO-
11
PDO-
12
Residential Uses Permitted? (Y/N) Y Y Y* Y Y Y Y
Minimum Net Lot Area (square feet) 2,700 – 40,000 7,200 7,000 2,400 4,500
Minimum Average Net Lot Area per Dwelling
Unit
2,400 – – – - - -
Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre 20 –Not
specified
–Not
specified
12 -Not
specified
10 2
Lot Dimensions
Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Line 30 ft. – 60 ft. 30 ft. - - -
Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front
Property Line
12 ft. – – 20 ft. - - -
Minimum Width at Required Front Setback
Area
40 ft. – 80 ft. 40 ft. - - -
Minimum Average Width 40 ft. – – 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 45 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth 55 ft. – 120 ft. 80 ft. 100 ft. 60 ft. 100
ft.
Setbacks
Minimum Front Yard 8 ft. 45 ft.1 20 ft.5 10 ft. - 5 ft. 15 ft.
Minimum Corner Side Yard 0 ft. 45 ft.1 - 15 ft. - 10 ft. 10 ft.
Minimum Interior Side Yard 0 ft. 45 ft.1 10 ft. - - 5 ft. 5 ft.
Minimum Rear Yard 5 ft. 45 ft.1 10 ft. 20 ft. - 10 ft. 20 ft.
Landscape Setback2 - 25 ft. – - - - -
Other Requirements
Maximum Height 35 ft. 28 ft./40
ft.3
40 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. 35 ft.
Maximum % of Lot Coverage 50% – 50% 35% 50% - -
Floor Area Ratio –N/A 1.004 1.0– –N/A –2.0 –N/A –N/A
Open Space Required 30% – 25% 25% - 20% -
Private Open Space Per Unit 120 sf – – 200 sf - 200 sf -
SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code, Sections 17.22. Accessed June
2021.
Notes: For Sub Area C along the eastern and southerly property line.
A minimum 25-foot landscape buffer setback from the property line shall be provided in
Sub Areas A and B along Rancho California Road and between Sub Area A and
existing residential development to the east.
28 feet and 1 story in Sub Area A; 40 feet and 3 stories in Sub Area C.
Maximum floor area ratio (with bonuses). Target floor area ratio is .50
10 feet on service and access roads and 25 feet adjacent to residentially zoned
property.
PDO-6 permits one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use
for use of the proprietor of the business. In all other overlays listed, residential
development is allowed without a commercial component.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-87
Table 49: Parking Space Requirements
Land Use Required Parking Spaces
Single-Family Unit 2 enclosed spaces
Duplex, Triplex 2 covered spaces/units, plus 1 guest
space/4 units
Multi-Family Units (12 units or less) – 3 or
fewer bedrooms
2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/units,
plus 2 guest spaces per project
6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit,
plus 3 guest spaces
Multi-Family Units (13 or more units) 1 covered parking space plus 0.5
uncovered parking space for 1
bedroom units. In addition, 1 guest
space for every 6 units
1 covered parking space plus 1
uncovered parking space for 2
bedroom units. In addition, 1 guest
space for every 6 units
2 covered parking spaces and 0.5
uncovered parking space for three
bedroom (or more) units. In addition,
1 guest space for every 6 units
A minimum of 4 guest spaces is
required for all multifamily residential
with 13 or more units
Mobile Home Park 1 covered space/trailer site, plus 1
guest space/2 trailer sites
Accessory Dwelling Units 1 parking space per newly
constructed detached ADU except as
otherwise provided in Chapter 17.23.
The parking space may be provided
as tandem parking on the driveway
Senior Citizens Housing Complex/Congregate
Care
½ covered space/unit, plus 1
uncovered guest space per 5 units
Congregate Care Housing ½ covered space/unit, plus 1
uncovered guest space per 5 units
SOURCE: City of Temecula Development Code, 2021.
Additional flexibility in development standards is also provided in the
Development Code through the use of variable setbacks. This
flexibility allows for creative site planning, especially for irregular sites.
For example, the City adopted a Planned Development Overlay district
for the Temecula Creek Village project to provide for mixed-use
commercial/residential development. Residential uses for the Planned
Development Overlay district include medium- and high-density multi-
family uses.
The City has not received any meaningful feedback to suggest that the
City’s parking standards are a constraint on residential development.
Single-Family units are often developed with three covered parking
spaces based on the developer’s/market demands. Additionally, the
feedback received from residents of multi-family units is that there is
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-88 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
not enough parking. The City continues to monitor parking requirements
and provide flexibility, such as parking reductions for affordable
housing projectsaffordable units, as needed. The City also has a process
to accommodate reductions in parking through a Minor Exception
process (up to 15% of the Code requirement).
Affordable Housing Opportunities
To provide additional opportunities for affordable housing, the
Development Code and General Plan also allow senior housing,
congregate care facilities, and affordable housing in some
nonresidential zoning districts. Senior housing is also permitted in the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (CC),
Service Commercial (SC), Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT), and
Professional Office (PO) zoning districts. Congregate care facilities are
allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial,
Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional
Office zoning districts. Residential, multiple-family housing shall be
allowed in the PO zone only if the affordable housing overlay (AHO)
applies to the property and the proposed development complies with
all requirements of Chapter 17.21.
Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled
to receive various incentives, provided the project meets the
requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code.
Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive qualifying density
incentives through Section 17.10.020(M)(3)(a) of the Temecula
Municipal Code and may also receive qualifying concessions through
Section 17.10.020(M)(3)(b) of the Temecula Municipal Code. The types
of concessions that may be offered for specific housing projects are
discussed in detail in the Density Bonus and Incentive Law section of
this Housing Element.
Specific Plans
A specific plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides the
development of a defined geographic area in a mix of uses including
residential, commercial, industrial, schools, and parks and open space.
Specific plans typically include more detailed information than the
General Plan about land use, traffic circulation, affordable housing
programs, resource management strategies, development standards,
and a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Specific plans are also used
as a means of achieving superior design by providing flexibility in
development standards beyond those contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
The City Council has adopted more than a dozen specific plans. Each
one contains detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and design
criteria unique to a defined geographic area within Temecula and is
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-89
intended to implement the General Plan. The adopted specific plans
are consistent with the General Plan. Future specific plans, specific plan
amendments, and development projects must be consistent with
policies contained in the General Plan, including the General Plan Land
Use and Community Design Elements. The following discussion
summarizes three specific plans that will accommodate a significant
portion of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) through
the planning period.
Old Town Specific Plan
The Old Town Specific Plan was originally adopted in 1994 and
subsequently comprehensively amended in 2010 to plan
comprehensively for the revitalization of Old Town Temecula. The
intent of the Old Town Specific Plan is to create a dynamic, walkable
and pedestrian friendly mixed-use core in Old Town that consistent of
attractive, high quality development, respectful of its existing historic
buildings, while maintaining a unified design theme and unique
architectural character. The Old Town Specific Plan is a form-based
code and does not include minimum or maximum development
standards. Although the Old Town Specific Plan allows for mixed-use
development in horizontal and vertical formats, projects are allowed to
be 100% residential. As included in the Regulating Plan for the Specific
Plan, the Downtown Core area is expected to see development at
densities between 40-70 du/ac, the Residential/Limited Mixed Use
area is expected to see densities of 20-70 du/ac, and the Neighborhood
Residential area is expected to see densities between 20-35 du/ac.
Residential development in the Old Town Specific Plan area can occur
at densities of at least 30 du/ac.
During the past planning period, the City has seen significant
development interest in the Old Town area. In particular, the Old
Town area has been particularly attractive for affordable housing
development, and the City recently approved two affordable housing
projects in Old Town under the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay,
which applies to several properties within the Old Town Specific Plan.
Harveston Specific Plan
The Harveston Specific Plan is an approximately 550-acre planned
community that was initially approved by the City of Temecula City
Council in 2001. The Specific Plan was divided into 12 planning areas
in an effort to create a distinct cluster of future uses/activities and to
identify potential time frames for individual project development to
occur in a timely manner within the overall Specific Plan concept. The
Specific Plan proposed a maximum 1,921 dwelling units (1,621 single-
family residences and 300 multi-family residences); a 110.4-acre service
commercial area; a 17.3-acre lake/lake park facility; a 19.5-acre
community park; a 13.9-acre arroyo park; a 2-acre paseo park; three
mini parks totaling 1.5 acres; a 1.8-acre village green, trails, paseos, and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-90 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
bike lanes; a 12-acre elementary school on a 550-acre site; and 63.9
acres of major streets. The Specific Plan also allowed for an
approximately 13-acre mixed-use district overlay intended to function
as the Village Center. This area allowed up to 20,000 square feet of
retail, restaurant and office uses; a daycare facility; a congregate care
facility; a worship site; an approximately 15,000 square-foot private
club house with fitness center; and residential, educational, recreation,
and park uses.
The Harveston Specific Plan area has been mostly developed.
However, in 2020, the City Council approved a General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to change the General Plan
land use designation from Service Commercial to Specific Plan
Implementation and add a residential overlay to approximately 87.54-
acres of Planning Area 12, allowing for the future development of up
to 1,000 additional residential units. At this time, the unit mix of single-
family residences and multi-family residences is unknown as there are
no specific detailed project plans or proposed project designs.
For the purposes of this analysis, the residential overlay assumes 1,000
small lot detached single family homes that would be developed, the
majority of which would be market-rate. However, the 1,000 units
allowed for under the Residential Overlay may be distributed over any
of the Residential Overlay parcels so that the net density of one parcel
could be significantly greater than another parcel. The expected density
range for parcels in the Residential Overlay varies from 7-20 du/ac, but
the Specific Plan expressly states that densities may exceed this range,
with no maximum density identified, so long as the total number of
units allowed under the Residential Overlay does not exceed 1,000
units.
This area, which has been identified as a key location to accommodate
a portion of the City’s RHNA, includes the lot south of the Audi
Temecula car dealership, and the lot east of the Mercedes Benz of
Temecula, which are currently vacant. The remaining planning areas of
the Harveston Specific Plan are developed with single family and multi-
family residences; the Ysabel Barnett Elementary School; the ABC
Child Care Village; the Harveston Lake and Harveston Lake Park; the
Harveston Community Park; and open space areas.
Implementation of the additional residential development would
require the construction of public facilities and services to serve the
future development of up to 1,000 residential units. Services include:
water, wastewater, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas,
telecommunications, and solid waste disposal. The adequacy of these
services were evaluated in the environmental document prepared to
support the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and specific
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-91
programs and improvements have been identified in order to support
development of these new housing units.
Altair Specific Plan
The Altair Specific Plan applies to development of a 270-acre land
parcel west of the Old Town planning area. Previously, the General
Plan and Zoning Map had designated the majority of the project area
as Specific Plan-8, Westside Specific Plan. However, this was a
previously adopted document that never developed as a built project.
In 2017, the City Council approved Specific Plan-15, Altair, to
reimagine the site and plan for a new vibrant development area just
outside of Old Town Temecula.
Altair is envisioned as the complementary residential component to the
Old Town Specific Plan area of the City of Temecula. The two plan
areas are integral to a successful urban mixed-use environment. Altair
is located directly adjacent to Old Town Temecula and its added
residential population base will support the commercial uses of Old
Town. There are few housing opportunities in Old Town currently,
limiting the clientelleclientele of Old Town’s shops and restaurants to
visitors who arrive primarily by car. Old Town businesses are therefore
very dependent on tourism, which can fluctuate dramatically. The
downtown area must also satisfy the intense parking demand of all of
those visitors. Altair will provide up to 1,750 new homes for a range of
household sizes, income and demographics. The homes of Altair will
be a pedestrian-oriented community within walking or cycling distance
of Old Town. The dense design will attract residents looking for an
urban lifestyle, a demographic that tends to patronize the type of
restaurants and shops already in Old Town. These residents will
broaden and stabilize the consumer base for Old Town businesses.
Altair also provides public amenities close to Old Town. A central park,
plazas, play field and an elementary school are proposed. A new
Western Bypass links Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road,
an important public benefit to alleviate traffic congestion in Old Town.
Altair’s attractive trails, vistas and parks will add to and diversify the
tourism market of the vicinity.
The Altair project area is comprised of two portions: the majority 215
acres (which will be developed) and a non-contiguous 55-acre site to
the south that is designated for a use benefitting the public,
predominantly through conservation. The site slopes dramatically,
offering striking views from vantage points on the site as well as
providing a visual backdrop to Old Town. A substantial portion of the
site will be added to the wildlife corridor established under the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and will, therefore, be
maintained in a natural state.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-92 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
The Altair Specific Plan lays out a vision to provide a range of housing
types at different densities and intensities. In particular, the Specific
Plan identifies the following allowable building types, at densities and
intensities allowing for at least 30 du/ac:
Detached housing
Multiplex
Rowhouses
Live/Work
Micro Units
Multifamily Walk-up
Multifamily Podium
The Altair Specific Plan does not set minimum or maximum density
requirements. The Specific Plan identifies a range of appropriate
densities for residential development by sub-planning area, which
anticipates development to occur at densities ranging from 4 du/ac (in
very limited areas adjacent to natural open space) to 33 du/ac (closer
to Old Town). The density ranges identified for each sub-planning area
may be increased by the transfer of unused development intensity from
one village to another administratively, so long as the total number of
dwelling units in the Altair Specific Plan is not exceeded. This approach
allows for significant flexibility to respond to market trends and
demands, accommodate affordable housing, provide a variety of
housing types, and create connections to Old Town Temecula.
Additionally, the City has seen significant development interest in
building affordable housing in the Old Town area, and anticipating
development of additional affordable housing in the Altair community
reflects the City’s vision to accommodate more affordable
development near Old Town and adjacent to goods and services in a
walkable, mixed-use environment.
Uptown Specific Plan
The Uptown Specific Plan, adopted in 2014, is intended to bring new
life to the Jefferson Avenue corridor by encouraging residential,
commercial and retail uses, and reducing development obstacles, such
as environmental review, parking, and permit processing. The Uptown
Specific Plan is a form based code, expecting residential densities of at
least 30 du/ac. The recommended minimum density for all zoning
districts within the Uptown Specific Plan area is 25 du/ac, and building
heights range from 4- to 8-stories, for areas designated for residential
development (as included in Appendix A). The Uptown Specific Plan
does not include a maximum density or intensity for new development.
The City has seen significant development interest in the Uptown
Specific Plan area, with a special focus on affordable housing. These
projects are attracted to the form based environment in Uptown and
find that the proximity to goods and services coupled with the flexible
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-93
development plan allow for more affordable housing options to be
developed in Temecula. As the City continues to promote Uptown as
a desirable location for new affordable residential development, the
City expects to continue to see development at densities of at least 30
du/ac (or higher), and finds that Uptown is a logical location to
accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA.
3. Provisions for a Variety of Housing
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate
sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development
standards to encourage the development of a variety of types of
housing for all income levels, including multi-family rental housing,
agricultural employee housing, manufactured homes, senior and
affordable housing, congregate care facilities, emergency shelters,
transitional housing, supportive housing, efficiency unit housing,
second dwelling units, and housing for persons with disabilities. Table
H-50 summarizes Temecula’s permitted residential housing by zoning
district and the following paragraphs describe the City’s provision for
these types of housing.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN H‐94 Table 50: Permitted Housing By Zoning District ZONE HOUSING TYPE HR RR VL L-1 L-2 LM M CC HT NC SC PO PDO SP H HR-SM1 Single-family detached P P P P P P P C C C C C See Table H-28BTable 51 Refer to individual specific plans. – P Duplex (two-family dwellings) – – – –2 –2 –2 P - - - - - P – Single-family attached (greater than two units) – – – – – P P - - - - - P – Multiple-family – – – – – – P C - - - - P – Manufactured homes P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Mobile home park – – C3 C C C C - - - - - See Table H-28BTable 51 Refer to individual specific plans. C – Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children (six or fewer) P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve) C C C C C C P - - - - - P C Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (six or fewer) P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (seven or more) C C C3 C C C P - - - - - P C Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P P P P P P P P P P P P See Table H-28BTable 51 Refer to individual specific plans. P P Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or more) C C C C C C P P P P P P P C Residential care facilities (six or fewer) P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Residential care facilities (seven or more) C C C C C C C - - - - - P C Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly4 – – – – P P P - - - - - P –
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-95 ZONE HOUSING TYPE HR RR VL L-1 L-2 LM M CC HT NC SC PO PDO SP H HR-SM1 Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities – – – – – – C - - - - - See Table H-28BTable 51 Refer to individual specific plans. C – Accessory dwelling units P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Guest house P P P P P P P6 - - - - - P4 P Family day care homes—small P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Family day care homes—large7 P P P P P P P - - - - - P P Day care centers C C C C C C C - - - - - See Table H-28BTable 51 Refer to individual specific plans. C C Bed and breakfast establishments6 C C C C C C C - - - - - C C Emergency shelters C C C3 C C C P - - - - - P C Transitional housing C C C3 C C C P - - - - - P C Supportive housing C C C3 C C C P - - - - - P C Efficiency Unit housing - - - - - - P - - - - - P - Source: City of Temecula 2021. Notes: General Note - A Conditional Use Permit for new construction requires Director’s Review and Hearing which includes consideration at a noticed public hearing, for matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the Director of Planning may refer such items to the Planning Commission for consideration. Conditional Use Permits without Development Plans are approvable by the Director of Planning. Conditional Use Permits with Development Plans are approvable by hearing body required for the Development Plan. Major Modifications of projects requiring Development Plans which were approved by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be considered by the original approval body. Increases in building square footage that result in a building larger than 10,000 square feet shall be considered by the Planning Commission. 1. Development within the HR-SM zoning district is subject to Section 17.06.080, Hillside development standards. 2. A duplex or two-family dwelling may be permitted on corner lots with a Planned Development Overlay pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.22 of this title. 3. These uses are not permitted within the Nicolas Valley rural preservation area, as identified in Figure LU-5 of the land use element of the general plan. 4. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10 of this title. 5. Reserved 6. Allowed only with a single-family residence. 7. Subject to the provisions of Section 17.06.050(I).
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-96 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 51: Permitted Housing By Zoning District
ZONE
HOUSING TYPE
PDO-1 PDO-2 PDO-7 Area
1A, 1B
PDO-7 Area
2
PDO-7
Area 3
Single-family detached P1 P P P
Duplex (two-family dwellings) P1 - P -
Single-family attached (greater than two units) P - P -
Multiple-family P - P -
Manufactured homes P - - -
Mobile home park - - - -
Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or
dependent or neglected children (six or fewer)
P - - -
Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or
dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve)
P - - -
Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility
(six or fewer)
P - - -
Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility
(seven or more)
P - - -
Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P - C C
Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or
more)
P - C C
Residential care facilities (six or fewer) P - - -
Residential care facilities (seven or more) P - - -
Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly P - - -
Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities C - - -
Accessory dwelling unit - - - -
Guest house P2 - - -
Family day care homes—small P - - -
Family day care homes—large1 P - - -
Day care centers C - - -
Bed and breakfast establishments - - - -
Emergency shelters P - - -
Transitional housing P - - -
Supportive Housing - - - -
Efficiency Unit Housing - - - -
SOURCE: City of Temecula 2021.
Notes:
1. Detached residential or zero lot-line units, duplexes and two-family dwellings are permitted only with the approval of the Planning Commission.
2. Allowed only with a single-family residence.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-97
Permanent and Seasonal Housing for Agricultural Employees:
Agriculture is a predominant industry in Riverside County, but there is
very little farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of local
importance within the City limits (General Plan, Figure OS-3). While
there are no agricultural operations in the City of Temecula, nearby
wineries represent an employee base for agricultural workers.
Agricultural workers face various housing issues due to their typically
lower incomes and the seasonal nature of their work. However, since
there is an insignificant amount of existing agricultural land, the City
does not provide agricultural employee housing and does not anticipate
a need for permanent and seasonal agricultural employee housing.
Other opportunities for agricultural worker housing are discussed
earlier in this Housing Element. Additionally, Program 16 17 is
proposed to address compliance with the Employee Housing Act
which includes employee housing requirements for agricultural
employees.
Factory-Built Housing/Modular and Mobile Homes: Temecula
allows for the provision of manufactured housing in all of its residential
zoning districts, but requires a permanent foundation. Mobile home
parks are allowed with a conditional use permit in all of the residential
zoning districts, except Hillside Residential (HR) and Rural Residential
(RR), where they are not permitted. Manufactured housing must be
certified according to the National Mobile Home Construction and
Safety Standards Act of 1974 and must conform to all other
development and use requirements applicable to the primary units in
the zoning district. The units must stand on a permanent foundation,
and the materials used for the siding must be approved by the Planning
Director. The City complies with State law, which requires that
manufactured housing, when constructed as a single-family dwelling on
a permanent foundation, be treated as a conventional single-family
home subject to the same development standards that a single-family
residential dwelling on the same lot would require, except for
architectural requirements limited to its roof overhang, roofing
material, and siding material. Additionally, the City recognizes the
potential for additional affordable factory-built housing as second
dwelling units.
Senior Housing/Affordable Housing: There are a total of
17 affordable housing developments throughout the City of Temecula.
Affordable housing is permitted in High, Medium, and Low Density
Residential zoning districts and in the City’s Affordable Housing
Overlay areas. In addition to development on vacant land within the
permitted zones and overlay areas, the City recognizes the potential for
additional affordable housing in future mixed-use areas and Specific
Plan areas, including Old Town, Harveston and Altair. Affordable
housing can also be achieved in the form of accessory dwelling units
(ADUs). The Municipal Code allows for ADUs in all residential and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-98 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
mixed-use zoning districts where single-family residences are
permitted, in accordance with State law. For additional information on
affordable housing within the City, please reference the Housing
Element sections on housing stock and housing resources.
Senior and affordable housing are permitted by-right in the High,
Medium, and Low Medium Density Residential zoning districts, with
approval of a development plan.
Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial,
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist
Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Senior housing
constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed
to be consistent with the development and performance standards
allowed in the Medium Density Residential zoning district. For the
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist
Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts, senior housing
will be developed consistent with the development and performance
standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district.
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing is permitted by-right where the parcel is identified
with the Affordable Housing Overlay. There are various types of
income levels when defining affordable housing:
Moderate-Income Household: Persons or families whose income
does not exceed 120% of area median income (AMI), adjusted annually
for family size.
Low-Income Household: Persons or families whose income does
not exceed 80% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size.
Very Low-Income Household: Persons or families whose income
does not exceed 50% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size.
Extremely Low-Income Household: Persons or families whose
income does not exceed 30% of AMI, adjusted annually for family size.
Affordable Housing Project Incentives
Currently, there are two basic sources of law governing affordable
housing project incentives within the City: (1) density bonus law; and
(2) Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.21, which defines the City’s
Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning District.
►Density Bonus and Incentive Law
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-99
The state density bonus statutes require the City to grant a density
bonus and incentives or concessions to a developer who agrees to
construct or donate land for affordable housing. Density bonuses are
allowed as per regulations in Temecula Municipal Code Section
17.06.050. Table 52 below lists the thresholds in which the State
decides if a project can be deemed all or partly affordable housing.
The City is committed to implementing its density bonus ordinance
consistent with State law. As part of updating its Housing Element, the
City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the City’s existing density bonus
ordinance and finds it in compliance with State law. However, should
updates be necessary now or in the future to maintain compliance, the
City has included Program 7 to review updates to Density Bonus Law
and amend the City’s ordinance as needed. Monitoring will be
conducted on an annual basis.
Table 52: Housing Qualifying for Density Bonus
Once the Project has been deemed a partly or fully affordable housing
project, the applicant may be allowed to develop additional density. The
City must calculate the extra density to which an applicant is entitled.
The density bonus law not only uses a base percentage of the project
(listed below), but a sliding scale allows for greater density bonuses
when an applicant includes more than the minimum qualifying
percentage of affordable units. To qualify for a density bonus through
donation of land, the applicant must propose a tentative tract map,
parcel map, or other residential development project. The donor of
land meeting the specified criteria is entitled to a base 15% density
bonus, with a sliding scale increase of 1% and an additional increase of
1% for each unit in the total number of affordable units entitled on the
donated land in excess of the 10% qualifying percentage. Listed below
are the base and sliding scale bonuses (see Table 53).]
Type of Qualifying Housing Required Percentage of Unit
Lower Income 10% of proposed units
Very Low Income 5% of proposed units
Senior Citizen Housing Development Any senior housing development
Moderate-Income Condominium or Planned
Development
10% of proposed units
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-100 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 53: Density Bonuses Allowed
Type of Qualifying
Housing Base Density Bonus Sliding Scale Density Bonus
Lower Income 20% increase in the
number of units,
unless a lesser
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
1.5% increase in density bonus for each 1%
increase in lower-income affordable units to a
maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed units
Very Low Income 20% increase in the
number of units,
unless a lesser
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
2.5% increase in density bonus for each 1%
increase in very low-income affordable units up to
a maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed
units
Senior Citizen
Housing
Development
20% increase in the
number of units,
unless a lesser
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
No sliding scale increase
Moderate-Income
Condominium or
Planned
Development
5% increase in the
number of units,
unless a lesser
percentage is
requested by the
applicant
1% increase in density bonus for each 1% increase
in moderate income affordable units up to a
maximum density bonus of 35% of proposed units.
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
Number of
Incentives or
Concessions
10% Lower Income or 5% Very Low Income
or 10% Moderate Income (condo/planned
development)
1
20% Lower Income or 10% Very Low Income
or 20% Moderate Income (condo/planned
development)
2
30% Lower Income or 15% Very Low Income
or 30% Moderate Income (condo/planned
development)
3
In addition to the density bonuses described above, the applicant may
request specific incentives or concessions. Provided that the City
cannot make findings sufficient to deny requested incentives or
concessions, as provided by Government Code Section 65915(d),
incentives or concessions must be granted if requested by the applicant.
The potential concessions include:
An increase in the amount of required lot coverage;
A modification to the setback or required yard provisions;
An increase in the maximum allowable building height;
A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking;
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-101
A reduction in the amount of on-site landscaping, except that
no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may be approved
unless the affordable housing is in close proximity with easy
access to a public park with recreational amenities; or
A reduction in the minimum lot area.
An applicant who receives a density bonus and/or other concessions
or incentives must agree to ensure the continued affordability of all
low- and very low-income density bonus units for at least 55 years,
unless a longer period of time is required. The minimum length of the
affordability covenant will depend upon whether the City grants any
additional concessions or incentives on top of the density bonus as well
as whether any City Housing Fund moneys were also used for the
project.
Efficiency Unit Housing: Efficiency unit housing offers one
opportunity for low-cost housing that is specifically designed to meet
some of the varying needs of several special needs groups.
Efficiency unit housing provides viable housing alternatives for
individuals in these special needs groups. The Temecula Municipal
Code allows efficiency unit housing in the Medium (M) and High (H)
density residential zoning districts and conditionally permits them in
the Community Commercial and Professional Office zones.
Congregate Care: Congregate care facilities are not limited specifically
to density requirements as long as all of the development standards for
the zoning district are met. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the
Low-Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium
Density Residential, High Density Residential, Neighborhood
Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/ Tourist Commercial,
Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts.
In Temecula, congregate care facilities include facilities for seniors and
the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
50062.5, which requires facilities that are “planned, designed, and
managed to include facilities and common space that allow for direct
services and support services that maximize the residents’ potential for
independent living and which is occupied by elderly or handicapped
persons or households, as defined in Sections 50067 and 50072. Direct
services and support services which are provided or made available
shall relate to the nutritional, social, recreational, housekeeping, and
personal needs of the residents and shall be provided or made available
at a level necessary to assist the residents to function independently.”
Accessory Dwelling Units: Construction of an ADU or JADU
(junior accessory dwelling unit) is permitted on a lot in any zone that
allows residential uses and includes a proposed or existing single-family
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-102 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
or multiple-family residenceThe City of Temecula allows accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential and mixed-use districts where a
detached single-family unit is permitted. In 2020, the City updated its
Zoning Code to implement the requirements of Government Code
Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to allow accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units in a manner that encourages their
development but simultaneously minimizes impacts on traffic, parking,
density, and other areas where the city is still permitted to exercise local
control. ADUs cannot be sold but may be rented for a period of at least
31 days. See the Housing Element section on housing resources for
additional information on second dwelling units.
As specified in Program 1617, the City will amend its Zoning Code as
it relates to Planned Development Overlays 2 and 7 to allow for
accessory dwelling units in accordance with State law.
Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional and supportive
housing is provided to socially support individuals and provide basic
life skills and is coupled with social services such as job training, alcohol
and drug abuse programs, and case management.
The Temecula Municipal Code allows transitional and supportive
housing in all residential areas within the City. Transitional and
supportive housing are permitted by right in Medium and High Density
Residential and require a conditional use permit in all other residential
zones. Transitional and supportive housing are also allowed in the
Community Commercial and Professional Office zoning districts with
a conditional use permit. The City does not have any special
development standards or requirements unique to transitional and
supportive housing; typical development standards apply (see Table
46). The Development Code will be updated to address permanent
supportive housing pursuant to AB 2162.
Emergency Shelters/Homeless Housing: The City facilitates the
development of emergency shelters by permitting the development of
such facilities in the Medium and High Density Residential districts by
right without a conditional use permit or other discretionary action.
These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a
conditional use permit. Emergency shelters are also permitted with a
conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community
Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial,
Professional office, Business Park, and Light Industrial zoning districts.
In 2021, the City conducted a detailed vacant land survey and identified
vacant parcels suitable for development of emergency
shelters/homeless housing in the Medium and High Density
Residential districts where this use is permitted by-right. There are four
vacant parcels designated for Medium Density Residential uses totaling
92.93 acre and there are 3 parcels designated for High Density
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-103
Residential uses totaling 3.64 acres. Given that the parcel size of
available High Density Residential sites are smaller and more
appropriately sized, without subdivision of a larger site, the City
continues to find that these zones are appropriate to accommodate the
identified housing need. Moreover, these residential districts are
located in areas near goods and services, and access to these
opportunities would be available at locations where emergency shelters
are permitted by-right. There are no special development standards or
requirements for emergency shelters in Medium or High Density
Residential zones; typical development standards apply (see Table 46).
Program 17 has been included in the Housing Plan which directs the
City to update the Development Code to require sufficient parking to
accommodate all staff working in an emergency shelter, provided that
the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than
other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in
compliance with AB 139.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The City provides housing
opportunities for disabled persons through the provision of affordable,
barrier-free housing. The requirements for accessibility in the
California Building Code and the Temecula Municipal Code ensure
reasonable accommodation and compliance with accessibility
requirements and are provided in all projects within Temecula.
Residential care facilities (group homes) for six or fewer residents are
permitted in all residential zoning districts. The development of
residential care facilities for seven or more residents is permitted in the
High Density Residential zoning district by right, without a conditional
permit, or other discretionary action. Facilities for seven or more
residents are also permitted in all other residential zoning districts with
a conditional use permit. The City will amend its Zoning Code to allow
group homes for six or fewer residents by-right in all residential zones
consistent with State law. The Findings for approval of a conditional
use permit for facilities for seven or more residents are below:
In considering applications for conditional use permits, the hearing
body, with such conditions as are deemed reasonable in approving or
conditionally approving the use, shall find the use will not jeopardize,
adversely affect, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the
public health, safety or general welfare.
1. To approve or conditionally approve a conditional use permit,
the planning commission or planning director (or planning
commission and city council on appeal) must make the following
findings:
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the
general plan and the development code.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-104 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the
nature, condition and development of adjacent uses,
buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use
will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or
structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences,
parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in this development
code and required by the planning commission or council
in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community.
e. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve,
or deny the application for a conditional use permit be
based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a
whole before the planning director, planning commission,
or city council on appeal.
2. Conditions of approval imposed by the planning director,
planning commission or city council on appeal for a conditional use
may involve any pertinent factors affecting the establishment,
operation or maintenance of the requested use.
3. Any conditional use permit granted or approved hereunder
shall be approved or conditionally approved with the city, and its
planning commission and city council retaining and reserving the
right and jurisdiction to review and to modify such conditional use
permit—including the conditions of approval—based on changed
circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited
to, the modification of the business, a change in scope, emphasis,
size, or nature of the business, and the expansion, alteration,
reconfiguration or change of use.
The City has included Program 17 to review its existing Findings and
amend them as necessary to ensure zoning permits group homes in
accordance with State law.
The maximum densities for residential care facilities are not limited
specifically to density requirements so long as the project complies with
all development standards of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. The City does not
restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in group homes, and Section
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-105
17.34.010 of the Zoning Code defines “family” as one or more persons
living together as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit.
Family also means the persons living together in a licensed residential
facility, as that term is defined in California Health and Safety Code
Section 1502(a)(1) serving six or fewer persons, excluding the licensee,
the members of the licensee’s family, and persons employed as facility
staff who reside at the facility.
The City permits housing for special needs groups, including for
individuals with disabilities, without regard to distances between such
uses or the number of uses in any part of the City. The City allows some
variation from the application of its parking standards. Section
17.24.040 of the Zoning Ordinance would allow, for example, the
reduction of parking spaces for a unique use such as a senior housing
project or other special needs.
Currently, Temecula has two group homes for teenagers with a total
capacity of 18 persons. In addition, two residential facilities in the City
offer housing for up to approximately 14 developmentally disabled
persons. Although, cities retain land use jurisdiction regarding these
homes, the State Fire Marshal ensures the safety of group homes with
seven or more residents. The City of Temecula contracts with the State
Fire Marshal through the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire) in conjunction with the Riverside County Fire
Department. The Building and Safety Division has developed a positive
working relationship with the County Fire Department that ensures
that any improvements and/or maintenance for group homes are
handled through the City’s normal concurrent review process. The Fire
Marshal has not denied approval of any group home that meets
building and safety requirements. There have been no complaints that
coordination with the State Fire Marshal, Cal Fire, or Riverside County
Fire Department has constrained housing for persons with disabilities.
As part of Program 10, the City will continue to work closely with the
State Fire Marshal through Cal Fire and Riverside County Fire to
ensure that this coordination does not become a constraint to
development in the future.
It has been a departmental philosophy to provide complete direction
for applicants, as well as looking for solutions when problems or
barriers present themselves on a project. Because of this, in the past the
City has had success finding reasonable solutions to noncompliant
code issues with successful end results.
The City’s site planning requirements and assistance programs reduce
housing constraints for persons with disabilities by providing necessary
regulations for a variety of disabilities and housing conditions. The City
does not impose special permit procedures or requirements that could
impede the retrofitting of homes for accessibility.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-106 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Compliance with these development standards ensures reasonable
accommodation is provided for all new projects. The City will continue
to implement the existing requirements as well as continue to
implement its formalized reasonable accommodation processes for
individual homeowners requesting exceptions to development
standards to accommodate a specific disability. In addition, retrofit
assistance for persons with disabilities may be available through a
future Residential Rehabilitation Program for lower income families as
listed in the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan.
4. Development and Planning Fees
The cost of development is a constraint to the implementation of
affordable housing projects. Typically, the cost of developing raw land
is significantly increased by the various regulations and fees local
governments impose on developers.
The City of Temecula charges various fees and assessments to cover
the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and
utilities. Table 54 summarizes that City’s planning fee requirements for
residential development, while Table 55 depicts the City’s
development impact fees for residential development. In compliance
with State transparency laws, Tthe City’s development and planning
fees are also available on the City’s website in a one-stop location,
TemeculaCA.gov/fees. The Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) mitigation fee was
established in order to implement the goals and objectives of the
MSHCP and to mitigate the impacts caused by new developments in
western Riverside County. The fee is part of the mitigation fees for
species protection required under the MSHCP. The collection of the
fees supplements the financing for the acquisition of lands supporting
species covered by the MSHCP and to cover new development’s share
of this cost. Developments where the MSHCP fee applies have the
same fee structure throughout the MSHCP plan area.
Nearly all of the vacant developable parcels located west of I-15 in
western Temecula are within the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage
areas, as are all parcels located in the southwestern corner of the City.
Additional vacant developable parcels in the northeast corner of the
City are also located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas.
Few underutilized residential properties are located in the MSHCP
criteria cell and core linkage areas. If a site is located in a criteria cell, a
HANS application must be completed and submitted to the City along
with a $1,500 check made payable to Western Riverside Conservation
Authority (RCA). The check and one copy of the application are mailed
to the County for review and determination of any site inclusion for
the MSHCP conservation area.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-107
It is estimated that the total development fees are $13,375 for a single-
family unit and $10,920 for a multi-family unit. These fees are similar
to other fees in the region. Comparing the cost of one jurisdiction’s
development and planning fees to another is difficult since each
jurisdiction calculates and applies its fee schedule in its own unique way.
While no recent studies available to the general public have been
completed in Riverside County to compare the fees charged by various
jurisdictions, a recent trend used by other jurisdictions is to assess a
deposit that varies per application type, and then charge an hourly
“fully burdened” rate to recover costs. The City of Temecula assesses
a fixed rate for each application type, based on the average hours of
staff time required to process each application. This fee schedule is
adjusted annually based on the consumer price index for the greater
Los Angeles Metropolitan area. Table H-31 54 reflects the fee
schedule for the 2012–201320210-20221 fiscal year.
Table 54: Planning Fee Schedule*
Project Type City of
Temecula Fee
Department of
Environmental Health Fee
Planning and Zoning
Conditional Use Permit – No Site Changes 1,2,3,4 $4.,089 $234
Conditional Use Permit – with a Development Plan1,2,3,4 $1,303 N/A
Development Agreement $65,820 N/A
Development Agreement – Major Modification1,2,3,4 $15,078 N/A
Development Agreement – Minor Modification1,2,3,4 $4,309 N/A
DIF Credit or Reduction $1,100 N/A
Development Plan – Less than 10,000 sf 1,2,3,4 $9,839 $136
Development Plan – 10,000 sf to 100,000 sf 1,2,3,4 $13,366 $136
Development Plan – Over 100,000 sf 1,2,3,4 $16,078 $136
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment – Text or Exhibit 1,2,3,4 $9,287 $59
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment – Official Zoning Map
and Land Map 1,2,3,4
$7,278 $59
General Plan Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment – Official Zoning Map
or Land Map 1,2,3,4
$5,009 $59
Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit $934 N/A
Variance1,2,3,4 $4,721 $120
Minor Exception 1,2,3,4 $634 N/A
Minor Exception (individual homeowner) $158 N/A
Municipal Code Amendment1 $7,279
Specific Plan – New 1,2,3,4 $104,279 $197
Specific Plan Amendment – Major $41,388 $61
Specific Plan Amendment – Minor $14.,441 $61
Planned Development Overlay 1,2,3,4 $38,367 N/A
Subdivisions
Certificate of Land Division Compliance (fee per parcel) 1,2,3,4 $1,594 $138
Common Interest Development Conversion 1,2,3,4 $5,524 N/A
Lot Line Adjustment $1,612 N/A
Merger of Contiguous Parcels $2,419 N/A
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-108 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Project Type City of
Temecula Fee
Department of
Environmental Health Fee
Minor Change (to approved Tentative Map) $2,442 N/A
Parcel Map – Tentative (Residential) w/Waiver of Final Map1,2,3 $3,927 $389
Parcel Map – Tentative (Residential) Standard 1,2,3 $4,904
$675
Parcel Map –Tentative (Vesting)1,2,3 $4,298 $424
Parcel Map – Tentative (Revised)1,2,3 $4,273 $203
Condominium Map1,2,3 $14,326 $538
Tract Map – Standard 5-34 lots/units1,2,3 $12,874 $203
Tract Map – Standard 35-75 lots/units1,2,3 $14,563 $203
Tract Map – Standard 76-165 lots/units1,2,3 $16,688 $203
Tract Map – Standard 166+ lots/units1,2,3 $18,661 $203
Tract Map – Standard - Revised Map1,2,3 $7,292 $203
Tract Map – Vesting 5-34 lots/units1,2,3 $16,520 $424
Tract Map – Vesting 35-75 lots/units1,2,3 $18,347 $424
Tract Map – Vesting 76-165 lots/units1,2,3 $20,570 $424
Tract Map – Vesting 166 lots/units1,2,3 $22,319 $424
Tract Map – Vesting – Revised Map1,2,3 $10,262 $424
Phasing Plan for Tentative Map – Sewered $4,366 $57
Phasing Plan for Tentative Map – Subsurface Disposal $4,366 $138
Residential Tract Product Review1,4 $12,631 N/A
Reversion to Acreage $930 $72
Miscellaneous Charges
Certificate of Historic Appropriateness1,2,3,4 $562 N/A
Substantial Conformance $7,706 $61
Extension of Time with Public Hearing1,2,3,4 $3,429 $63
Extension of Time without Public Hearing1,2,3,4 $1,739 $63
Extension of Time – Subdivision Ordinance1,2,3,4 $4,301 $63
*SOURCE: Temecula User Fee Schedule (2021-2022); updated annually each July 1.
1. Add CEQA Fee of $325 for environmental determination. If environmental determination is not exempt from CEQA, add $5,552
for Negative Declaration without Mitigation, or $7,590 for Negative Declaration with Mitigation. If EIR is required, add $59,811
for City-managed EIR or $88,192 for applicant-managed EIR. Environmental Impact Reports and some other Environmental
Documents go through a request for proposal (RFP) process per state purchasing/contracting requirements, when the
documents are warranted. Prices vary widely based on the scope of the proposed change and total scope of the project. In the
past decade staff has seen MNDs range from $8,000-$30,000. EIRs have ranged from $80,000 to $300,000. This number
fluctuates based on market conditions, potential challenges, and the complexity of the proposed project.
2. Add UC Regents Fee of $60 (if required) – not applicable to duplicate applications
3. Add Traffic Study Fee (if required) of $3,008 (major) or $752 (minor)
4. Add DRC Landscape Fee of $250 (if new/modified landscaping is proposed) and DRC Architectural Review Fee of $.05 per
building square foot (if new/modified architecture is proposed)
5. $528 to Environmental Health if Sewered; $424 to Environmental Health if Subsurface Disposal
5.6. The above fees apply to single-family units and multi-family units as appropriate
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-109
Table 55: Development Impact Fees For The City of Temecula
Development Fee
Land Use (Fee/Unit)
Residential Attached Residential Detached
Street System Improvements $1,717.58 $2,453.64
Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems $243.11 $347.33
Corporate Facilities $356.92 $665.69
Police Facilities $627.33 $354.58
Fire Protection Facilities $390.77 $842.15
Parks and Recreational Improvements $2,901.20 $4,049.59
Open Space & Trails Development $845.65 $1,180.35
Libraries $772.74 $1,078.60
Total $7,866.30 $10,971.93
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Single Family
Multi-Family
$9,810
$6,389
Stephen’ Kangaroo Rat Plan Fee (K-RAT)
Lot greater than ½ gross acre – per dwelling unit
All other Residential – per gross acre
$250-$500
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan Fee (MSHCP)
Residential Less than 8.0 DU
Residential Between 8.1 and 14.0 DU
Residential Greater than 14.1 DU
$2,935
$1,473
$670
Art in Public Places
Residential – Single/Multi – Family
1/10 of 1% of project cost in
excess of $100,000
Quimby – In-Lieu Fee $310,000 per acre
Single Family residential (Detached Garage)
Single family Attached (Attached Garage)
Multi-Family Attached (2-4 Units)
Multi-Family Attached (5 or More Units)
Mobile Homes
3.12 Avg. Density/DU
2.85 Avg. Density/DU
2.48 Avg. Density/DU
2.43 Avg. Density/DU
2.00 Avg. Density/DU
School Developer Fees
Single Family and Multifamily Residential
Restricted Senior Communities
$3.20/Sq. Ft
$0.66/Sq. Ft.
SOURCE: City of Temecula 2021.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-110 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 56 provides the ratio of typical development cost to fees per unit
for single and multi-family developments in Temecula that do not
require preparation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report. The exact fees associated with an individual project will
vary greatly based on the exact project parameters. However, the City
reviews its fees annually to confirm that its fees are in line with those
charged by other agencies in the region and that they do not present a
constraint to development.
As part of this Housing Element Update, the City has considered all
fees incurred by the development community and considered these fees
as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. As
demonstrated throughout this Background Report, the City of
Temecula has a strong history of housing production at all income
levels and proactively coordinates with the development community on
a regular (at least annual) basis. The City continues to see applications
for housing development and provides incentives for the production
of affordable housing, including fee deferral and/or reimbursement
(see Housing Program 13). The City has reviewed its fees and
considered the fees of neighboring jurisdictions and, in concert with
ongoing development and input from development community, has
determined that the City’s fees do not constrain housing supply or
affordability.
Table 56: Total Processing and Fees for Typical Single- and Multi-Family Units
Housing Type Total Fees Estimated Development
Cost per Unit
Estimated Proportion of Fees to
Development Costs per Unit
Single Family Unit $13,375 $350,000 3.8 %
Multi-Family Unit $10,920 $200,000 5.5 %
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2021.
Procedures for Typical Developments
The City of Temecula uses the same process for approving single-
family tract developments and multi-family developments. The City’s
process can be broken down into three major steps:
1. Pre-application (optional and free)
2. Entitlements (which includes maps, conditional use permits,
development plans/home product reviews (which incorporate
design review and site plan review). Environmental reviews, if
required, would be included in thise phase. Most development in
the city with existing zoning and general plan land use designations
does not require additional environmental review.
3. Post entitlements (grading plans, building permits)
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-111
Any items within the entitlement phase, or post entitlement phase may
be processed concurrently, and in the City’s experience, almost all
development elects to process concurrently at each phase. For the
entitlement process, projects with existing Zoning and General Plan
designations see one hearing, unless appealed. As far at the City is
aware, no existing Zoning/General Plan designation residential project
has been appealed in the last decade and it is a rare occurrence.
There is no unreasonable amount of time between receiving approval
for a housing development and submittal of an application for building
permits that could potentially hinder the construction of the City’s
share of regional housing need.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-112 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Approval findings for Development Plans include:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for
Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and
other ordinances of the city.
3. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection
of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Approval findings for Conditional Use Permits include:
a. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan
and the development code.
b. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature,
condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and
structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
c. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in this development code and required by the planning
commission or council to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
d. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to
the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
e. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial
evidence in view of the record before the planning director,
planning commission, or city council on appeal.
The City has considered the approval findings above for impacts on
approval certainty and has determined that they do not represent a
constraint to development. The only residential projects subject to a
conditional use permit process are those located in the Community
Commercial zone. The City is permitted, under State law, to make
projects subject to a discretionary review process, but understands that
it is limited by and complies with the Housing Accountability Act and
other provisions of State law, which ensures that its discretionary
process does not act as a constraint on development. A residential
project seeking a conditional use permit has never been denied. The
City expects to continue working proactively with applicants to address
potential concerns so that thehousing proejctprojects can be found
consistent with applicable requirements, including approval
requirements for a conditional use permit.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-113
Hearing BodiesApproval Body/Authority: Table 57 identifies the
approval authority involved in the various planning, zoning and land
use permits issued in the city.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-114 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 57: Planning and Zoning Approval Authority
Application Administrative
Approval Planning Director Planning Commission City Council
General plan amendment Recommendation1 X1
Zoning amendment: text
changes Recommendation1 X1
Zoning amendment: map
changes Recommendation1 X1
Zoning amendment: specific
plan, includes specific plan
amendments
Recommendation1 X1
Conditional use permit—
existing building X1,2
Conditional use permit with
a development plan X1,2,3 X1,3
Development plan
(10,000 sq. ft. or greater) X1
Development plan
(less than 10,000 sq. ft.) X1
Major modifications X2,4 X1,4
Minor modifications X2
Administrative development
plan X2
Home occupation plan X2
Large family day care home
facility X
Minor exceptions X2
Sign permits X2
Sign programs, including
sign program modifications X2
Temporary use permits X2
Variance X1
Secondary dwelling unit X5
Hillside development permit X1
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2021.
Notes:
1. Requires consideration at a noticed public hearing.
2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the director of planning may refer such items to the planning
commission for consideration.
3. Conditional use permits without development plans are approvable by the director of planning. Conditional use permits with development
plans are approvable by hearing body required for the development plan.
4. Major modifications of projects which were approved by the planning commission or city council shall be considered by the original
approval body. Increases in building square footage that results in a building larger than 10,000 square feet shall be considered by the
planning commission.
5. State law requires the administrative consideration of secondary dwelling units. These applications cannot be promoted to the planning
commission.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-115
Other Hearing Bodies:
Besides the above hearing bodies/authorities, projects within Old
Town Temecula Specific Plan are required to go through the Old Town
Local Review Board for the City’s historic district. This generally
includes one meeting that is then followed-up by the approval body
meeting (in almost all instances, the Planning Commission).
Certainty:
Many of the City’s development includes previously approved Specific
Plans that have very specific and certain standards for development
(including some with form-based codes). When a project is not located
within a re a Specific Plan does not residearea, projects previously have
used the City’s Design Guidelines. These guidelines have provided
certainty to developers for many years but will be replaced with
Objective Design Standards in 2022, as required by State Law. The
City has an excellent track record of projects receiving approval by a
single hearing body for projects with existing land use/general plan
designations. Projects with land use/general plan designation changes
generally have only had two hearings (PC and CC).
Single-Family Custom Homes:
Single family custom homes generally only go through the post
entitlement phase due to no architectural requirements for custom
homes.
Other Considerations:
The City has considered the variety of factors reflected in the prior
discussion regarding its processing and permit procedures. The City has
found that in general, the City’s existing processes and procedures do
not constrain development. Projects are reviewed and considered by
the appropriate parties in a timely manner. Any difference in processing
times (for example, between a single-family unit and a multifamily
project) are due to a project’s inherent complexity. Multifamily projects,
as opposed to single-family projects, may require a higher level of
environmental review as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), coordination with staff and outside agencies, and
refinements of a project’s design to meet financial metrics prior to
project approval. This length of time is largely outside of the City’s
control; Staff will continue to work proactively with applicants to
address all potential issue areas in a timely fashion and work to bring a
project forward for consideration in a reasonable and appropriate
timeframe.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-116 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Although they are typically larger than 10,000 square feet, multifamily
projects do not require a discretionary hearing by the City Council
specifically due to their size.
In the City’s affordable housing overlay, projects can be 100%
affordable (there is not a mixed-income requirement).
Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the City has considered how its processing
and permit procedures impact housing costs, supply, timing and
certainty. The City has consulted with the development community and
has received no feedback that its processing and permit procedures
make housing costs more expensive, reduce or limit supply, extend the
timeframe beyond a reasonable expectation (in line with neighboring
jurisdictions), or do no support approval certainty.
The Housing Plan includes several programs designed specifically to
reduce government constraints to the extent feasible. Examples of how
the City is working to improve processing and permit procedures
include:
Program 3: Preapproved plans for accessory dwelling units
Program 6: Priority processing for large sites
Program 7: Proactive outreach to advertise density bonus
provisions
Program 8: Deferral/reimbursement of development fees
Program 9: Expedited processing of affordable housing
projects
5. Building Codes and Enforcement
Staffing and Process
As Building and Safety and Code Enforcement are under the same
department supervision, the exchange of information between Building
and Code Enforcement staff members is excellent. Enforcement items
are a regularly occurring weekly meeting topic during Building and
Safety weekly staff meetings.
The Code Enforcement Division consists of three permanent officers.
Each officer has an assigned geographic area of the City and is very
familiar with problematic properties. Each officer regularly patrols their
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-117
area to ensure that any prior complaints have been resolved and that
they have responded to any new complaints.
The department is complaint-driven, which means that officers
respond to complaints as they come in to the City. In addition, the
officers make every effort to be proactive in their assigned geographic
areas. Several of the code enforcement officers have received training
in dealing with housing issues and are able to respond with building
inspectors to calls on substandard housing.
Building Codes
The City of Temecula has adopted the California Building Code, 2019
Edition, Volumes 1 and 2 (Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations), including Appendix C-Agricultural Buildings, and
Appendix F–Rodent Proofing. This includes the Historical Building
Code, Existing Building code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code,
Plumbing Code, Administrative Code, Energy Code, Green Building
Standards Code, Reference Standards Code, and Residential Code.
Amendments have been made to the California Building Code,
Residential Code, Electrical Code, and Mechanical Code, as detailed in
Chapter 15.04 of the City’s Municipal Code. These amendments have
been assessed for their impact on the production of market rate and
affordable housing and there are no constraints as a result. A copy of
each code is maintained in the office of the City Clerk and is made
available for public inspection.
This collection of codes is considered to be the minimum necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City is responsible
for enforcement of all the model codes. Further, the requirements for
accessibility in the California Building Code will ensure that reasonable
accommodation and compliance with accessibility requirements are
provided in all projects within Temecula.
Overall, the housing stock is in excellent condition. The City’s Code
Enforcement program is complaint-based and will not constrain the
development or preservation of housing. When housing code
violations are cited for units occupied by low- and moderate-income
households, the Code Enforcement staff may offer information
regarding rehabilitation programs.
Reasonable Accommodations
The City’s process for providing reasonable accommodations allows
individuals, or their representatives, to make requests for reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities as part of the permit
process. No additional permits are required or additional fees charged
by the City. Requests for reasonable accommodations to meet the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-118 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
needs of persons with disabilities are generally approved
administratively, and a use permit is not required. An exception would
be a use (in contrast to an accessory structure or appurtenance) that
requires a discretionary (use) permit, such as a residential care facility
of seven or more persons. City staff is available to provide assistance
regarding the processing of requests for the construction of accessory
structures. Information regarding the approval of these structures is
included within all public notices and agendas, as applicable.
The procedure for application review is as follows:
1. Applicant. A request for a reasonable accommodation may be
made by any person with a disability, his or her representative, or a
developer or provider of housing for individuals with a disability.
2. Application. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall
be made on a form provided by the planning department. No fee shall
be required for a request for reasonable accommodation, but if the
project requires another discretionary permit, then the prescribed fee
shall be paid for all other discretionary permits. If an individual needs
assistance in making the request for reasonable accommodation, the
city will provide assistance to ensure that the process is accessible.
3. Other Discretionary Permits. If the project for which the request
for reasonable accommodation is made requires another discretionary
permit or approval, the applicant may file the request for reasonable
accommodation together with the application for the other
discretionary permit or approval. The processing procedures of the
discretionary permit shall govern the joint processing of both the
reasonable accommodation and the discretionary permit.
4. Required Submittals. An application for a reasonable
accommodation shall include the following:
a. Documentation that the applicant is: (i) a person with a disability,
(ii) applying on behalf of one or more persons with a disability, or (iii)
a developer or provider of housing for one or more persons with a
disability;
b. The name and address of the individual(s) requesting the
reasonable accommodation;
c. The name and address of the property owner(s);
d. The address of the property for which accommodation is
requested;
e. A description of the reasonable accommodation requested by the
applicant;
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-119
f. An explanation of how the specific reasonable accommodation
requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more persons
with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence;
g. Where applicable, documentation that the requested
accommodation is designed and constructed pursuant to Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations to allow access, circulation and full use
of the building and facilities by persons with disabilities.
5. The planning director may request additional information from
the applicant if the application does not provide sufficient information
for the city to make the findings required below.
Basis for Approval or Denial of a Reasonable Accommodation.
1. Findings. The written decision shall be based on the following
findings, all of which are required for approval:
a. The requested accommodation is requested by or on behalf of
one or more persons with a disability protected under the Fair
Housing Laws;
b. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or
more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and
enjoy a dwelling;
c. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue
financial or administrative burden on the city;
d. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental
alteration in the nature of the city’s zoning program;
e. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific
facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of
other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of
others.
2. In determining whether the requested reasonable accommodation
is necessary to provide one or more disabled persons an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, pursuant to subsection
(E)(1)(b), the city may consider, but is not limited to, the following
factors:
a. Whether the requested accommodation will affirmatively
enhance the quality of life of one or more individuals with a
disability;
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-120 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
b. Whether the individual or individuals with a disability will be
denied an equal opportunity to enjoy the housing type of their
choice absent the accommodation;
c. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the requested
accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature
or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the
relevant market and market participants;
d. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the existing
supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the
community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an
equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.
3. In determining whether the requested reasonable accommodation
would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city’s zoning
program, pursuant to subsection (E)(1)(d), the city may consider, but is
not limited to, the following factors:
a. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally
alter the character of the neighborhood;
b. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial
increase in traffic or insufficient parking;
c. Whether granting the requested accommodation would
substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city’s
general plan or an applicable specific plan;
d. In the case of a residential care facility, whether the requested
accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due
to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in
nature or operation.
4. Rules While Decision is Pending. While a request for reasonable
accommodation is pending, all laws and regulations otherwise
applicable to the property that is the subject of the request shall remain
in full force and effect.
6. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The time and cost of permit processing and review can be a constraint
to housing development if significant development review is required.
Project review and permit processing are necessary steps to ensure that
residential construction proceeds in an orderly manner. The time
required for project approval is often not so much a factor of the
approval body (Director versus Planning Commission), but the
complexity of the project and associated environmental issues.
However, small infill projects that can be approved administratively are
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-121
generally less complex and take a shorter time to obtain appropriate
approvals. Large, residential subdivision maps, subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA compliance) require a public
hearing before the Planning Commission.
The evaluation and review process required by City procedures
contributes to the cost of housing in that the holding costs incurred by
developers during the review period are ultimately manifested in the
unit’s selling price. All discretionary development projects that involve
new construction but are less than 10,000 square feet are subject to a
Planning Director’s hearing. The hearing is a publicly noticed hearing
that permits the Planning Director to be the decision-maker on
relatively minor applications. The Temecula Municipal Code contains
findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets
the required findings, the project cannot be denied by the Planning
Director.
Development applications for projects greater than 10,000 square feet
are subject to a Planning Commission hearing. The Planning
Commission hearing is a publicly noticed hearing and the Commission
may be the decision-maker for such applications provided there is no
legislative action associated with the development application, such as
a zone change or a General Plan amendment. The Planning
Commission may also serve as an appeal board for the Director’s
hearing decisions. Multifamily Pprojects over 10,000 square feet are not
required to bybe considered at a discretionary hearing by the City
Council due to their size. The Temecula Municipal Code contains
findings that must be made for project approval. If the project meets
the required findings, the project cannot be denied by the Planning
Commission.
Required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are as
follows:
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan
and the development code.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature,
condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features
prescribed in this development code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other
uses in the neighborhood.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-122 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to
the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
5. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning
Commission or City Council on appeal.
Required findings for approval of a development plan are as follows:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for
Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and
other ordinances of the City.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection
of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The City Council hearing is a noticed public hearing for development
applications that require a legislative action. The City Council may also
serve as an appeal board for decisions made by the Planning
Commission. The Temecula Municipal Code contains findings that
must be made for project approval. If the project meets the required
findings, the project cannot be denied. The City Council is the final
decision-maker on all appeal actions. City Council reviews of residential
development projects requiring a development plan or conditional use
permit that are consistent with the existing Zoning and General Plan
designations are an anomaly and very rare. There have been no appeals
of projects approved by the Planning Commission to the City Council
during the prior planning period and the City does not find that this is
a constraint to development.
Mixed-use projects may be subject to any of the above types of public
hearings, but are unlikely to be heard at the Planning Director’s hearing
because of the size of the project. The processing and permit
procedures for mixed-use projects are no different than the processing
of any other development application. The General Plan Land Use
Element and Housing Element discuss concessions that can be made
to accommodate the scale, density, or intensity of such projects. As a
result, findings can be made to support consistency with the General
Plan.
Some minor development applications, such as a Minor Modification
of an approved Development Plan, may be approved at the staff level.
The average time for such administrative approvals is two to three
weeks (see Table 587). The average time for projects to get to a
Planning Director’s hearing is eight to 14 weeks. Once approval is
given, the property owner must submit a grading plan to the Public
Works Department and a building plan to the Building and Safety
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-123
Department. Once approval is given, the property owner must submit
the approved plans to the Community Development and Public Works
departments to obtain the required permits.
The average period for a project to get to the Planning Commission is
four to six months. If the project needs to be heard by the City Council,
the average time to get to this hearing is 12 to 18 months; projects that
go to City Council are almost always those involving General Plan
and/or Zoning changes. In the last housing cycle, no by right
projectshousing development that received approval by the Planning
Commission with existing zoning and/or General Plan designations
went towas appealed to the City Council.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-124 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 58: Typical Processing Times for Single Family Units (Tract), Multi-Family Units, and Single-Family
(Custom Homes)
Process/Step Single Family Units (Tract
Homes)
Multi-Family Units
Tract/Parcel Map* Three week initial review
(with a meeting scheduled
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
weeks (with comments or
approval on the third week).
Average processing time: 5-
7 months
Three week initial review
(with a meeting scheduled
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
weeks (with comments or
approval on the third week).
Average processing time: 5-
7 months
Conditional Use Permits* Required to run concurrent
with Development
Plan/Home Product
Review/Design Review. No
additional time is required
for Conditional Use Permits.
Required to run with
Development Plan/Home
Product Review/Design
Review. No additional time
is required for Conditional
Use Permits.
Development Plan/Home
Product Review/Design
Review/Site Plan Review*
Three week initial review
(with a meeting scheduled
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
weeks (with comments or
approval on the third week).
Average processing time: 5-
7 months
Three week initial review
(with a meeting scheduled
on the fourth week).
Subsequent reviews are two
weeks (with comments or
approval on the third week).
Average processing time: 5-
7 months
Grading Plans** Four weeks on first
submittal. Two weeks on
subsequent submittals.
Four weeks on first
submittal. Two weeks on
subsequent submittals.
Building Plan
Review/Building Permit
Ready to Issue**
10-12 business days for first
reviews. 7-10 business days
for subsequent reviews.
Average processing time: 2-
3 months.
10-12 business days for first
reviews. 7-10 business days
for subsequent reviews.
Average processing time: 2-
3 months.
Estimated Total Processing
Time:
8-11 months 8-11 months
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2021
*Maps and Development Plan/Home Product Review/Design Reviews/Conditional Use Permits are
encouraged to run concurrently.
**Grading Plans & Building Plans are encouraged to run concurrently.
NOTE: At risk concurrent submittals of Development Plans/Home Product Reviews/Design Reviews are
permitted once the project is scheduled for public hearing.
Table 59: Projects with Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments & EIRs *
Zone Change/General Plan
Amendment
Highly dependent on the scope of the
project and level of environmental
review. 12-18 months.
Highly dependent on the scope of the
project and level of environmental
review. 12-18 months.
EIR Highly dependent on the scope of the
project and level of environmental
review. 12-18 months.
Highly dependent on the scope of the
project and level of environmental
review. 12-18 months.
Estimated Total Processing Time: 12-18 months. 12-18 months.
*Note: Whenever possible, the City utilizes existing Environmental Documents or CEQA exemptions as legally permissible.
Table 57: Typical Processing Times for Single- and Multi-Family Units
Single Family Unit Multi-Family Unit
Typical Approval
Requirements
Grading plan
Building plans
Building permit
Home Product Review
Development plan 6-9 months
Submit for grading/ plan prior to
PC approval
Receive approval 3-6 months
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-125
Development Plan
Building plans review 4-6 weeks
Condo Map
Est. Total Processing
Time Ministerial 4-6 weeks Building Permit 1 to 1.5 years*
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2013
*Please note: total processing time has increased from the previous planning period due to volume
of development.
There are no special process requirements to develop or subdivide lots
into developable parcels in specific plan areas. Additionally, Tthe City
has not adopted any special design or environmental review processes
that would add additional time to the processing period. However, the
City must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and Riverside County regulations. In 2009, the City produced
an environmental review procedures handbook for private
development projects. The goal of this handbook is to help guide
developers, City staff, and consultants through the environmental and
City review process. This handbook is publicly available on the City’s
website.
CEQA applies to all projects that require discretionary approval unless
the project is determined to be exempt. A discretionary project is one
that requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public agency
in determining whether the project will be approved or if a permit will
be issued. For example, if a property owner wants to construct a new
building or subdivide a property, it would be considered a discretionary
project because the City must review the proposal before issuing an
approval or permit. CEQA also applies to decisions that could lead to
indirect impacts, such as making changes to local codes, policies, and
general and specific plans.
Usually CEQA does not apply to projects that are only subject to
ministerial approval. A ministerial project is one that requires a public
official to determine only that the project conforms to applicable
zoning and building code requirements and that applicable fees have
been paid. Some examples of projects that are generally ministerial
include sign permits, roof replacements, interior alterations to
residences, and landscaping changes.
In addition to the CEQA process, Riverside County has completed a
comprehensive planning effort called the Riverside County Integrated
Project (RCIP). RCIP integrates three regional planning efforts: the
County General Plan, a Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process to determine present and future
roadway infrastructure, and the MSHCP to conserve listed and
sensitive species and their habitats. The final MSHCP was approved by
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-126 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
the County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, and went into effect
in March 2004.
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional effort that
includes the County and 16 cities. Rather than deal with endangered
species on a one-by-one basis, this plan focuses on the conservation of
146 species. The MSHCP supports a reserve system of approximately
500,000 acres, of which approximately 347,000 acres are currently in
public ownership and 153,000 acres are currently in private ownership.
The approved MSHCP contributes to the economic viability of the
region by providing landowners, developers, and those who build
public infrastructure with more certainty, a streamlined regulatory
process, and identified project mitigation. The MSHCP is administered
by the Regional Conservation Authority which represents the County
and 16 cities which are participants in the plan.
7. Streamlining Approvals
Lower Income Sites Included in Previous Elements
While the site plan review process is not considered a constraint to
housing, Program 16 17 has been provided to comply with
Government Code 65583.2. This program will provide for ministerial
approval (e.g., Planning Division Director’s approval of site plan review
and entitlements other than a subdivision map) of housing projects
with a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower income
households and will increase certainty for affordable and multifamily
developers related to residential sites throughout the community, as
identified in Appendix A.
SB 35
SB 35 provides provisions for streamlining projects based on a
jurisdiction’s progress towards its RHNA and timely submittal of the
Housing Element Annual Progress Report. When jurisdictions have
insufficient progress toward their above moderate income RHNA
and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual
Progress Report, these jurisdictions are subject to the streamlined
ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017)
streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10%
affordability.
HCD reviews the annual progress report deadlines and RHNA
progress on an annual basis. Temecula is currently subject to SB 35
streamlining provisions when proposed developments include 50%
affordability. Program 16 17 has been provided to incorporate the
mandatory streamlining provisions into the City’s Zoning Code. These
streamlining provisions will reduce approval requirements for projects
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-127
that include a minimum of 50 percent of units affordable to lower
income households and that meet the criteria specified by State law.
8. On- and Off-Site Improvements
The Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan identifies eight
different roadway classifications (Table C-2) and cross-sections (Figure
C-1) that include minimum dimensions for right-of-way accounting for
lane width, center median, bike lane and/or multipurpose trails, curb,
gutter, landscaping, and sidewalks. Figure C-2 of the Circulation
Element identifies the locations and alignments of each road in
Temecula by classification. Applicants for new development
applications should consult the Circulation Element to determine the
roadway classification fronting the project site and to determine the
type of improvements that may be required for the proposed project.
The City makes available standard drawings for on- and off-site
improvements that establish infrastructure or site requirements that
support new residential development. Typical site improvements for
high density development include half-width street improvements for
all frontage streets, built to General Plan standards. A typical local
street width is 60 feet with 40 feet of pavement (two lanes). In addition,
the appropriate level of R-O-W landscaping, 6-inch curb and gutter,
and sidewalk improvements (either curb or parkway adjacent) are
required for property frontage. Water, sewer, and drainage facilities are
traditionally not under the direct control of the City.
The City of Temecula coordinates with several water and sewer districts
that directly administer the construction of water and sewer
improvements. These improvements, for a high density/affordable
housing project, typically require both potable and reclaimed water
systems. With respect to flood control and drainage facilities, these on-
site improvements are under the direct control of the Riverside County
Flood Control. While these improvements are necessary to ensure that
new housing meets the City’s development goals, the cost of these
requirements can represent a significant share of the cost of producing
new housing. Site improvement costs include the cost of providing
access to the site, clearing the site, and grading the pad area. In the case
of a subdivision, such costs may also include major improvements such
as building roads and installing sewer, water, and other utilities. As with
land costs, several variables affect costs, including site topography and
proximity to established roads, sewers, and water lines. Engineering
and other technical assistance costs are usually included with site
improvements as these services are required to ensure that
development is constructed according to established codes and
standards. Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code outlines site
improvement requirements (Chapter 16.30) for a variety of parcel map
division and subdivision scenarios and includes specific requirements
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-128 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
for streets, domestic water, fire protection, sewage disposal. These and
other site improvement costs are typical of all cities in California and
do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing
in Temecula. The City does not impose any unusual requirements as
conditions of approval for new development.
The City of Temecula requires full-frontage improvements for all
approved development projects. The City typically does not make
exceptions for frontage improvements because of the need to make
connections for existing bike lanes and trails, and to correctly align
roadways to avoid bottlenecks at narrower sections. The City may
permit the possibility of deferring some improvements on a project-by-
project basis. The deferral of improvements may be permitted when
the costs of the improvements greatly outweighs the contractor’s ability
to enter into a reimbursement agreement or when timing of the needed
improvements is beyond the control of the applicant, such as
improvements to be made by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans).
The City of Temecula recognizes that such requirements can
potentially be considered regulatory barriers to affordable housing if
the jurisdiction-determined requirements are greater (and hence, more
costly) than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements
in the community. However, the cost to design such improvements is
dramatically decreased when utilizing the City’s standard drawings.
C. State Tax Policies and Regulations
1. Article 34 of the California Constitution
Article 34 was enacted in 1950. It requires that low rent housing
projects developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state
or public agency, including cities, receive voter approval through the
referendum process. The residents of Temecula have not passed a
referendum to allow the City to develop, construct, or acquire
affordable housing.
While California Health and Safety Code further clarifies the scope and
applicability of Article 34 to exclude housing projects that have deed-
restrictions on less than 49% of the units or rehabilitation/
reconstruction of housing projects that are currently deed-restricted or
occupied by lower-income persons, Article 34 still constitutes an
obstacle for local governments to be directly involved in the production
of long-term affordable housing.
2. Environmental Protection
State regulations require environmental review of proposed
discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits). Costs
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-129
resulting from fees charged by local government and private
consultants needed to complete the environmental analysis, and from
delays caused by the mandated public review periods, are also added to
the cost of housing and passed on to the consumer. However, the
presence of these regulations helps preserve the environment and
ensure environmental safety to Temecula’s residents. In addition, much
of the remaining vacant residential land is located within approved
specific plan areas for which the required environmental review has
already been completed.
D. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the cost of
providing adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks; water and sewer lines; and street lighting), which
is required to be built or installed in new development. In most cases,
these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible
for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is covered by
developers and is added to the cost of new housing units, which is
eventually passed on to the homebuyer or property owner.
In addition, two areas of the City, which are designated for residential
uses, are partially developed and do not have sewer service.
Development of this land is limited to Very Low Density Residential
uses. The majority of the remainder of future residential development
within the City will occur in master planned communities or on sites
adjacent to existing infrastructure. As a result, future residential
development will not be constrained by the lack of sufficient
infrastructure in the remainder of the City.
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is the retail supplier of
potable water to Temecula. According to the Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element of the General Plan, the
RCWD has adequate water supply to meet current demand and is
investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands.
Upgrading existing wells, adding new wells, implementing a water
recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water are among
the major strategies devised by the RCWD.
Wastewater facilities in Temecula are provided by the Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD), which has adequate capacity to
meet current treatment demand. By closely working with the RCWD
and the EMWD in developing supply options, conservation
techniques, including the use of reclaimed water; and development
monitoring systems, the City can ensure that development does not
outpace the long-term availability of water and the adequacy of
wastewater treatment capacity.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-130 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service and
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas
services to residences and businesses throughout the City.
Infrastructure to deliver electricity and natural gas throughout
Temecula is currently in place. SCE and SoCalGas can generally can
provide these services to newer development on request and there is
sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need.
Telecommunications services in Temecula are provided by a variety of
service providers including Spectrum and Frontier Communications.
Infrastructure to deliver telecommunications throughout Temecula is
currently in place and can generally be provided to newer development
upon request and there is sufficient capacity to meet the current need
and any future need.
With the City of Temecula and its infrastructure providers coordinating
planning and construction consistent with General Plan land use policy,
future needs, including the 2021-2029 RHNA, can be met.
To comply with Senate Bill 1087, upon adoption the City will
immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and
wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations
to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-
income households.
E. Environmental Constraints
Temecula is impacted by various environmental hazards that include
active fault traces, liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and
flooding. These natural hazards constrain residential development by
threatening public safety and infrastructure. To protect the health,
safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted
regulations that limit development within areas of high risk and/or
require design standards that can withstand natural hazards. Other
environmental constraints include infrastructure constraints. In
preparing the City’s inventory of vacant sites designated for residential
development (Appendix A), the City considered the extent to which
sites were constrained by hazards, and potential hazards are
accoundedaccounted for as part of the capacity study. There are no
known environmental constraints or other constraints that would
preclude housing development on identified sites in the planning
period or reduce the potential capacity of a site to a level lower than
what has been assumed in Appendix A. Parties interested in obtaining
more information for specific parcel listings in Appendix A may do so
by contacting the City of Temecula Planning Department or by visiting
the City’s website at TemeculaCA.gov. The City’s Information Systems
department maintains an online GIS parcel search that can be used to
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-131
identify any parcel within Temecula, including known environmental
and other on-site constraints.
Flood Plain (FP) Overlay District: The City has applied a Flood
Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened by
flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements that
must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of
structures within the district. These design standards have been
adopted to reduce the flood hazards threatening people and structures
within the overlay district. Development on this property must comply
with specific structural design standards that raise the cost of
construction. However, this property represents only a fraction of the
City’s vacant land with Medium Density Residential zoning.
The environmental constraints and the associated cost factor impacting
this property will not compromise the City’s ability to provide adequate
sites to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels for the duration
of the planning period. Pursuant to the default density assigned to the
City of Temecula through Section 65583.2, affordable housing is
expected to be accommodated within areas where density is 30 units
per acre by right or more through density bonus provisions. The City’s
Medium Density Residential zone allows a density of up to 12 units per
acre by right and up to 18 units per acre with a density bonus. Medium
Density Residential zoned property therefore is not considered suitable
for affordable housing.
Dam Inundation: Portions of Temecula face inundation if any of the
three dams located in areas surrounding Temecula should fail. Lake
Skinner Dam is an earthen dam at Skinner Reservoir (also known as
Lake Skinner and located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of
Temecula). Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding
along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road, which is located near the south
side of the reservoir, as well as flooding along parts of Santa Gertrudis
Creek and Warm Springs Creek. Vail Lake is located over 6.0 miles
southeast of Temecula; dam failure would inundate portions of the
Pauba and Temecula valleys, including I-15 and an adjacent 3-mile area.
Diamond Valley Lake is the largest reservoir in Southern California and
is located north of Skinner Reservoir, nearly 6.0 miles northeast of
Temecula. Its water is detained by two earthen dams. Failure of the
western dam would result in flooding in the northern parts of the City.
Several vacant developable parcels located near the western and
southern perimeters of the City are at risk of inundation if dams north
of the project site were breached. Far fewer vacant underutilized
residential properties would be at risk of inundation.
100-Year and 500-Year Floodplains: A 100-year flood has an annual
1% probability of occurring, and a 500-year flood has an annual 0.2%
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-132 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
probability of occurring. The 100-year floodplain in the City of
Temecula forms a “U” along the alignment of the northern, western
(west of and adjacent to I-15), and southern perimeters of the City. The
500-year floodplain is noncontiguous and is generally located in the
western and southern areas of the City, adjacent to 100-year
floodplains. The 100-year floodplain includes several vacant
developable parcels near the northern and western perimeters of the
City, and the 500-year floodplain is generally outside of or adjacent to
vacant developable parcels in the same area. In general, no
underutilized residential parcels are located in the 100-year floodplain
or the 500-year floodplain.
Alquist-Priolo: Temecula is located within a highly active seismic
region. Three Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are located in
Temecula: Wildomar, Willard, and Wolf Valley. These zones have been
delineated by the State Geologist and encompass the area on either side
of potentially or recently active fault traces where the potential for
surface rupture exists. The Wildomar fault is the predominant fault in
the City. This fault trends in a northwest direction and transects the
length of the City. The Willard fault is located southwest of the
Wildomar fault zone. South of the Willard fault is the Wolf Valley fault
zone.
Within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, habitable structures
must maintain a minimum 50-foot setback distance from the fault trace
per state law. The existence of Alquist-Priolo zones in Temecula
effectively limits the amount of land and the intensity of development
of residential uses adjacent to these zones. However, only a few vacant
residential sites designated for Very Low Density Residential use are
impacted by these Alquist-Priolo zones.
Faults and Fault Zones: The Elsinore and Wildomar faults and their
associated fault zones extend through the western side of the City on a
northwest-southeast alignment across I-15. Although the Elsinore fault
zone is one of the largest in Southern California, it has been one of the
quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the
Laguna Salada fault, ruptured in 1892 in a magnitude 7.0 earthquake,
but, as noted in the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, the main
trace of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event
greater than magnitude 5.2. In 1920, a magnitude 6.0 earthquake near
Temescal Valley produced no known surface rupture. Other faults that
surround Temecula include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel,
Newport-Inglewood, and San Clemente Island faults.
The Elsinore fault and fault zones extend through several vacant
developable land parcels, as well as through a large underutilized
residential parcel.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-133
Liquefaction: Liquefaction can occur as a secondary effect of seismic
shaking during an earthquake or another event significant enough to
cause equivalent pressure on the susceptible soils, like a dam failure and
inundation. Liquefaction is unlikely to occur unless the earthquake is
large with multiple shaking cycles. Liquefaction occurs in areas of
saturated, loose, fine- to medium-grained soils where the water table is
50 feet or less below the ground surface. Seismic shaking temporarily
eliminates the grain-to-grain support normally provided by the
sediment grains. The waters between the grains assume the weight of
the overlying material and the sudden increase in pore water pressure
results in the soil losing its friction properties. The saturated material
(with the frictionless properties of a liquid) will fail to support overlying
structures. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength,
ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and slumping.
In Temecula, liquefaction zones generally align with areas in the City
subject to 100-year and 500-year floods and the areas subject to
inundation if a nearby dam is breached. The liquefaction zones are,
however, more far-reaching. Although only a few underutilized
residential properties are located in areas subject to liquefaction, many
vacant and developed properties are located within or immediately
adjacent to areas subject to liquefaction.
Liquefaction and other seismic-related issues are addressed by the state
Universal Building Code (UBC). The UBC requirements for
construction in liquefaction zones are not significantly more costly than
standard California construction standards and will not compromise
the City’s ability to provide adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA.
In addition, the City analyzes and mitigates for liquefaction constraints
when applicable.
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in Local
Responsibility Area (LRA): Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
in Local Responsibility Areas encroach at the City’s western and
southern boundaries, encompassing or partially encompassing several
large vacant developable parcels, including the Altair Specific Plan. As
included in the Altair Specific Plan, the project’s Western Bypass will
serve as a fire break between wildland areas and new development. In
addition, a Fuel Modification Plan was be prepared as part of the
project and incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify
appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements for the
interior of the project to address this hazard. Also, the project is
required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance
with the most recent Uniform Fire Code, which provides minimum fire
safety measures that would be incorporated into all building designs.
With these mitigation measures, residential development is permitted
to occur throughout the Altair project area and is not considered a
constraint to development.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-134 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Hazardous Waste Sites: Small hazardous waste sites are located along
and near the west side of I-15. These sites encompass small portions of
vacant developable land and are near several vacant developable
parcels. None of underutilized residential properties are located on or
near hazardous waste sites.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP): Encompassing the western one-third
of Riverside County and approximately 1.26 million acres, the Western
Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional
habitat conservation plan (HCP) designed to conserve species and their
habitats. The goal is to maintain biological and ecological diversity
within an increasingly urbanized area. The MSHCP includes areas in
northern, western, and southern Temecula. Nearly all of the vacant
developable parcels located west of I-15 in western Temecula are
within the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas, as are all parcels
located in the southwestern corner of the City. Additional vacant
developable parcels in the northeast corner of the City are also located
in the MSHCP criteria cell and core linkage areas. Few underutilized
residential properties are located in the MSHCP criteria cell and core
linkage areas.
Riparian Areas: Riparian areas are locales that relate to the bank of a
stream, river, or lake. In Temecula, riparian areas encompass southern
cottonwood-willow riparian and riparian scrub communities. These
communities are limited to an area west of I-15 and an area in the
southeast corner of the City. No vacant developable land or
underutilized parcels are located in riparian areas. Although a few
vacant developable parcels are located immediately adjacent to a
riparian area, no underutilized parcels are located in or near a riparian
area.
Archaeological, Historic, and Native American Cultural
Resources: Temecula has a rich history with many Native American
Traditional Cultural Properties, villages and resources, places where
significant events occurred, both historically and pre-historically, and
historic buildings and locales identified within and surrounding its
boundaries. While a large majority of these historic and pre-historic and
resources have been formally recorded, there are still properties that
contain buried cultural and archaeological resources and unrecorded
structures. Because of the confidentiality of these resources, especially
archaeological and Native American sites, the city will follow State law
requirements with regards to analysis of these resources and
consultation with local tribes.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-135
V. HOUSING RESOURCES
A. Regional Housing Need
1. Temecula’s Regional Housing Need
The City of Temecula falls under the jurisdiction of the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible
for developing a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) allocating the
region’s share of the statewide housing needs to lower-level councils of
governments, which then allocate the needs to cities and counties in
the region. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is a
minimum projection of additional housing units needed to
accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the
end of the Housing Element’s statutory planning period.
This RHNA covers an 8-year planning period (2021 through 2029) and
is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and
above moderate. Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also
required to project the housing needs of extremely low income
households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low
income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low income
allocation; therefore, the City’s very low income RHNA of 1,359 units
can be split into 680 extremely low income and 678 very low income
units
Table 6058 shows the breakdown of the 4,193 units in Temecula’s
RHNA into the required income categories.
Table 6058: Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021-2029
Income Category Allocation Percentage
Extremely Low 680 16%
Very Low 679 16%
Low 801 19%
Moderate 778 19%
Above Moderate 1,255 30%
Total 4,193 100%
SOURCE: SCAG RHNP, 2020
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-136 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
B. Progress Towards the RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth
projections for the 2021-2029 planning period, jurisdictions may count
toward the RHNA housing units that have been developed, are under
construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30,
2021. Since this time, 27 housing units have been developed, are under
construction, or have received their building permits in Temecula.
Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but
not yet built or under construction. While the City of Temecula is
actively reviewing a number of project proposals, for the purposes of
identifying process towards meeting the City’s RHNA, the City has
included two approved affordable projects (Las Haciendas and Rancho
Highlands) that are expected to begin construction by the end of 2021.
Las Haciendas, a 77-unit housing unit complex, has received California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) funding and City approval
and is ready to pull building permit and grading permits as of December
2021. Construction of Rancho Highlands, a 55-unit housing complex,
is currently underway; grading began in November 2021. There are no
remaining entitlements on either project. These two projects represent
132 affordable housing units, including 24 units affordable to extremely
low income households, 8 units affordable to very low income
households, and 99 units affordable to low income households. All
affordable units are deed restricted. These credits towards meeting the
City’s RHNA are specified in Table 6159, and the relative affordability
of each unit type/project is described below.
Table 6159: Progress Towards Meeting the 2021-2029 RHNA
Extremely
Low
income (0-
30% AMI)
Very
Low
income
(30-50%
AMI)
Low
income
(51-
80%
AMI)
Moderate
income
(81-120%
AMI)
Above
Moderate
income
(121%+
AMI)
Total
Units Constructed/Under Construction/Building Permits Issued since June 30, 2021
Various Single-Family Units 0 0 0 0 6 6
Various
Condos/Duplex/Townhomes
0 0 0 21* 0 21
Subtotal 0 0 0 21* 6 27
Approved/Entitled Units Not Yet Under Construction
Las Haciendas 24 8 44 0 1 77
Rancho Highlands 0 0 55 0 0 55
Subtotal 24 8 99 0 0 132
Total 24** 8** 99** 21 7 159
Source: City of Temecula, 2021.
*Note: These units do not have affordability restrictions. Market rate rents and sale prices for apartments and condominiums fall within
levels affordable to the households earning moderate incomes (81-120% AMI) and are allocated as such.
**Note: Units identified as affordable to extremely and very low and low income households are all deed restricted.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-137
1. Affordability of Units Credited Towards the RHNA
Units credited towards the RHNA are distributed among the four
affordability groups (extremely/very low, low, moderate, and above
moderate) based on affordability restrictions (as is the case with
affordable housing projects) or housing cost for those specific types of
units based on real home rental/sale rates and established affordability
levels. For example, the market rate rents and sale prices for apartments
and condominiums in Temecula fall within levels affordable to
households earning moderate incomes (81-120% AMI) and are
allocated as such, as discussed in the above Housing Affordability by
Income Level discussion.
Based on rental data information from Zillow.com and
Apartments.com, the average rents reported for Temecula are $1,632
for 1-bedroom apartments, $1,816 for 2-bedroom apartments, and
$2,290 for apartments with three or more bedrooms. Based on this data
and the housing affordability thresholds shown in the Needs
Assessment, these apartment unit sizes are affordable to 4-person
moderate income (81-120% AMI) households (where the affordable
monthly rent is $2,259), and the smaller apartment units (1-bedroom
and 2-bedroom units) are affordable to 2-person moderate income (51-
80% AMI) households (where the affordable monthly rent is $1,808).
Actual unit affordability will vary greatly based on unit size and
household size. However, because the City cannot predict the profile
of household size and unit size, all multifamily rental units are credits
towards meeting the City’s moderate income RHNA, even though
some units may ultimately be affordable to lower-income households
depending on the household size and unit size.
Condominium units are considered entry-level homes and based on
pricing are allocated as affordable to moderate income households.
According to Zillow.com, in February 2020 the median price for
condominiums sold in the City was $360,000. While home prices have
risen since April 2020 as a direct result of impacts of COVID-19 on
the housing market, the average cost identified in April 2020 generally
represents the “business-as-usual” model and provides a more realistic
understanding of the long-term pricing trends associated with housing
in Temecula, outside of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This price is approximately equal to the affordability level for a 4-
person, moderate income family and is allocated as such. As the
maximum affordable price for a 4-person, moderate income family to
purchase a home (as shown in the Needs Assessment) is $360,740, if
condominiums continue to be priced higher than pre-pandemic values,
the City may need to update its site inventory to reflect a high
proportion of multifamily for-sale units being affordable to above
moderate income households, versus moderate income households.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-138 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
However, as demonstrated later in this chapter, the City has identified
a surplus of approximately 3,300 moderate income units and could
easily accommodate a change in affordability level from moderate to
above moderate income levels. The market rate cost of single-family
units is considered affordable to above moderate income households.
2. Units Constructed or Under Construction
According to City building permit records, since June 30, 2021, 27 new
units have been constructed, are under construction, or have building
permits pulled in Temecula, of which 21 are affordable to moderate
income households based on market rate rents, and the remaining 6
units are affordable to above-moderate income households.
3. Units Approved/Entitled
Based on City records, 159 units have recently been approved in
Temecula; these units are not currently under construction but are
expected to come online during the planning period. Of these 159
units, 32 will be deed-restricted affordable to extremely low/ very low
income households and 99 will be deed-restricted to low income
households.
4. Remaining RHNA
Even in the short timeframe between the beginning of the planning
period (July 1, 2021) and preparation of this Housing Element (August
2021), the City has already demonstrated progress towards meeting its
overall RHNA with housing units constructed, under construction, or
approved/entitled or under review (159 units).
Table 620: Remaining RHNA
Extremely
Low
income (0-
30% AMI)
Very
Low
income
(30-50%
AMI)
Low
income
(51-
80%
AMI)
Moderate
income
(81-120%
AMI)
Above
Moderate
income
(121%+
AMI)
Total
RHNA Allocation 680 679 801 778 1,255 4,193
Constructed, Under
Construction/Permits Issued
(Since 6/30/2021)
0 0 0 21 6 27
Units Approved/Entitled 24 8 99 0 0 132
Remaining Allocation 656 671 702 757 1,249 4,034
Source: City of Temecula, 2021, SCAG, 2020
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-139
C. Sites for Housing Development
Housing element law requires an inventory of land suitable for
residential development (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)). An
important purpose of this inventory is to determine whether a
jurisdiction has allocated sufficient land for the development of
housing to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need,
including housing to accommodate the needs of all household income
levels.
This section provides an analysis of the land available within the City
for residential development. In addition to assessing the quantity of
land available to accommodate the City’s total housing needs, this
section also considers the availability of sites to accommodate a variety
of housing types suitable for households with a range of income levels
and housing needs.
This Housing Element identifies vacant sites that would accommodate
residential uses within Temecula. It is noted that Temecula also has
underutilized sites (sites where a significant portion of the property is
vacant and there is a potential for additional residential units) which
may be suitable to accommodate future residential development;
however, these sites are not necessary to accommodate the City’s
RHNA and are not included in this inventory.
A citywide parcel database, aerial photos, and General Plan GIS data
were used to located parcels for this update. This update also
considered the viability of sites identified in the prior planning period,
many of which continue to be suitable sites for future development due
to their proximity to transportation facilities, public services, goods,
amenities, and activity centers. Parcel acreages by land use designation
are based on assessor and GIS data.
The City has included Program 1, Land Use Policy and Development
Capacity, and Program 2, Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the
Planning Period, as key programs to ensure that the City
accommodates its remaining RHNA for the 6th Cycle at all income
levels for the duration of the planning period.
1. Housing Affordable to Lower-Income Households
The California Government Code states that if a local government has
adopted density standards consistent with the population based criteria
set by State law (at least 30 units per acre for Temecula), HCD is
obligated to accept sites with those density standards (30 units per acre
or higher) as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdictions share of
regional housing need for lower-income households. Per Government
Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), sites designated with the City’s
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-140 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) are consistent with the default
density standard (30 units per acre) for metropolitan jurisdictions such
as Temecula and therefore considered appropriate to accommodate
housing for lower-income households; further, application of the AHO
in and of itself requires that at least 20% of the units be deed-
restricted/reserved for households earning no greater than 80% of the
area median home (i.e., low, very low, and extremely low income
households) and that affordable units must be developed concurrent
with market rate units, thereby promoting economic integrating and
affirmatively further fair housing. Therefore, the capacity of sites that
allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited
toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law. Of the 63 sites
identified as meeting a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA, 32
of the sites are within the City’s AHO, which permits the required
density of 30 du/ac.
As previously described, the City has also adopted 15 Specific Plans to
guide growth and development across the community. Four of these
Specific Plans—Old Town, Uptown, Harveston and Altair—include
vacant land and together lay the foundation for the development of
thousands of new residential units in a variety of formats and densities
and provide for densities at levels high enoughconsistent with the
default density for Temecula (more than 30 du/ac) to accommodate a
portion of the City’s lower income RHNA. While these Specific Plans
use a combination of typical development standards and form-based
standards to regulate development, each Specific Plan was adopted to
encourage new residential development in creative formats to promote
development of a variety of residential types and various income levels.
Moreover, since these Specific Plans were adopted, projects have been
proposed and approved in Specific Plan areas (i.e., Uptown and Old
Town) with product types and densities consistent with providing
housing affordable to lower-income households. Additionally, based
on the City’s history of producing and supporting the production of
affordable housing, Temecula is confident that vacant parcels within
Specific Plan areas can be developed at densities of at least 30 du/ac to
help satisfy the City’s remaining extremely, very low, and low income
RHNA. These Specific Plans and their potential development
capacities are described in more detail later in this chapter. Of the 63
sites identified as meeting a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA,
45 of them are within Specific Plans which permit the required density
of at least 30 du/ac.
All sites identified in Appendix A as meeting a portion of the City’s
lower-income RHNA allow for development of residential uses at a
density of at least 30 du/ac, consistent with State law. Sites that allow
for densities only lower than 30 du/ac are assumed to meet the City’s
moderate- and above-moderate income RHNA.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-141
2. Sites to Accommodate Remaining RHNA
The City of Temecula’s 6th Cycle residential sites fall into three
categories:
1. Accessory dwelling units
2. Residentially zoned vacant land exclusive of Specific Plan
areas, and
3. Residentially zoned sites inside Specific Plans
As described throughout this section, the City has sufficient land
appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout community to
accommodate its RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Moreover, Temecula has a proven track record of supporting the
development of affordable projects, working with affordable housing
developers, promoting home types that are affordable to lower-income
households including multifamily projects and mixed-use
developments, and addressing needs of the community’s vulnerable
populations including seniors. These sites are illustrated on Figure H-
1, Housing Sites Inventory, and detailed in Appendix A.
Accessory Dwelling Units
As of January 2020, newly adopted State of California legislation
pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) went into effect. The
legislation changes specifically amended Government Code Sections
65852.2 and 65852.22. In response to these legislative changes, the City
of Temecula updated its zoning ordinance to be consistent with State
law. The details of the City’s Zoning Ordinance relevant to ADUs are
included in the Constraints section of this Background Report.
The City of Temecula approved 3 ADUs in 2018 and no ADUs in
2019. However, once the City updated its ADU ordinance in 2020 and
began advertising the opportunity to develop ADUs in Temecula, at
least 18 ADUs were approved. Now that the City has promoted the
production of ADUs as a viable option to add housing stock to the
City’s existing neighborhoods, prepared public education material to
inform the public about the opportunity to develop ADUs, is moving
forward with preparing streamlined guidance to support efficient
review and approval of ADU applications, and confirmed that ADUs
are explicitly allowed within a SPA (Temecula has 15 Specific Plans), it
can be reasonably expected that the development of ADUs in
Temecula will continue to be produced at the pace of production in
2020 and will likely accelerate. Moreover, the City has taken significant
proactive steps to advertise the opportunity for residents to construct
ADUs, including preparing a topic area fact sheet (available in English
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-142 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
and Spanish), hosting presentations to the Planning Commission and
City Council, and answering the public’s questions in-person at City
Hall and over the phone. However, Tthe City has assumed production
of ADUs at a rate of 18 6 units per year for the duration of the planning
period (based on the number of ADUs approved in 2020average
number of ADUs produced per year since 2018), resulting in the
assumed production of 144 48 ADUs. This is a modest assumption and
production will likely outpace this target during the planning period.
Additionally, the income level of these ADUs has been assumed to be
consistent with the findings of SCAG’s ADU affordability study, and
the income of these units are allocated consistent with SCAG’s findings
for Riverside/San Bernardino Counties.
2. Vacant Residential Sites (Outside of Specific Plans)
As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel-
by-parcel analysis of vacant residential sites for land outside of
approved specific plans, based on data obtained from the City’s
geographic information system (GIS). The vacant land inventory for
the City of Temecula, including an estimated development capacity for
the vacant parcels, can be found in Appendix A of the Housing
Element. Table 631 summarizes the available housing unit capacity
based on vacant residential sites located outside of approved specific
plan areas. Residential capacity for each vacant parcel is based on the
current zoning for each parcel. Each parcel is assumed to develop at
75% of its maximum capacity (consistent with any applicable target
densities established by the City’s General Plan and Development
Code, see the Land Use Controls section of this Background Report
for further information), which allows for setbacks, landscaping, right-
of-way dedications, and other nonresidential uses. See Figure H-1 for
a map of these sites.
Since the last planning period, the City adopted its Affordable Housing
Overlay (AHO), which allows for an increase in density in the High,
Medium, and Low Medium Residential zoning designations if the
development is affordable housing, and also applies to specific parcels
within the Planned Development Overlay areas (PDO-5 and PDO-10),
Professional Office zone, and Uptown Specific Plan. The affordable
housing overlay provides for a minimum density of at least 20 dwelling
units per acre and up to 30 dwelling units per acre, excluding any
potential density bonus for qualified projects. Development capacity at
parcels designated with the Affordable Housing Overlay will allow for
densities consistent with default densities of state housing element law
and will therefore be appropriate to accommodate a portion of the
City’s lower income RHNA. Consistent with sites outside of the
Affordable Housing Overlay, these parcels are also assumed to develop
at 75% of their maximum capacity.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-143
Several commercial zoning districts throughout the City of Temecula
also permit residential uses. The City’s vacant land use survey identified
all such vacant parcels and the realistic residential development capacity
for each parcel if developed with residential uses. Table H-61 also
summarizes the residential development potential within currently
vacant commercial parcels. Each parcel is assumed to develop at 75%
of its maximum capacity.
The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size
(exclusive of those in specific plan areas) in Temecula totals 634 acres.
It should be noted that the City’s inventory does include vacant sites
that are larger than 10 acres. The City has a long history of successfully
subdividing large parcels into smaller developments resulting in the
production of housing units at all income levels. This is discussed later
in this chapter. These vacant properties, identified in Table H-X, have
the potential to yield 3,4303,414 units, 1,4671,458 of which can
accommodate lower-income housing, 1,600 can accommodate
moderate-income housing, and 363 356 can accommodate above
moderate-income housing.
Table 631: Vacant Residential Sites (Exclusive of Specific Plans)
General Plan Zoning Max
Density
Acres Realistic
Capacity
(units)*
Affordability
Community Commercial Community
Commercial**
20 du/ac 20 301 Moderate
High Residential High
Residential/
AHO
20 30 du/ac 4 7980 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low
Highway Tourist Commercial Highway Tourist
Commercial**
20 du/ac 7 110111 Moderate
Low Residential Low Residential 2 du/ac 55 81 Above Mod
Low Medium Residential Low Medium
Residential
6 du/ac 41 184 Above Mod
Medium Density Residential Medium Density
Residential/AHO
30 du/ac 11 256 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low
Medium Density Residential Medium Density
Residential
12 du/ac 99 708 Moderate
Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial**
12 du/ac 6 57 Moderate
Professional Office Planned
Development
Overlay-5/AHO
30 du/ac 7 157 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low
Professional Office Professional
Office/AHO
30 du/ac 1320 300450 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low
Public Institutional Planned
Development
Overlay-5/AHO
30 du/ac 30 675672 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low
Service Commercial Service
Commercial**
20 du/ac 28 423 Moderate
Very Low Residential Very Low
Residential
0.40 du/ac 321295 9691 Above Mod
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-144 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Total 643617 3,4303,414
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
* Dwelling unit calculation is based on 75% of potential maximum capacity.
** Senior housing is also allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial, and Highway/Tourist
Commercial zoning districts. Senior housing constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed to be consistent with the
development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density Residential zoning district. For the Community Commercial,
Service Commercial, and Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning districts, senior housing will be developed consistent with the development
and performance standards allowed for the High Density Residential zoning district.
2. Vacant Residential Sites within Specific Plans
The City conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial
photos and site visits to estimate the remaining residential development
capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific
plans.
The City has 15 approved Specific Plans; nine have vacant land with
residential development capacity remaining. Five of the nine Specific
Plans with remaining residential capacity (Old Town, Wolf Creek,
Harveston, Uptown, and Altair) allow for development at densities of
at least 30 du/ac, which is appropriate to accommodate a portion of
the City’s lower income RHNA. While the exact affordability levels for
future development within these Specific Plan areas will be based on
available funding for affordable development and other market
conditions as the sites develop during the planning period, for those
Specific Plans which allow for development of at least 30 du/ac, the
City has assumed that some percentage of units will be affordable to
lower income households, some percentage to moderate income
households, and some percentage to above moderate income
households. For those Specific Plans the allow for lower densities not
suitable to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA, affordability
levels are based on the market rate rents/sale prices of products with
similar densities built and rented/sold elsewhere in the City.
The inventory of vacant residential land greater than 0.50 acres in size
within approved Specific Plans in Temecula totals 784 acres. It should
be noted that some of these sites are larger than 10 acres. The City has
a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller
developments resulting in the production of housing units at all income
levels. This is discussed later in this chapter. These vacant properties,
identified in Table 624, have the potential to yield 5,7735,735 units,
1,2471,216 of which can accommodate lower-income housing,
2,7872,779 can accommodate moderate-income housing, and
1,7241,1740 can accommodate above moderate-income housing.
In determining realistic capacity, the City reviewed past development
of projects in its Specific Plan areas. In Temecula, Specific Plan areas
have historically developed to at least 95% of their total entitlement.
However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites to accommodate
its RHNA, the City has taken a more conservative approach andhas
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-145
assumed that Specific Plan areas will develop at 85% of their capacity.
Given that Specific Plans inherently include programs to develop sites
effectively and efficiently at the densities and intensities identified
within the Plan, and given the City’s history of successful Specific Plan
development at levels consistent with nearly the maximum allowable
development levels, this is a reasonable expectation for the City’s
remaining vacant land in Specific Plan areas.
Recent examples that support the City’s realistic capacity methodology
include:
Vine Creek, an entitled project with a density of 26.43 units per
acre, in the Old Town Specific Plan area. Although this Specific
Plan area adheres to a form-based code and does not identify
minimum or maximum densities, the entitled density of this
project (26.43 dwelling units per acre) is within the expected
development range of 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre, as
indicated in the Regulating Plan for the Specific Plan. It is
highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would develop as 100
percent non-residential due to its proximity near transit and
civic institutions, parking reduction incentives for housing,
development standards, including allowing 100% residential
uses in mixed-use areas, and recent development trends (the
City has seen multiple pre-applications for residential units in
the last year). Additionally, the Vine Creek project
demonstrates that residential development at the expected
development range is likely and feasible.
Las Haciendas, an entitled project with a density of 39.08
dwelling units per acre, and Jefferson Buecking Project, at 39.9
dwelling units per acre in the Uptown Specific Plan area.
Although this Specific Plan area adheres to a form-based code
and does not identify minimum or maximum densities, these
two projects exceed the expected density of 30 dwelling units
per acre. It is highly unlikely that this Specific Plan area would
develop as 100 percent non-residential based on development
trends (affordable and market rate projects are moving forward
in Uptown, and the number of inquiries from national
homebuilders to build condos and townhomes) and standards
(e.g., 1.5 parking units per residential unit that provide reduced
parking to incentivize housing).
The Harveston Specific Plan area was originally permitted at
1,921 dwelling units, of which 1,921 (100%) were built. As
previously described, the residential overlay adopted in 2020
allows for the future development of up to 1,000 additional
residential units. Three projects in this Specific Plan area are
moving forward (Heirloom Farms, a 321-unit development
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-146 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
already entitled and under construction; Solana Winchester, a
350-unit development in process of entitlement; and Prado, a
237-unit development in the process of entitlement), totaling
908 units, or 90.8% of total expected unit capacity, with
additional projects likely to follow. It is highly unlikely that this
Specific Plan area would develop as 100 percent nonresidential
due to land already being purchased by residential developers
as of Fall 2021.
Table 642: Vacant Residential Land within Specific Plan Areas
Specific Plan General
Plan Land
Use
Allowable
Density
Acres Realistic
Capacity
(units)*
Affordability
SP-2 - Rancho Highlands Highway Tourist
Commercial
20 du/ac 1 5 Above Mod
SP-4 - Paloma Del Sol Low Medium
Residential
6 du/ac 42 216 Above Mod
SP-5 - Old Town
Specific Plan 30 du/ac 4 109107 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low/Mod/
Above Mod
SP-9 - Red Hawk Medium
Residential
12 du/ac 7 68 Moderate
SP-11 - Roripaugh Low
Residential,
Low Medium,
Medium
Residential,
Neighborhood
Commercial
2-12 du/ac 333 1,9281,920 Moderate/ Above
Mod
SP-12 - Wolf Creek Community
Commercial,
Neighborhood
Commercial
20-30 du/ac 20 439 Moderate
SP-13 - Harveston Service
Commercial
30 du/ac 80 846840 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low/Mod/
Above Mod
SP-14 - Uptown Highway Tourist
Commercial,
Industrial Park,
Service
Commercial
30 du/ac 25 648636 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low/Mod/
Above Mod
SP-15 – Altair Medium
Residential,
High
Residential,
Specific Plan
30 du/ac 272 1,5141,504 Ex Low/Very
Low/Low/Mod/
Above Mod
Total 784 5,7735,735
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
* Dwelling unit calculation is based on 85% of potential maximum capacity
SP-14
PDO-10
SP-13
SC
PO
SC
CC
SP-14
PO
SC
VL
SP-5
HT
SP-15
MPO
PDO-5
L-1
L-1
SP-2
VL
BP
VL
M
H VL
LM
VL
VL
VL
VL
SP-4
SP-12
SP-9
SP-11
PO
VL
NC
VL
VL
VL
SP-15
HT
M LM
Y
N
E
Z
R
D
B
UTTE
RFIELD
STAGERD
REDHAWKPKYRANCHOCALIFO R N IA R D
DE P O R T O L A RD
P
E
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
Y
JE
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
WINCHESTER RDR A N C H O C A L IF O R N IA R D
OL
D TOWN FRONTSTL A S E RE N A WY
P A U B A R D
MEADOWSPKYTEMECUL
A
P
K
W
YOVERLANDDRBUSINESSPARKDR HIGHWAY
7
9
S
O
U
T
HBUTTERFIELDST
A
G
E
R
D
WOLFVALLEYR D
P A U B A R DMA
R
G
A
RIT
A
R
DVIANORTE
N IC O L A S RD
S O L A NA WY DE L R E Y R D
ANZA R
D
RANCHO VISTARD
S A N T I A G O R D
NICOLAS R
D
P
A
L
A
R
D
M U R R IE T A H OT SPRINGS RD
VAIL
R
A
N
CHPKYDEERHOLLOWWYD
I
A
Z
R
D
W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V BUCKRDFigure 2: Vacant Developable Land Use Zoning
0 10.5 Miles
\
Updated 7/14/2021
Zoning Designations
BUSINESS PARK (BP)
COMMUNITY COMM (CC)
CONSERVATION (OS-C)
HIGH DENSITY RES (H)
HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMM (HT)
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI)
LOW DENSITY RES (L-1)
LOW DENSITY RES (L-2)
LOW MED DENSITY RES ( LM)
MEDIUM DENSITY RES (M)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMM (NC)
PLANNED DEV OVERLAY (PDO-5)
PLANNED DEV OVERLAY (PDO-10)
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO)
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI)
SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-2)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-4)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-5)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-9)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-11)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-12)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-14)
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-15)
VERY LOW DENSITY RES (VL)
City
Centerline
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-148 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-149
3.2. Large Sites Analysis
The City’s site inventory (Appendix A) includes ten parcels that are
over 10 acres in size that allow for a density of at least 30 du/ac and
are found to be suitable sites to accommodate a portion of the City’s
lower income RHNA. Of these ten sites, four are between 10 and 11
acres (10.20, 10.23, 10.26, and 10.84 acres). The remaining six parcels
range in size from 11.39 acres to 54.8 acres.
Seven of the ten sites are located within approved Specific Plans which
include clear approval processes for subdividing parcels into
developable lots. The City has a proven track record of developing
Specific Plans, including the subdivision of large lots, as evidence by
the development of approved Specific Plans including Uptown (where
one affordable housing project was recently approved), Harveston
(which is largely developed but was recently amended to allow for
additional residential development), Old Town Specific Plan (where
one affordable housing project was approved), Rancho Highlands
Specific Plan (the location of the Arrive affordable housing project),
and various other residential Specific Plans. The remaining three sites
that are not located within a Specific Plan are all designated with the
City’s Affordable Housing Overlay, which specifies that residential
development at these sites must include the applicable affordable
housing component to develop as a residential project, and that the
assumed density for these sites in 30 du/ac. Two Three of these sites
are owned by the City of Temecula as shown in Table 65, and as the
parcel owner, the City is in a unique position to ensure that the property
will be developed as affordable housing, despite its size. The City also
has the ability to subdivide the property into smaller lots, if that process
is more likely to result in the production of affordable units. By
October 2024, the City will solicit a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
the development of affordable housing project(s) on the City-owned
site(s). Prior to disposing of any of the City-owned sites, the City shall
comply with the Surplus Land Act and Surplus Land Act Guidelines
issued by HCD, and consult with HCD regarding any questions. The
City will evaluate whether to sell the site(s) or ground lease them to one
or more an affordable housing developers.
The largest lots are included in SP-15 (Altair), which is the City’s newest
Specific Plan. As development moves forward within the Altair project
area, it is expected that the existing parcels will be subdivided in
compliance with the Specific Plan and its land use pattern, and that this
process will replicate similar successful efforts in other Specific Plan
areas which have been fully or partially developed throughout
Temecula. Additionally, the developer of Altair has expressed interest
in promoting and building accessory dwelling units in concert with new
construction, further demonstrating the City’s ability to accommodate
a portion of its RHNA through development of ADUs.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-150 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Moreover, only sites identified with the City’s Affordable Housing
Overlay are anticipated to develop as 100% affordable projects (at 75%
of maximum capacity). Larger sites located in Specific Plan areas are
expected to provide a range of housing options and a variety of income
levels; it is not assumed that large sites in Specific Plan areas will
develop as exclusively affordable to lower income households. Rather,
approximately 40% of the capacity is projected to be suitable to
accommodate lower income households with the remainder serving the
needs of moderate to above moderate income households.
The City has introduced a new program in the Housing Plan, Program
6, Large Sites. As part of this program, the City will routinely give high
priority to processing subdivision maps that include affordable housing
units. Also, an expedited review process will be available for the
subdivision of larger sites into buildable lots where the development
application can be found consistent with the General Plan, applicable
Specific Plan, and program environmental impact report(s).
The City will offer incentives for the development of affordable
housing on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to:
Streamlining and expediting the approval process for land
division for projects that include affordable housing units,
Deferral of fees related to the subdivision for projects
affordable to lower-income households, and
Providing technical assistance to acquire funding.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-151
Table 653: Large Lot Inventory
Parcel Owner Size General
Plan Zoning
Affordable
Housing
Overlay
Lower
Income
RHNA
Total
Capacity
909370050
CITY OF
TEMECULA 10.84
Public
Institutional
Facilities
PDO-10 Yes 244243 244243
909370049
CITY OF
TEMECULA 19.14
Public
Institutional
Facilities
PDO-10 Yes 431429 431429
916400042 HARVESTON
SAB 10.21 Service
Commercial SP-13 No 4344 108
916400060 HARVESTON
SAB 10.26 Service
Commercial SP-13 No 44 109110
922210011
HUB 3
10.23
Medium
Residential (7-
12 Du/Ac Max)
SP-15 No 5051 126127
940320002 CITY OF
TEMECULA 20.34 Specific Plan
Implementation SP-15 No 100 250
940320007
HUB 3
12.72
Medium
Residential (7-
12 Du/Ac Max)
SP-15 No 6263 156157
944290015
KAISERMAN
DONALD 11.40
Medium
Residential (7-
12 Du/Ac Max)
M Yes 256 256
940320005
TEMECULA
WEST
VILLAGE
19.61 Specific Plan
Implementation SP-15 No 96 241240
922210049
TEMECULA
WEST
VILLAGE
54.81 Specific Plan
Implementation SP-15 No 270269 675673
Source: City of Temecula, 2021
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-152 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
3. Realistic Capacity
The City’s realistic capacity analysis considers the following capacity
factors, as identified in housing element statute (Gov. Code section
65583.2(c)(2)): land use controls and site improvements, realistic
capacity of the site, and typical densities. Of the five factors only land
use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and
typical densities are relevant when considering the capacity of sites in
Temecula; infrastructure constraints and environmental constraints are
not applicable. While some of the sites allow for 100 percent
nonresidential uses, as described in this section, it is highly unlikely that
sites identified in Appendix A will develop as 100% nonresidential uses
due to their financial value as a residential development site, their
proximity to existing goods, services, and transit, implementation of
the affordable housing overlay, and strong development interest to
expand the community’s housing stock. The City has not seen any
applications or had preapplication discussions for mixed-use projects
where residential uses represent anything less than 80% of the site’s
development potential. The City finds that it is not financially feasible
or desirable for developers to redevelop any of the sites listed in the
Housing Element inventory for 100% nonresidential uses.
Tables 66 and 67 summarizes how the various factors identified in
housing element statute (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(2)) result in an
adjusted site capacity of 75% of the maximum densities for vacant sites
outside of Specific Plan areas and 85% of maximum densities for
vacant sites inside of Specific Plan areas.
Table 66: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Outside of Specific Plans
Capacity Factor Adjustment Reasoning
Land use controls and site
improvements
95% For net acreage due to on-
site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the
site
95% Adjustment based on past
development trends in
areas outside of Specific
Plans
Typical densities 85% Based on assessment of
typical densities realized
for projects
proposed/developed over
the past 5 years
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no
constraint
Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no
constraint (already
accounted for as part of
prior General Plan land
use planning process)
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-153
Table 67: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Inside of Specific Plans
Capacity Factor Adjustment Reasoning
Land use controls and site
improvements
95% For net acreage due to on-
site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the
site
95% Specific Plans set in place
firm entitlements including
number of units and the
City expects every Specific
Plan to develop in
accordance with its
approved land use map.
Typical densities 95% Specific Plans set their
own densities and
intensities with are
confirmed as part of the
planning document and
the City has a high degree
of confidence that the
projects will be built
according to these
standards.
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no
constraint
Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no
constraint (already
accounted for as part of
prior Specific Plan land
use planning processes)
7. Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The City’s site inventory demonstrates the availability of adequate sites
to address the projected housing growth needs (see Appendix A).
Overall, the vacant site inventory yields an estimated development
capacity of 9,203 units. Based on these numbers, along with
development of ADUs and the credits identified earlier in this chapter,
and as shown in Table 684, the City is able to meet its 2021-2029
regional housing need of 4,193 and provide a surplus of sites at all
income levels. Additionally, given that the capacities identified for
vacant residential parcels outside of Specific Plan is based on a 75%
yield from the maximum density and for vacant residential parcels
inside of Specific Plans is based on 85% yield from the maximum
density, it could be expected that products will actually develop with
unit counts higher than those assumed in this inventory.
As is shown in Table 684, the City has adequate sites to accommodate
the RHNA for all income levels. For lower income units (extremely
low income, very low income, and low income), the City has a
remaining allocation of 2,029 units and can accommodate 2,7982,702
units via ADUs and on sites that allow densities of at least 30 units per
acre, consistent with the assumptions for lower income sites
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-154 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
established by Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iii) and that
are further supported by the City’s history of successful affordable
projects. The City also has a surplus of sites for moderate and above
moderate income units.
Table 684: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA
Candidate
Sites
Extremely
Low income
(0-30% AMI)
Very Low
income
(30-50%
AMI)
Low
income
(51-80%
AMI)
Moderate
income
(81-120%
AMI)
Above
Moderate
income
(121%+
AMI)
Total
Remaining 6th
Cycle RHNA 656 671 702 757 1,249 4,034
ADUs 228 114 5016 5016 114 14448
Vacant
Residential Land
Inventory
(exclusive of
SPAs)
367364 440436 660658 1,600 363356 3,4303,414
Vacant
Residential Land
in Specific Plans
312304 312311 624601 2,7872,779 1,7241,740 5,7735,735
Total +4520 (surplus) +9280
(surplus)
+632 481
(surplus)
+3,6803,617
(surplus)
+849 845
(surplus)
+5,3135,006
(surplus)
C. Housing, Financial, and Services
Resources
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC)
funds land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects
that support infill and compact development and reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Funds are available in the form of loans and/or
grants in two kinds of project areas: Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Project Areas and Integrated Connectivity (ICP) Project Areas.
There is an annual competitive funding cycle.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds are awarded
to the City of Temecula, an entitlement community, on a formula basis
for housing, community development, and economic development
activities. Activities eligible for CDBG funding include acquisition,
rehabilitation, economic development and public services.
HOME Investment Partnership funds are granted by a formula basis
from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and
affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities
include new construction, acquisition, rental assistance and
rehabilitation. The City participates in the San Diego County-
administered HOME Program, which administers HOME funds to
projects in participating jurisdictions. County-administered HOME
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-155
funds for first time homebuyer assistance are made available to
residents or employees of the local jurisdictions participating in the
HOME program. New development projects are typically allocated
funding on a competitive basis.
Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8) provides
monthly rental assistance payments to private landlords on behalf of
low income families who have been determined eligible by the San
Diego Housing Authority. The program's objective is to assist low
income families by providing rental assistance so that families may lease
safe, decent, and sanitary housing units in the private rental market.
The program is designed to allow families to move without the loss of
housing assistance. Moves are permissible if the family notifies the
Housing Authority ahead of time, terminates its existing lease within
the lease provisions, and finds acceptable alternate housing.
Project Based Housing Voucher program is a component of the former
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funded through HUD.
The program's objective is to induce property owners to make standard
housing available to low income families at rents within the program
limits. In return, the Housing Authority or HUD enters a contract with
the owner that guarantees a certain level of rents.
Section 811/202 Program (Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities/Elderly) – Non- profit and consumer cooperatives can
receive no interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202
program for the construction of Very-Low income rental housing for
seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in
conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group
homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities.
Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction
and rental assistance.
California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs
provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and
preservation or new construction of rental housing that includes
affordable rents for Low and Moderate income families and
individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Acquisition
Finance Program that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of at-risk
affordable housing developments and provide lowcost funding to
preserve affordability.
CalHOME Program provides grants to local public agencies and non-
profit developers to assist households in becoming homeowners.
CalHome funds may be used for predevelopment, development,
acquisition, and rehabilitation costs as well as downpayment assistance.
While CalHOME funding has been limited to disaster assistance in
recent years, this would be an appropriate program for the City to
pursue to begin to develop a local portfolio of housing assistance
programs and funds.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-156 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) offers permanent
financing for acquisition and rehabilitation to for-profit, non-profit,
and public agency developers seeking to preserve "at-risk" housing
units. In addition, CHFA offers low interest predevelopment loans to
nonprofit sponsors through its acquisition/rehabilitation program.
Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP) provides funds
to local government agencies and non-profit corporations for capital
development activities and facility operation for emergency shelters,
transitional housing and safe havens that provide shelter and
supportive services for homeless individuals and families. No current
funding is offered for this program.
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program provides emergency shelter
and related services to the County's homeless populations. Eligible
activities include: the rehabilitation and conversion of buildings for use
as emergency shelters; the provision of essential services to the
homeless; operating support for emergency shelters; and homeless
prevention/rapid rehousing activities.
Federal Home Loan Bank System facilitates Affordable Housing
Programs (AHP), which subsidize the interest rates for affordable
housing. The San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank District
provides local service within California. Interest rate subsidies under
the AHP can be used to finance the purchase, construction, and/or
rehabilitation of rental housing. very low income households must
occupy at least 20% of the units for the useful life of the housing or the
mortgage term.
Housing for a Healthy California (HHC) provides funding on a
competitive basis to deliver supportive housing opportunities to
developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF)
allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. The
Department will also utilize from a portion of moneys collected in
calendar year 2018 and deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs
Trust Fund to provide funding through grants to counties for capital
and operating assistance. Funds will be announced through a Notice of
Funding Availability.
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG) funds infrastructure
improvements to facilitate new housing development with an
affordable component in residential or mixed use infill projects and
infill areas. If an affordable or special needs housing developer is
interested in developing in the City’s urban core, this program could be
useful to fund infrastructure improvements.
Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program finances the new
construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of owner- and renter-
occupied housing units for agricultural workers, with a priority for
lower income households. No current funding is offered for this
program.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-157
Low income Housing Tax Credits. The California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (CTCAC) administers the federal and state Low
income Housing Tax Credit Programs. Both programs were created to
encourage private investment in affordable rental housing for
households meeting certain income requirements. Under these
programs, housing tax credits are awarded to developers of qualified
projects. 20% of federal credits are reserved for rural areas, and 10%
for non-profit sponsors. To compete for the credit, rental housing
developments must reserve units at affordable rents to households at
or below 46% of area median income. The assisted units must be
reserved for the target population for 55 years. The federal tax credit
provides a subsidy over ten years towards the cost of producing a unit.
Developers sell these tax benefits to investors for their present market
value to provide up-front capital to build the units. Credits can be used
to fund the hard and soft costs (excluding land costs) of the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing. Projects not
receiving other federal subsidy receive a federal credit of 9% per year
for ten years and a state credit of 30% over four years (high cost areas
and qualified census tracts get increased federal credits). Projects with
a federal subsidy receive a 4% federal credit each year for ten years and
a 13% state credit over four years. The CTCAC also administers a
Farmworker Housing Assistance Program and a Commercial
Revitalization Deduction Program.
Low income Housing Preservation and Residential Home Ownership
Act (LIHPRHA) requires that all eligible HUD Section 236 and Section
221(d) projects “at-risk” of conversion to market-rate rental housing
through the mortgage prepayment option be subject to LIHPRHA
Incentives. The incentives to owners include HUD subsidies which
guarantee owners an 8% annual return on equity. Owners must file a
Plan of Action to obtain incentives or offer the project for sale to a)
non-profit organizations, b) tenants, or c) public bodies for a 12 month
period followed by an additional three-month sale to other purchasers.
Only then are owners eligible to prepay the subsidized mortgages.
Mobilehome Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program
(MPRROP) makes short- and long-term low interest rate loans for the
preservation of affordable mobilehome parks for ownership or control
by resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public
agencies. MPRROP also makes long-term loans to individuals to ensure
continued affordability. Funds are made available through a periodic,
competitive process. MPRROP is currently accepting applications on
an over-the-counter basis.
Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) provides low interest loans to
developers of affordable rental and transitional housing projects. Funds
may be used for new construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and
rehabilitation, or conversion of non-residential structures.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-158 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
National Housing Trust Fund is a permanent federal program with
dedicated sources of funding not subject to the annual appropriations.
The funds can be used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable
housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low income
households. California is receiving approximately $10.1 Million for the
program in 2019. Funds will be made available through a competitive
process and will be announced through a Notice of Funding
Availability.
Preservation Interim Repositioning Program (PIRP) is a short-term
loan program designed to preserve housing at risk of conversion to
market rates. Only non-profits, dedicated to the provision of affordable
housing, may apply. Local matching funds, together with PIRP funds,
may not exceed 20% of total costs. No current funding is offered for
this program.
SB 2 Planning Grants Program provides one-time funding and
technical assistance to all eligible local governments in California to
adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline
housing approvals and accelerate housing production. Eligible activities
include updating a variety of planning documents and processes such
as general plans and zoning ordinances, conducting environmental
analyses, and process improvements that expedite local planning and
permitting. The planning grants program is funded through the
Building Homes and Jobs Act Trust Fund (SB 2, Chapter 364, Statutes
of 2017). The City is eligible to receive funds through this program and
this program should be considered to develop an affordable housing
program for the City.
California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) is a
multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the
availability of affordable housing for Low income families, seniors and
residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its
investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing.
Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and
acquisition of properties.
Supplement Security Income (SSI) is a federal welfare program for
persons 65 and over and for blind or disabled persons of any age.
"Disabled" means that you have a physical or mental disability that is
expected to keep you from working for 12 months or longer, or will
result in death. Medicare is a federal health insurance program for
people who are 65 and over, for some younger people with permanent
disabilities, and for people with end-stage kidney disease. SSI may
provide total monthly income or it may supplement a low income. In
addition to cash payments, SSI recipients are automatically covered by
Medi-Cal, the state health insurance plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-159
D. Administrative Resources
Agencies with administrative capacity to implement programs
contained in the Housing Element include the City of Temecula and
local and regional nonprofit private developers. The City of Temecula
Planning Department takes the lead in implementing Housing Element
programs and policies. The City also works closely with non-profit
developers to expand affordable housing opportunities in Temecula.
Development Services Department
The Community Development Department manages the City’s
affordable housing programs, Building and Safety Division, code
enforcement, land development, and planning (among other
responsibilities). The department coordinates development activity
within the City to ensure the planned orderly growth. The Planning
Department administers the General Plan and zoning and
environmental regulations, and provides primary staff assistance to the
Planning Commission.
Non-Profit Developments
The City collaborates with a number of affordable housing developers
and service providers to accommodate the housing needs of Temecula
residents. The following are housing developers and service providers
active in the City; several are included in the State’s list of entities with
the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk projects.
The following are housing providers interested in developing and/or
preserving affordable housing in the City:
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G
Indio, CA 92201
Telephone: (760) 347-3157
Habitat for Humanity
41964 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92591
Telephone: (909) 693-0460
Jamboree Housing Corporation
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 216
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 263-8676
Affirmed Housing
13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 360
San Diego, CA 92128
Telephone: (858)679-2828
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-160 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
The Olson Company
30200 Old Ranch Pkwy, #250
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Telephone: (562) 596-4770
San Diego Community Housing Corporation
8799 Balboa Avenue, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92123
Telephone: (858) 571-0444
D’Alto Partners
41911 5th Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Telephone: (951)304-0633
DR Horton
2280 Warlow Circle, Suite 100
Corona, CA 92880
Telephone: (951)272-9000
Bridge Housing Corporation
9191 Towne Center Drive, Suite L101
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 535-0552
Highland Partnerships
285 Bay Blvd.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Telephone: (619) 498-2900
National Community Renaissance (National CORE)
9421 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Telephone: (909) 483-2444
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-161
E. Environmental Constraints
The majority of the land available for residential development is located
adjacent to existing infrastructure facilities or within a specific plan area
where infrastructure will be provided as part of the development
process. As a result, infrastructure facilities will be able to serve all of
the future residential development.
The sites inventory analysis reflects land use designations and densities
established in the General Plan and Specific Plans. Thus, any
environmental constraints that would lower the potential yield (e.g.,
steep slopes) have already been accounted for. Any additional
constraints that would occur on a more detailed site review basis would
be addressed as part of the individual project review process.
The City’s capacity to meet its regional share and individual income
categories are not constrained by any environmental conditions.
F. Energy Conservation and Climate Change
Energy-related housing costs can directly impact the affordability of
housing. While State building code standards contain mandatory energy
efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility
providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate
energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy -related
expenses. Efficient energy use can be encouraged by changing
customer behavior, rewarding use of energy-saving appliances, and
employing building design and construction approaches that reduce
electric power and natural gas usage. The primary sources of energy in
Temecula are electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE) and
natural gas from SoCalGas. SCE provides technical assistance and
incentives for residents and businesses to increase energy efficiency
through energy audits, appliance rebate programs, and smart energy
metering. As part of the City’s Sustainability Plan, Temecula’s mission
is to reduce energy use while encouraging clean energy generation.
The City has included Program 12, Energy Conservation and Energy
Efficiency, to support these topics.
New Development
The City encourages energy conservation in residential projects. New
subdivision and parcel reviews are considered in terms of street layout
and lot design. Residential structures must meet the requirements of
Title 24 (CalGreen) relating to energy conservation features of the
California Building Standards Code.
For example, production home builder, Woodside Homes has
constructed hundreds of homes in Roripaugh Ranch (Sommers Bend)
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-162 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
which include solar as well as passive and active energy savings
techniques.
Retrofit
There are a number of methods available to improve conditions of
existing structures and to decrease their energy demand, all of which
fall under the general label of “retrofit.” Among the most common
techniques for increasing building efficiency are: insulation of ceilings,
heating-ventilating air conditioning ducts and hot water heaters;
weather stripping and caulking; night setback thermostats; spark ignited
pilot lights; low flow shower heads; window treatment to provide
shade; and furnace efficiency modifications. The City of Temecula
monitors such modifications on substantial rehabilitation projects
pursuant to the California Building Standards Code.
Weatherization in existing dwellings can greatly cut down heating and
cooling costs. Weatherization is generally done by performing or
improving attic insulation, caulking, weather stripping and storm
windows, furnace efficiency modifications, and certain mechanical
measures to heating and cooling systems. The U.S. Department of
Energy allocates money to states for disbursement to community-
based organizations.
Other means of energy conservation in residential structures includes
proper design and location of windows, window shades, orientation of
the dwelling in relation to sun and wind direction, and roof overhang
to let the winter sun in and block the summer sun out.
The City encourages maintenance and rehabilitation of housing to
maximize energy efficiency. The City’s residential rehabilitation
programs provides funding assistance for lower income households to
rehabilitate their home and provide weatherization and energy retrofit
improvements.
G. Consistency with the General Plan
Government Code Section 65300.5 states: “In construing the
provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan
and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting
agency.” Additionally, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(7) requires
the identification of “means by which consistency will be achieved with
other general plan elements and community goals.”
The Housing Element of a general plan sets out a city's overall long-
range planning strategy for providing housing for all segments of the
community. The California Government Code requires general plans
to contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. The
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-163
Housing Element is, therefore, affected by policies contained in other
elements of a general plan. The housing element is most intricately
related to the land use element. The Land Use Element establishes the
framework for development of housing by laying out the land use
designations for residential development and indicating the type and
density permitted by a city.
Working within this framework, the City of Temecula’s Housing
Element identifies priority goals, objectives, and program actions for
the 2021-2029 planning period that directly address the housing needs
of Temecula’s existing and future residents. The policies contained in
other elements of the City’s General Plan affect many aspects of life
that residents enjoy such as the amount and variety of open space; the
preservation of natural, historic and cultural resources; permitted noise
levels in residential areas; and the safety of the residents in the event of
a natural or man-made disaster. The Housing Element has been
reviewed for consistency with the City's other General Plan Elements
and the policies and programs in this Element do not conflict with the
policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan.
As the City moves forward with a General Plan Update and as portions
of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element
will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained. The
General Plan Update will address all requirements of State law related
to the scope and content of a General Plan, including updated goals,
policies, and programs to address complete streets, environmental
justice, climate adaptation and resiliency, and air quality.
H. Relationship to Other City Plans and
Policies
The Housing Element identifies priority goals, objectives, policies, and
action programs for the next eight years that directly address the
housing needs of Temecula. The City’s other plans and policies
including its Municipal Code, Zoning Code, Master Plan, and Specific
Plans must all remain consistent with the Housing Element. As
revisions are considered to the City’s Code and various plans, each
revision will be reviewed to ensure that no conflicts with the Housing
Element occur.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-164 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
I. Priority for Water and Sewer
Per Chapter 727, Statues of 2004 (SB 1087), upon completion of an
amended or adopted housing element, a local government is
responsible for immediately distributing a copy of the Element to area
water and sewer providers. Water and sewer providers must grant
priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include
housing units affordable to lower-income households. As the
responsible agency, the City of Temecula will supply a copy of the
adopted housing element to the Temecula Public Works Department,
as well as to all water and sewer providers serving the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-165
VI. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR
HOUSING (AFFH) ANALYSIS
All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements
of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair
Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under State law, affirmatively
further fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to
combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and
foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics”. These characteristics
can include, but are not limited to, race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
In 2017, the City of Temecula prepared a comprehensive and robust
assessment of fair housing. This Report is included as Appendix D to
the Housing Element and was approved in March 2017. Unless
otherwise noted, the Figures and Tables references in this Section
(Section VI) refer to those Figures and Tables included as part of the
2017 Assessment, included as Appendix D. As part of this effort, the
City undertook a detailed community participation program, assessed
past goals and actions, conducted a fair housing analysis including a
demographic summary, identification of general issues related to
segregation/integration, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty (R/ECAPs), disparities in access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs. Additionally, the Report included an
analysis of publicly supported housing, disability and access, and fair
housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resource analysis. Finally,
it included a series of fair housing goals and priorities, which have been
integrated and updated within the Housing Plan, as appropriate. This
analysis is a summary ofof fair housing issues in Temecula relies on the
2017 Report, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer and Mapping tool, 2014-
2018 American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD AFFH Database, County of
Riverside Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019-2024
(County AI), and additional local sources of information. the findings
of which remain valid, as well as new information related to the City’s
2021-2029 Housing Element, and in particular its sites inventory, and
a description of how the City’s housing programs affirmatively further
fair housing.
As a recipient of federal funds to administer housing and community
development programs, the City of Temecula must affirmatively
further fair housing. To accomplish this goal, the City of Temecula has
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-166 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to
provide fair housing services for Temecula residents at no cost.
Citizens can get legal support for Fair Housing issues regarding rent
payments, termination notices, lease renewal increases, habitability
claims, illegal evictions, and any discrimination claim.
A. Fair Housing Needs Assessment
The City of Temecula is located in the extreme southwest corner of the
Riverside-San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which
is the largest MSA in area in the continental United States. Because of
its location in the corner of the region, one must be cautious to draw
too many conclusions in comparing Temecula to the regional data
supplied by HUD. The city’s City’s 2017 Assessment and the analysis
included in this Housing Element compares and contrasts the City with
the regional data, but as one would expect, there are some substantial
differences in the data profiles and the needs between the City and the
region. The City is located in a cluster of cities in Temecula Valley in
southwest Riverside County. The other cities include Murrieta,
Menifee, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore. All have experienced
tremendous growth in the past twenty years, yet they remain separate
and some distance from the metropolitan areas to the north and south.
Through its growth, Temecula has remained an integrated and diverse
City with racial and ethnic groups spread evenly throughout the City.
There are no HUD-identified racially or ethnically concentrated areas
of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the City. During the housing crisis of 2007-
2008, the City was hit with many foreclosures and, as such, that issue
was the greatest concern in the previous Analysis of Impediments,
completed in 2010. Now with the housing industry in recovery, the
greatest need in the City is affordable housing, as many new
homebuyers find themselves priced out of the market.
Like all cities in the State of California, Temecula is challenged by a lack
of financial resources to address its affordable housing needs due to
the dissolution of all the State’s redevelopment agencies. This was the
main source of hundreds of affordable housing units constructed in the
City since the 1990s. Fair housing issues in Temecula appear to be
individualized and not systemic, but preventing systematic issues
requires continuous training and education of those persons employed
in the housing industry, as well as educating the residents of their fair
housing rights.
As included in its 2017 Assessment, the City had developed four fair
housing goals to overcome the contributing factors identified in the
Assessment of Fair Housing. These goals were prioritized based on
feedback from community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews,
staff, and data analysis. Highest priority was given to those contributing
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-167
factors that limit or deny fair housing choice of access to opportunity.
The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority.
Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable
housing
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs;
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws
Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs;
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in
a range of sizes
Contributing Factor 2B: Location and type of affordable
housing
Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for
persons with disabilities
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, or other infrastructure
Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or
services
Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing
agencies and organizations
Contributing Factor 4B: Private discrimination
Based on the above goals and contributing factors, a number
of actions were identified that can be taken over the next five
years that will promote fair housing for its residents. These
actions, outlined in the 2017 Assessment, have either already
been completed (i.e., the adoption of an Affordable Housing
Overlay) and assessed as part of the 5th Cycle Progress, or
included as a Program in this Housing Plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-168 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
B. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
In 2017, the City of Temecula prepared a comprehensive and robust
assessment of fair housing. This Report is included as Appendix D to
the Housing Element and was approved in March 2017. As part of this
effort, the City undertook a detailed community participation program,
assessed past goals and actions, conducted a fair housing analysis
including a demographic summary, identification of general issues
related to segregation/integration, racially or ethnically concentrated
areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), disparities in access to opportunity, and
disproportionate housing needs. Additionally, the Report included an
analysis of publicly supported housing, disability and access, and fair
housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resource analysis. Finally,
it included a series of fair housing goals and priorities, which have been
integrated and updated within the Housing Plan, as appropriate.
The City of Temecula contracts with the Fair Housing Council of
Riverside County to provide comprehensive Fair Housing services.
Quarterly reports are provided to the City, which evaluate potential
issues related to Race, Color, Religion, Sex National Origin, Familial
Status, Disability, Age, Marital Status, Ancestry, Source of Income,
Sexual Orientation, Genetic Information, or Other Arbitrary factors.
Complaints also detail landlord tenant complaints, including ethnicity,
income, and the specific case categories including, Evictions,
Occupancy Standards, Repairs, Deposits, Entering/Harassment, Late
Fees, Lead, Lease/Rental Terms, Mobile Homes, Mold, Rental
Assistance, Homeless Assistance Referrals, Habitability, Notices,
Section 8 Issues, Affordable Housing, and Foreclosures. Actions taken
by the Fair Housing Council are also provided, including mediation,
counseling, conciliation, education, DFEH/HUD/Attorney referrals.
Past Fair Housing Events included First Time Homebuyer Programs
(March 14, 2022), Rent Control Law (March 18, 2020), First Time
Homebuyers (April 4, 2020, May 2, 2020), Fair Housing in Covid
(September 24, 2020, October 1, 2020, October 15, 2020, October 22,
2020, November 13, 2020, November 18, 2020), Fair Housing
Roundtables (April 25, 2021), Popup Events, (May 5, 2021, May 12,
2021, May 13, 2021, May 15, 2021, May 19, 2021, May 20, 2021),
Community Partners Meetings (June 8, 2021), Juneteenth (June 19,
2021), Help Center Outreach in Temecula (June 29, 2021).
The chart on the following page reflects the quarterly report provided
to the City by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County of Q1
2021-2022.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-169
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-170 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
The City hosted two public outreach workshops on October 27, 2021,
with notices in English, Spanish, and Tagalog. The focus of these
hearings included specific topics of AFFH and Fair Housing feedback
as well as affordable housing. The City is also currently conducting a
resident survey (in conjunction with CDBG) which discusses housing,
AFFH, and other housing related priorities.
During the 2019-2020 report period, the City of Temecula took the
following actions (on its own or in cooperation with regional partners
and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) to
overcome impediments to fair housing choice identified in the 2017
Report and demonstrate and implement its outreach capacity to
provide outreach and education to assure community members are well
aware of fair housing laws and rights:
Fair Housing Community Education
Fair Housing Enforcement
Housing Dispute Evaluation & Resolution
Reasonable Accommodations
Web-based Outreach
Monitoring On-Line Advertising
Monitoring Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
The City of Temecula complies with Fair Housing laws and regulations,
as described in Table 695.
The City has conducted outreach to its Race, Equity, and Diversity
Commission to further promote fair housing policies and identify
additional opportunities to support implementation of Fair Housing
laws and regulations. This outreach will continue on at least an annual
basis and is included as part of Program 25.
432.48
432.56
432.64
432.66
432.22
432.18
432.52
496
432.16
432.17
432.62
512
432.44
432.46
432.47
432.54
432.65
432.67
432.50
432.20
505
432.57
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E TA
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Census Tracts within
Temecula
Other Census Tracts
F i g u r e 3 : C e n s u s T r a c t s w i t h i n Te m e c u l a
Sour ces: U S Census.Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-172 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-173
Table 695: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Laws Description Compliance
California Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA)
The Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA) applies to public and private
employers, labor organizations and
employment agencies.
It is illegal for employers of 5 or more
employees to discriminate against job
applicants and employees because of a
protected category or retaliate against
them because they have asserted their
rights under the law.
The FEHA prohibits harassment based
on a protected category against an
employee, an applicant, an unpaid
intern or volunteer, or a contractor.
Harassment is prohibited in all
workplaces, even those with fewer than
five employees.
Compliance is achieved through strict
enforcement in hiring practices and
regular training of and by Human
Resources staff.
Government Code Section 65008 Covers actions of a city, county, city and
county, or other local government
agency, and makes those actions null
and void if the action denies an
individual or group of individuals the
enjoyment of residence,
landownership, tenancy, or other land
use in the state because of membership
in a protected class, the method of
financing, and/or the intended
occupancy.
For example, a violation under
Government Code section 65008 may
occur if a jurisdiction applied more
scrutiny to reviewing and approving an
affordable development as compared to
market-rate developments, or
multifamily housing as compared to
single family homes.
Compliance is achieved by uniform
application of City’s codes, regulations,
policies and practices, including
development standards, design
guidelines, application submittal
requirements, fees and approval
findings.
Government Code Section 8899.50 Requires all public agencies to
administer programs and activities
relating to housing and community
development in a manner to
affirmatively further fair housing and
avoid any action that is materially
inconsistent with its obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing.
Compliance is achieved through
consultations with community
stakeholders and support agencies as
part of program evaluating and funding
decisions. The 6th Cycle Housing
Element Housing Plan describes how
each Program addresses fair housing
issues and contributing factors.
Government Code Section 11135 et
seq.
Requires full and equal access to all
programs and activities operated,
administered, or funded with financial
assistance from the state, regardless of
one’s membership or perceived
membership in a protected class.
Compliance is achieved through
promotion/availability of activities and
programs to all persons of all
backgrounds to participate equally in
community programs and activities.
Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section
65915)
Density bonus law is intended to
support the construction of affordable
housing by offering developers the
ability to construct additional housing
units above an agency’s otherwise
applicable density range, in exchange
for offering to build or donate land for
Compliance is achieved by
administration of Temecula Municipal
Code Section 17.10.020(Q), Density
Bonus Law, which provides for
compliance with Government Code
Section 65915 et seq.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-174 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
affordable or senior units. Density
Bonus Law also provides for incentives
intended to help make the development
of affordable and senior housing
economically feasible.
Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code
Section 65589.5)
Provides that a local agency shall not
disapprove a housing development
project, for very low, low-, or moderate-
income households, or an emergency
shelter, or condition approval in a
manner that renders the housing
development project infeasible for
development for the use of very low,
low-, or moderate-income households,
or an emergency shelter, including
through the use of design review
standards, unless it makes certain
written findings, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence in the
record.
Compliance is achieved through the
development review process with is
completed consistent with the Housing
Accountability Act. Additionally, the City
is in the process of preparing objective
design standards to facilitate an
objective and equitable review of
applicable projects.
No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section
65863)
Ensures development opportunities
remain available throughout the
planning period to accommodate a
jurisdiction’s regional housing need
assessment (RHNA) allocation,
especially for lower- and moderate-
income households.
The City’s draft Housing Element
identifies a surplus of sites with a
capacity to accommodate the City’s
RHNA allocation. The City has also
identified additional sites for
accommodating any shortfall that may
occur with respect to anticipated
development density capacity, that may
be added to the site list if necessary.
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code
Section 65913.1)
Provides that, in exercising its authority
to zone for land uses and in revising its
housing element, a city, county, or city
and county shall designate and zone
sufficient vacant land for residential use
with appropriate standards, in relation
to zoning for nonresidential use, and in
relation to growth projections of the
general plan to meet housing needs for
all income categories as identified in the
housing element of the general plan.
Compliance is achieved through
implementation of the City’s General
Plan and the implementation of
Housing Element Housing Plan which
commits the City to maintain an
adequate capacity of sites at densities
and intensities consistent with those
specified by site in Appendix A in order
to accommodate its RHNA for all
income levels throughout the planning
period.
Excessive Subdivision Standards (Gov.
Code Section 65913.2)
Provides that, in exercising its authority
to regulate subdivisions a city, county,
or city and county shall:
(a) Refrain from imposing criteria for
design, as defined in Section 66418, or
improvements, as defined in Section
66419, for the purpose of rendering
infeasible the development of housing
for any and all economic segments of
the community. However, nothing in this
section shall be construed to enlarge or
diminish the authority of a city, county,
or city and county under other
provisions of law to permit a developer
to construct such housing.
(b) Consider the effect of ordinances
adopted and actions taken by it with
respect to the housing needs of the
region in which the local jurisdiction is
situated.
Compliance is achieved through the
implementation of a fair and equitable
development review process which is
administrated consistent with the
Excessive Subdivision Standards Act.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-175
(c) Refrain from imposing standards
and criteria for public improvements
including, but not limited to, streets,
sewers, fire stations, schools, or parks,
which exceed the standards and criteria
being applied by the city, county, or city
and county at that time to its publicly
financed improvements located in
similarly zoned districts within that city,
county, or city and county
Limits on Growth Controls (Gov. Code
Section 65302.8)
Provides that, if a county or city,
including a charter city, adopts or
amends a mandatory general plan
element which operates to limit the
number of housing units which may be
constructed on an annual basis, such
adoption or amendment shall contain
findings which justify reducing the
housing opportunities of the region. The
findings shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the city’s or county’s
appropriate share of the regional need
for housing.
(b) A description of the specific housing
programs and activities being
undertaken by the local jurisdiction to
fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c)
of Section 65302.
(c) A description of how the public
health, safety, and welfare would be
promoted by such adoption or
amendment.
(d) The fiscal and environmental
resources available to the local
jurisdiction
The City’s draft Housing Element and
the elements in the City’s recently
adopted General Plan do not include
any provisions which further limits
(relative to the current Housing Element
and prior General Plan) the
development of housing, except such
provisions as may be required by state
or federal laws.
BC. Analysis of Available Federal, State, and
Local Data and Local Knowledge
This section presents an overview of available federal, state, and local
data to analyze fair housing issues in Temecula as included in the City’s
2017 Assessment; these findings are supplementedin addition to with
present day resources and local knowledge of existing conditions in the
community to present a more realistic picture of fair housing concerns
in Temecula and a more informed perspective from which to base
goals, policies and programs to affirmatively further fair housing.
The City’s demographic and income profile, household and housing
characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs
populations are discussed in previous sections of this Background
Report. Temecula is comprised of 21 Census Tracts, although several
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-176 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
are only partially located in Temecula. Figure 3 shows the tract
boundaries.
Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Segregation is the social division of human beings based on any number
of factors, including race, ethnicity, or nationality. Racial segregation is
one of the most common forms of segregation and is generally illegal
but can still exist through social norms even when there is no strong
individual preference for it. Racial integration, or simply integration,
includes desegregation (the process of ending systematic racial
segregation). In addition to desegregation, integration includes goals
such as leveling barriers to association, creating equal opportunity
regardless of race, and the development of a culture that draws on
diverse traditions rather than merely bringing a racial minority into the
majority culture.
The racial and ethnic composition of a city is useful in analyzing
housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to
demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household
size, locational preferences, and mobility. Dissimilarity indices can be
used to measure the evenness of distribution between two groups in an
area. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
views the various levels of a dissimilarity index as follows:
<40: Low Segregation
40-54: Moderate Segregation
>55: High Segregation
This analysis of racial/ethnic segregation also includes racial/ethnic
minority population trends, maps of minority concentrated areas over
time, and an analysis of the City’s sites inventory as it relates to minority
(non-White) concentrated areas.
The indices for Temecula and Riverside County from 1990 to present
are shown in Table 7066. Dissimilarity between non-White and White
communities in Temecula and in Riverside County has
increased/worsened since 1990. In Temecula, dissimilarity between
Black/White, Hispanic/White, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White
communities has increased. Based on HUD’s definition of the various
levels of the index, segregation between non-White and White
Temecula residents is considered low. Segregation in Temecula is lower
than the County.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-177
Table 7066: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index 1990 2000 2010 Current
Temecula
Non-White/White 1.27 10.17 15.87 18.06
Black/White 3.98 15.06 19.88 22.77
Hispanic/White 0.59 11.63 16.07 19.17
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 3.07 9.97 19.80 24.88
Riverside County
Non-White/White 32.92 38.90 38.95 41.29
Black/White 43.74 45.48 45.48 47.66
Hispanic/White 35.57 42.40 42.40 43.96
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 33.17 37.31 37.31 43.07
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Database, 2020.
According to the HUD provided Map 1-Race and Ethnicity, Temecula
had no areas of concentrations of racial or ethnic groups. All ethnic
groups are spread evenly throughout the City. The City also had no
HUD-defined racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
(R/ECAP areas). Local knowledge confirmed this observation. Map 2
shows no appreciable difference from 1990.
This is also confirmed with Table 3-Racial and Ethnicity Dissimilarity
Trends. According to HUD, if a jurisdiction has an Index value of less
than 40, there is high diversity (low segregation) in the City. The City
has a score between 18.93 and 26.05 for the various racial and ethnic
groups.
Tracking the diversity of cities and counties throughout California is
crucial to understanding the shifting demographics of race and
ethnicity in California and the United States. Esri’s Diversity Index
captures the racial and ethnic diversity of a geographic area in a single
number, from 0 to 100. Scores less than 40 represent lower diversity in
the jurisdiction while scores of greater than 85 represent higher
diversity. Additionally, scores between 40-55 represent low diversity,
55-70 represent moderate diversity, and 70-85 represent high diversity.
As shown in Figure 4, most of Likewise, Map 3-National Origin shows
no segregation pattern based on national origin. The top five
population groups are spread evenly throughout the City, showing the
City’s diversity and high integration.
the City has areas of high and moderate diversity. There are several
areas of low diversity in the City, one located in central Temecula east
of the I-15 freeway and two located in east Temecula. The distribution
of diversity in Temecula is consist with the surrounding jurisdictions,
as illustrated in Figure 5.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-178 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Mapped Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Patterns of integration and segregation are also considered for people
with disabilities, familial status, and income groups. Relying primarily
on data available from the US Census, it is possible to map and consider
existing patterns which may indicate historical influences and future
trends by census tract and census block groups.
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18,
whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and
the marital status of the head of household. Families with children may
face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will
cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases
against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential
treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or
confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns.
According to the ACS 2014-2018, 45.7% of households in Temecula
have one or more people under 18 years old, and 13.9% of
householders living alone. In comparison, 42.2% of households in
Riverside County have one or more people under 18 years old and
17.8% of householders live alone. As determined in the Housing Needs
Assessment, 20.5% of family households in Temecula are headed by a
single male or single female. There is a larger number of female
householders with no husband present (15.5%), and 9% of these
households are female-headed with children under 18. The City’s share
of households that are female-headed with children is greater than the
County’s (6.7%), which would be consistent with the City’s overall
higher number of households with children.
Single-parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Approximately 20.5% of family households in the City are single-parent
households. Female-headed households with children require special
consideration and assistance because of their greater need for
affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other
supportive services. Approximately 9% of family households in
Temecula are single, female-headed households with children. As
shown in Figure 6, the percentage of children in female-headed
households is higher in the western portion of the City than the eastern.
In comparison, countywide the percentage of children in female-
headed households is distributed throughout the County, with a
concentration in the northern portion of the County around the City
of Banning, as illustrated in Figure 7.In comparing the City with the
region from Table 2-Demographic Trends, the percentage of Blacks
and Hispanics is about half that in the region. There are more Whites
and Asians in Temecula than the regional average. Twenty-two percent
of the City’s Hispanics were born in Mexico compared to 27% for the
region based on calculation of figures in Table 1. Eighty-nine percent
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-179
of the Hispanic immigrants are Limited English Proficiency (LEP).
This is roughly the same as for the region.
There was a significant increase in the percentage of foreign born over
the past twenty years, but the percentage of Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) persons remained about the same, even though their
population increased. Although only 3% of the population, 40% of
Filipinos are LEPs, compared to 27% region-wide. According to Map
4-Persons with LEP, their populations are spread evenly across the
City.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately 8.4% of Temecula
residents experience one or more disabilities. As shown in Figure 8,
most census tracts have a disabled population less than 10%. The
census tracts that have a disabled population over 10% (no greater than
12.4% in the City) are located generally in the eastern and northern
portions of the City. Overall countywide, there is a greater
concentration of persons with one or more disabilities in eastern
Riverside County, compared to western Riverside County, as illustrated
in Figure 9. Temecula is consistent with the surrounding communities.
According to Table 1, the largest disabled population are those who are
ambulatory (3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty
(3.54%), independent living difficulty (2.90%) and those with hearing
loss (2.67%). There is probably considerable overlap in these
populations.
According to Table 14 in the Housing Needs Assessment, eight
percent10.3% of the City’s population is seniors compared to
10.413.8% regioncounty-wide. The community’s older residents,
persons 65 years of age or older, are somewhat concentrated in the
eastern-central portion of the City, as shown in Figure 10. The
population of senior residents in Temecula is slightly more
concentrated than the surrounding communities, as illustrated in
Figure 11. However, compared to the larger region, particularly eastern
Riverside and San Diego counties, senior populations are much less
concentrated in the City.Fifty-six percent of the households are families
with children compared to 51% region-wide. While all age groups
increased in population, there was a slight decrease in the percentage
of children and an increase in those of middle age. That could further
be seen in a decrease in the proportion of families with children, even
though it remains higher than the regional percentages.
Identifying areas of different incomes is important to overcome
patterns of segregation that may be present. The Housing Needs
Assessment identified that 22.6% of Temecula households earn 80%
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-180 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
or less than the area median income and are considered lower income.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the median household income in
Temecula is $90,964, which is higher than $63,948 for the County.
Figures 12 and 13 show the median income in the City and the region
by census block groups and how the median income in those groups
compare to the median State income of $87,100. Approximately half
of the census block groups in the City have a median income of less
than $87,100, which is the HCD 2020 State Median Income. These
census block groups are primarily along the transportation corridors of
the I-15 freeway and Highway 79. There is one block group located in
central Temecula with a median income of less than $55,000. All but
two of the remaining block groups have median incomes of $125,000
or less. Two census block groups located in eastern Temecula have
median incomes of greater than $125,000. Median income
concentrations in Temecula are similar to the surrounding
communities, with lower median incomes located along major
transportation corridors and areas on the outer edges of cities that have
higher median income block groups. This pattern can be seen in the
cities of Murrieta and Wildomar.
The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program assists extremely low
and very low-income households in Temecula with paying their
monthly rent. Figure 14 shows HCVs as a percent of renter-occupied
housing units by census tract. The highest percentage areas (5% - 15%)
in the City are located in western Temecula.
The sites used to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA are generally
dispersed, with sites in census block groups with median incomes that
range from $30,000 to $125,000 (see Figure 12). According to Table
2-Demographic Trends, racial and ethnic diversity has increased
dramatically in the City over the past twenty years. Except Native
Americans, the population of all racial and ethnic groups has grown;
however, the Hispanic and Asian populations have increased at a much
faster rate than the other population groups. Hispanics have increased
from 14.5% to 25% of the population and Asians / Pacific Islanders
from 2.40% to 9.71%. Despite an increase in population of over 28,000
in twenty years, the proportion of Whites has decreased from 80.23%
in 1990 to 57% in 2010. Blacks have increased at a less dramatic rate
from 1.3% to 4% from 1990 to 2010, but showed a slight decline
percentagewise from 4.16% in 2000 to 3.88% in 2010, even though
their population increased. While Native Americans constitute only
.6% of the population, they were the only ethnic group to show a
decrease in population between 2000 and 2010. Through the
tremendous growth in populations, Table 3 demonstrates that the
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index range was still between 18.93 and
26.05, well below the HUD threshold of 40, meaning there is minimal
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-181
segregation and high integration within the City. This compares to a
range between 41.29 and 47.66 for the region.
According to Maps 1 through 4 pertaining to racial and ethnic data and
dissimilarity indexes, there are no patterns of segregation by race and
ethnicity, national origin or LEP groups in the City. The majority of
multi-family residential is located in areas with easy access to transit
systems and employment centers throughout the City and not unduly
constrained by perceived patterns of segregation. Based upon data in
Table 2, the trend is that the City is becoming increasingly diverse as it
has grown over the last twenty years. This is in line with trends
throughout the region. Maps 1 and 2 do not reveal trends of
segregation patterns forming within the City as a result of the growth.
Relying on information gathered from community meetings and
surveys, community stakeholders did not provide any information that
segregation exists in the City affecting other protected characteristics
was provided through stakeholder consultations. Workshop
participants also concluded that the City is highly diverse.
The region does have higher scores than the City, indicating a very
diverse and integrated population, but as mentioned in the
introduction, the region represents the largest MSA in the nation.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-182 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Diversity Index (2018)
Higher Diversity
70-85
55-70
40-55
Lower Diversity
F i g u r e 4 : D i v e r s i t y I n d e x b y C e n s u s B l o c k
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "RaceDem ographics_BlockGrp_2018."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-184 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Diversity Index (2018)
Higher Diversity
70-85
55-70
40-55
Lower Diversity
No Data
F i g u r e 5 : D i v e r s i t y I n d e x b y C e n s u s B l o c k - R e g i o n a l
Sour ce: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources,California Department of Housing andCommunity Development, "RaceDem ographics_BlockGrp_2018."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-186 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Children inFemale-Headed Householdin which N o Spouse orPartner Present is Present
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
F i g u r e 6 : F e m a l e -H e a d e d H o u s e h o l d s b y P r o p o r t i o n o f C h i l d r e n P r e s e n t
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "FamilyStatus_Tract_2015_19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-188 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of Children inFemale-Headed Householdin which N o Spouse orPartner Present is Present
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
No Data
F i g u r e 7 : F e m a l e -H e a d e d H o u s e h o l d s b y P r o p o r t i o n o f C h i l d r e n P r e s e n t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "FamilyStatus_Tract_2015_19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-190 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Population with aDisability
< 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
> 40%
F i g u r e 8 : P r o p o r t i o n o f P o p u l a t i o n w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Disability Population_Tract_2015_19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-192 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of Population with aDisability
< 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
> 40%
F i g u r e 9 : P r o p o r t i o n o f P o p u l a t i o n w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Disability Population_Tract_2015_19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-194 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Population A t orOver Age 65
< 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 20%
20 - 25%
25 - 30%
>30%
No Data
F i g u r e 1 0 : P r o p o r t i o n o f S e n i o r R e s i d e n t s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: U .S. Census Bureau's American Com munity Survey (ACS) 2015-2019 5-y earestimates, Table(s) B 01001.Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-196 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of Population A t orOver Age 65
< 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 20%
20 - 25%
25 - 30%
>30%
No Data
F i g u r e 1 1 : P r o p o r t i o n o f S e n i o r R e s i d e n t s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: U .S. Census Bureau's AmericanCommunity Survey (ACS) 2015-20195-y ear estim ates, Table(s) B 01001.Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-198 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Median Income by BlockGroup
< $30,000
$30,000 - $55,000
$55,000 - $87,100*
$87,100 - $125,000
> $125,000
F i g u r e 1 2 : M e d i a n H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e b y B l o c k G r o u p
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "MedianIncome_BlockGrp_2015_19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.* 87,100 is the HCD State M edian Income
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-200 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Median Income by BlockGroup
< $30,000
$30,000 - $55,000
$55,000 - $87,100*
$87,100 - $125,000
> $125,000
No Data
F i g u r e 1 3 : M e d i a n H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e b y B l o c k G r o u p - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "MedianIncome_BlockGrp_2015_19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.* 87,100 is the HCD State M edian Income
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-202 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Housing C hoice Vouchersas a Percent of R enterOccupied Housing Units
60% - 100%
30% - 60%
15% - 30%
5% - 15%
0 - 5%
No Data
F i g u r e 1 4 : H o u s i n g C h o i c e V o u c h e r s
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "HousingChoiceVoucher_Tract."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-204 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-205
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
(R/ECAP)
To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated
areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based
definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic
concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic
concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a
non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty
threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as
census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below
the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower
in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate
criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty
rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract
poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever
threshold is lower.
HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the
City. Further analysis using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Developments R/ECAP GIS mapping tool confirms that all census
tracts within Temecula have a R/ECAP value of 0, indicating that the
census tracts within the City do not meet the defined parameters for a
racially or ethnically concentrated area of poverty as defined by HUD.
Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate that from 2010 to 2018, the City of
Temecula has overall increased in diversity, and has had several census
tracts increase the percentage of non-white population. Several census
tracts located along I-15 freeway increased the non-white population
from 41-60% to 61-80%, and includes multiple potential housing sites.
The most dramatic increase was the southwestern portion of the City,
which increased from 21-40% to 61-80%. However, there are very few
potential housing sites in that area of the City. As seen in Figures 17
and 18, this change from 2010 to 2018 is consistent with the
surrounding jurisdictions, including the cities of Murrieta and
Wildomar.
In western Riverside County, R/ECAPs have been identified in
unincorporated Riverside County north of Lake Elsinore, and the cities
of Hemet, Moreno Valley and Riverside. The County AI found that a
majority of the population in these R/ECAPS are Hispanic residents
(72.3%). Figures 17 and 18 show that central western Riverside County
has significantly increased in racial concentration from 2010 to 2018.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-206 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Racially/Concentrated Areas of Affluence
According to the Housing and Community Development AFFH
Guidance Memo, “segregation is a continuum, with polarity between
race, poverty, and affluence, which can be a direct product of the same
policies and practices”. Therefore, both sides of the continuum must
be examined. While HCD does not have a standard definition for
Racially/Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), looking at the
percentage of the White population and median household income can
provide a good indicator for areas of affluence.
In addition to R/ECAPs utilized by HUD, scholars at the University
of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs created the RCAAs
metric to more fully tell the story of segregation in the United States3.
RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the
population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000
or greater (slightly more than double the national the median
household income in 2016). Table 7167 looks at the median household
incomes of white residents in Temecula as well as the County as a
whole. While there are two census block groups with a median
household income of $125,000 or more in the City (see Figure 12),
there are no block groups in the City that have a population that is 80
percent or more white. As such, there are no RCAAs located in
Temecula.
The City of Temecula incorporated in 1989; as a master-planned
community, the founders of Temecula set forth a vision where single-
family and multifamily uses could coexist in a cohesive diverse
community. Allowing for different development opportunities to serve
the needs of different household sizes and incomes was an important
factor in Temecula’s early planning efforts. In the late 80s, early/late
90’s and late 2000s, and early 90s, Temecula was an affordable housing
option when costs were rising in Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego
counties. The City has not identified any local past policies, practices,
or investments since the City’s incorporation that would contribute to
racially/concentrated areas of poverty or affluence. The City has always
prided itself on providing attainable housing options in a region where
housing costs continue to rise.
Table 7167: Median Household Incomes
Median Household Incomes Temecula Riverside County
White households $91,725 $66,754
All households $90,964 $63,948
% of white population 75% 65.5%
3 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. 2019. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary
Investigation. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Volume 21(1) [pages 99–124]. Available at:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Total Non-WhitePopulation
81 - 100%
61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
F i g u r e 1 5 : R a c i a l D e m o g r a p h i c s 2 0 1 0
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "RaceDem ographics_BlockGrp_2010."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-208 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of Total Non-WhitePopulation
81 - 100%
61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
F i g u r e 1 6 : R a c i a l D e m o g r a p h i c s 2 0 1 8
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "RaceDem ographics_BlockGrp_2018."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-210 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of Total Non-WhitePopulation
81 - 100%
61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
F i g u r e 1 7 : R a c i a l D e m o g r a p h i c s 2 0 1 0 - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "RaceDem ographics_BlockGrp_2010."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-213
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of Total Non-WhitePopulation
81 - 100%
61 - 80%
41 - 60%
21 - 40%
0 - 20%
F i g u r e 1 8 : R a c i a l D e m o g r a p h i c s 2 0 1 8 - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "RaceDem ographics_BlockGrp_2018."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-215
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-216 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
HUD developed the opportunity indicators to help inform
communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are
based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access
to key opportunity assets in the City. Table 7268 provides the index
scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity
indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in
a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the
census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a
neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses
school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on
state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-
performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower
performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the
school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market
engagement index provides a summary description of the
relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital
in a neighborhood. This is based on the level of employment,
labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census
tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and
human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit
trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a
three-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the
median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based
Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more
likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-217
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on
estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the
following description: a three-person single-parent family with
income at 50% of the median income for renters for the
region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation
in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the
accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of
its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with
larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the
index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents
in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index
summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a
neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less
exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher
the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a
neighborhood is a census block group.
Opportunity indicators were obtained for Temecula from the HUD
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing GIS tool. Table 7268 identifies
the opportunity indicators by race and ethnicity for the total population
of Temecula and Riverside County.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-218 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 7268: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
Population Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transport.
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environ-
mental
Health
Index
Temecula
Total Population
White 77.09 68.11 51.86 43.35 34.97 47.19 42.26
Black 73.35 68.27 49.24 43.18 37.57 50.70 42.02
Hispanic 71.54 66.04 49.09 46.06 38.56 54.21 41.00
Asian or Pacific
Islander 76.66 69.97 49.79 42.76 36.53 46.91 42.94
Native
American 76.34 69.63 50.94 43.92 33.70 42.56 44.83
Population below federal poverty line
White 71.44 66.63 49.45 47.49 39.32 53.81 41.48
Black 66.61 65.92 48.93 44.32 44.20 54.80 40.01
Hispanic 68.62 67.03 50.04 49.97 41.96 53.88 40.50
Asian or Pacific
Islander 57.08 64.40 43.25 55.32 46.87 66.14 39.17
Native
American 77.90 76.30 49.22 35.88 30.42 27.59 47.35
Riverside County
Total Population
White 50.83 46.43 33.94 48.57 42.13 45.92 48.02
Black 41.38 35.44 26.46 53.65 45.13 45.67 38.89
Hispanic 36.39 33.26 24.37 55.76 46.31 46.90 37.84
Asian or Pacific
Islander 58.83 51.51 42.31 55.92 42.65 53.56 35.12
Native
American 39.48 35.90 24.58 47.70 43.26 43.36 49.90
Population below federal poverty line
White 37.75 37.30 25.07 48.70 45.70 43.28 51.53
Black 26.43 25.68 16.85 53.16 48.28 41.83 42.21
Hispanic 24.29 26.74 16.85 57.51 49.70 45.50 39.29
Asian or Pacific
Islander 41.94 35.76 29.56 58.72 49.53 57.38 34.87
Native
American 29.25 30.43 19.72 50.03 46.34 44.62 44.78
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Database, 2020.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-219
Regional Opportunity Index
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, N.A.
partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended
to help understand social and economic opportunity in California’s
communities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and
policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster
thriving communities. The ROI integrates a variety of data topics,
including education, economic development, housing, mobility,
health/environment, and civic life, and “maps” areas of potential
investment by identifying specific areas of urgent need and
opportunity. The ROI relies on many of the same data sources analyzed
in the Housing Element, including the American Community Survey
(ACS), the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data, the
California Department of Education, the California Department of
Public Health, among others (data points are from 2014).
There are two ROI “maps”; the “people” ROI illustrates the relative
measure of the people’s assets in education, the economy, housing,
mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life) while the
“place” ROI illustrates the relative measure of a place’s assets in those
same categories. The tool analyzes different specific indicators for each
of the six data topics, as summarized in Table 65 7369on the following
page.
Table 657369: Overview of ROI Data Point Indicators
People-Based Data Points Place-Based Data Points
Education • Elementary School Truancy
• English Proficiency
• Math Proficiency
• College Educated Adults
• High School Discipline rate
• Teacher Experience
• UC/CSU Eligible
• High School Graduation Rate
Economic Development • Minimum Basic Income
• Employment Rate
• Bank Accessibility
• Job Quality
• Job Growth
• Job Availability
Housing • Housing Cost Burden
• Homeownership
• Housing Affordability
• Housing Adequacy
Mobility • Internet Access
• Commute Time
• Vehicle Availability
• N/A
Health/Environment • Years of Life Lost
• Births to Teens
• Infant Health
• Air Quality
• Health Care Availability
• Access to Supermarket
• Prenatal Care
Civic Life • English Speakers
• Voting Rates
• Neighborhood Stability
• US Citizenship
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-220 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
As shown in Figures 193 through 22and 4 on the following pages,
Temecula has a range of opportunity levels throughout the community
with slight differences between the relative measure of people-based
assets versus placed-based assets, with place-based opportunities
scoring slightly better than people-based opportunities. This pattern is
similar to the surrounding cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. In general,
most census tracts are shown to have average (yellow) to high (green)
levels of opportunity, which indicates positive access to opportunities
across the six data topics. However, in terms of people’s assets, there
are three census tracts which indicate lower levels of opportunity
(shown in orange), and in terms of the place’s assets, there is one census
tract (which also includes areas outside of the City boundary) which
indicates a lower level of opportunity (shown in orange). The higher
and lower levels of opportunity for these three census tracts, by
indicator, are summarized in Table 66 740following the maps.
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Regional Opportunity
Highest Opportunity
Lowest Opportunity
F i g u r e 1 9 : P e o p l e -B a s e d O p p o r t u n i t i e s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: U C Davis Center for Regional Change/Placeworks 2021 (Original data sourced from: https ://inter act.regionalchange.ucdav is.edu/r oi/data.html).Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-222 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Regional Opportunity
Highest Opportunity
Lowest Opportunity
No Data
F i g u r e 2 0 : P e o p l e -B a s e d O p p o r t u n i t i e s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: U C Davis Center for Regional Change/Placeworks 2021 (Original data sourced from: https ://inter act.regionalchange.ucdav is.edu/r oi/data.html).Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-224 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Regional Opportunity
Highest Opportunity
Lowest Opportunity
No Data
F i g u r e 2 1 : P l a c e -B a s e d O p p o r t u n i t i e s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: U C Davis Center for Regional Change/Placeworks 2021 (Original data sourced from: https ://inter act.regionalchange.ucdav is.edu/r oi/data.html).Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-226 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Regional Opportunity
Highest Opportunity
Lowest Opportunity
No Data
F i g u r e 2 2 : P l a c e -B a s e d O p p o r t u n i t i e s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: U C Davis Center for Regional Change/Placeworks 2021 (Original data sourced from: https ://inter act.regionalchange.ucdav is.edu/r oi/data.html).Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-228 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-229
Figure 3: Regional Opportunity Index, People, 2014, Temecula
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-230 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Figure 4: Regional Opportunity Index, Place, 2014, Temecula
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-231
Table 66740: People-Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low and Lowest Opportunity Census
Tracts, Temecula
Census Tract Opportunity
Level
Average or Higher
Opportunities
Lower Opportunities
06065043216 Low
Opportunity
• Health/Environment
• Mobility/Transportation
• Civic Life
• Housing
• Economy
• Education
06065043266 Low
Opportunity
• Health/Environment
• Mobility/Transportation
• Civic Life
• Housing
• Economy
• Education
06065043220 Low
Opportunity
• Health/Environment
• Mobility/Transportation
• Civic Life
• Housing
• Economy
• Education
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, 2021 (using 2014 data points)
Table 7567: Place-Based Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) Low Opportunity Census Tract, Temecula
Census Tract
(Place)
Opportunity
Level
Average or Higher
Opportunities
Lower Opportunities
06065043254 Low
Opportunity
• Civic Life
• Housing
• Economy
• Education
• Health/Environment
06065043252 Lowest
Opportunity
• Civic Life
• Housing
• Education
• Health/Environment
• Economy
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change, 2020 (using 2014 data points)
The results of this analysis indicate that for those census tracts with
lower-levels of people-based opportunities, the most significant issues
revolve around civic life (lower levels of English speakers and voting
rates), housing (lower levels of homeownership and higher cost
burdens), the economy (households making the minimum basic
income and low employment rates), and education (math proficiency).
When considering place-based opportunities, which the City arguably
has more control over, the City of Temecula fares very well, and only
one census tract has a low level of place-based opportunity as described
above. For both census tracts with lower levels of opportunity (which
are both located along the City’s boundary) there appears to be limited
access to supermarkets, and, to a lesser extent, health care.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-232 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Map
Additionally, the Department of Housing and Community
Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to
provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other
strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state
agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by
HCD). The Task force developed the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially
distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better
lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall,
opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to
research, offer low incomelow-income children and adults the best
chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and
good physical and mental health.
According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20
percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index
scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent
to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40
percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two
categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts
within each region that the research suggests low incomelow-income
families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have
the option to live—but might, if given the choice. The remaining tracts
are then evenly divided into “Low Resources” and “Moderate
Resource”. Table 761 identifies resource levels by census tract and the
corresponding scores for economic, education, and environmental
indicator scores. As shown in Figure 523, the majority of Temecula is
classified as the “high” or “highest” resource designation, one census
tract (east of I-15 and Old Town) is identified as “moderate”.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-233
Table 761: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract
Census Tract
(060650-)
Resource Level Economic
Score
Education
Score
Environmental
Score
512.00 High 95 64 34
432.54 Highest 70 91 65
432.52 Highest 89 94 93
496.00 High 73 80 47
505.00 Highest 71 87 55
432.16 High 64 55 55
432.66 High 53 43 85
432.20 Moderate 54 42 73
432.22 High 62 64 65
432.50 Highest 80 94 74
432.17 Highest 75 83 82
432.18 Highest 79 83 94
432.67 Highest 78 81 93
432.62 High 74 72 85
432.64 Highest 81 88 91
432.65 Highest 80 93 86
432.46 Highest 84 89 88
432.56 Highest 64 94 82
432.57 Highest 48 89 75
432.44 Highest 95 88 53
432.47 Highest 90 90 33
432.48 Highest 83 93 85
Source: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2021-tcac-opportunity-map.
The three census tracts that had low people-based opportunities (Table
740), also scored lower than the rest of the City on opportunity
resource levels (Table 761). The three census tracts are located in
central Temecula, east of the I-15 freeway. Table 772 shows a more
detailed look at the three lower resource census tracts.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-234 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 772: Lower Resource Census Tract Analysis
Census Tract Census Tract
432.16
Census Tract
432.66
Census Tract
432.20
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
55.2%
4.5%
6.0%
31.2%
28.4%
7.3%
9.8%
44.0%
45.7%
4.7%
8.2%
38.9%
% of Population in Poverty 9.1% 15.0% 18.2%
% of Population that is Disabled 7.6% 7.8% 11.7%
% of Households in Renter-
Occupied Housing Units
66.9% 72.2% 72.7%
Overcrowding 8.2% 4.6% 12.9%
Overpayment
Renters
Owners
53.9%
7.9%
53.9%
0.0%
49.1%
16.8%
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Data and Mapping Resources.
As shown in Figure 24, the City of Temecula has a higher opportunity
index than most of Riverside County. There are other areas of high
opportunity index in the San Jacinto/Palm Desert area and the areas
surrounding Corona, with areas of lower opportunity index located
around the cities of Hemet, Banning, Perris, Moreno Valley and eastern
Riverside County. Many of the areas of low opportunity index in
Riverside County are also areas with a Hispanic majority population.
Education
As shown in Table 761 above, the overall education opportunity scores
in Temecula range from 42 to 94. Generally, eastern and southern
census tracts in the City have more positive education outcomes. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) local profile
of Temecula shows that the K-12 public school enrollment in the City
increased by 66.2% between 2000 and 2018. With approximately
29,121 students enrolled in 2018, Temecula’s student population
comprised 6.8% of the County’s total.
The City of Temecula is served by the Temecula Valley Unified School
District. According to the California Department of Education’s
California School Dashboard, the District has approximately 27,992
students. The ethnic/racial make-up is: 33.7% Hispanic, 42.5% White,
4.3% Asian, 3.4% African American, 4.9% Filipino, 0.3% Pacific
Islander, and 10.2% two or more races. A total of 28.9% of the
District’s students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds, 5.7% are English learners and 14% are students with
disabilities. The District has a graduation rate of 91.9%.
The City has one Title 1 school (Temecula Elementary School) in the
northern end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 40% of
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-235
the children participate in a free or reduced lunch program. The school
is located in one of the City’s CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title
1 Middle Schools or High Schools in the City.
The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children
from school to school subject to availability. Parents would be
responsible for providing transportation to the new school. Public
transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the
location of the school from their place of residence.
Economic
As shown in Table 761 above, the overall economic scores in Temecula
range from 48 to 95. Generally, central Temecula’s economic scores
are slightly lower than eastern and western Temecula. Figure 25 shows
the job proximity index for the City. The areas surrounding the I-15
freeway have a higher job proximity index than eastern Temecula.
The SCAG local profile of Temecula list 56,995 total jobs in Temecula
in 2017, which was an increase of 18% from 2007. The profile also
stated that the mean travel time was 34.9 minutes compared to 33.1
minutes for the County.
Environmental
As shown in Table 761 above, the overall environmental scores in
Temecula range from 33 to 94. The census tracts in closest proximity
to the I-15 freeway have lower scores than other areas of the City.
Transportation
As shown in Table 7268, the transit index score ranges from 35.88 to
55.32 and the low transportation cost index score ranges from 30.42 to
46.87. Scores for Riverside County are slightly higher, with the transit
index score ranging from 47.70 to 58.72 and the low transportation
cost index score ranging from 42.13 to 49.70 for the County. All
Transit, an online resource for transit connectivity, access and
frequency data, explores metrics that reveal the social and economic
impact of transit, specifically looking at the economy, equity, health,
transit quality and mobility network. According to All Transit, the City
of Temecula has a score of 2.0 out of 10, with a score of 10 being high
connectivity, access to jobs and frequency of service. This is consistent
with other jurisdictions in the area, including the cities of Murrieta (2.6)
and Wildomar (1.9). It is slightly lower than the Riverside County score
of 3.3.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-236 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Other Access to Opportunity Indicators
As part of its 2017 Assessment, the City also evaluated any disparities
in access to proficient schools based on race/ethnicity, national origin,
and family status.
The City does not have jurisdiction over the local schools. They are
administered by independent public school districts, such as the
Temecula Valley Unified School District. Table 12 in the 2017
Assessment, - Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity, provides an
index regarding how well fourth graders of the various racial and ethnic
groups are doing on their State exams in comparison with national
indices. Higher scores indicate higher proficiencies in the schools.
According to Table 12, the school proficiency index is essentially the
same for all races and ethnic groups in the City. On a scale of 1 to 100,
with 100 being the highest, Hispanics scored 79.00, Blacks at 80.36,
Native Americans at 80.86, Asians at 81.58 and Whites at 82.20. In
comparison, the region scored between 40.97 for Hispanics on the low
end and 58.09 for Whites on the high end.
The City has one Title 1 school (Temecula Elementary School) in the
northern end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 40% of
the children participate in a free or reduced lunch program. The school
is located in one of the City’s CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title
1 Middle Schools or High Schools in the City.
The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children
from school to school subject to availability. Parents would be
responsible for providing transportation to the new school. Public
transportation is available, although it may be limited based on the
location of the school from their place of residence.
The City also previously evaluated any disparities in access to jobs and
labor markets by protected class groups. The Jobs Proximity Index in
Table 12-Opportunity Indicators provides an index for the physical
distances between place of residence and jobs by race/ethnicity. The
Labor Market Index also in Table 12 provides a measure of
unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent of the
population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by
neighborhood. The higher scores represent greater the access to
employment opportunities, and are better prepared to enter the labor
market with higher incomes.
According to the Map 10 in the 2017 Assessment series for Job
Proximities, persons in the lower-income areas live substantially closer
to employment opportunities than their counterparts in the higher-
income areas, often located farther away from the Interstate. Again,
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-237
there was little difference between racial and ethnic groups or national
origin according to Map 10 and Table 12 for Job Proximity.
The Labor Market Index for the various races and ethnicities range
from 46.38 for Native Americans to 49.79 for Whites. These scores,
which are based on a scale from 1 to 100, would be in the average range
based on HUD’s perspective nationwide. There was no difference in
the Labor Market Index when considering the City as a whole and
those below the poverty line. In fact, all races except Asians who were
below the poverty line had slightly higher scores than those above the
poverty level. They ranged between 44.15 for Asians and 51.31 for
Blacks with Whites at 48.79.
When compared with the region, the City residents scored much
higher. The region ranged from 24.20 for Hispanics to 43.02 for Asians
and unlike the City, there was a substantial difference for those below
the poverty line. They ranged from 16.42 for Hispanics to 30.51 for
Asians. Whites were at 25.55. Although some classes are available
locally, the lack of a community college in Temecula in 2010 is probably
part of the reason for this deficiency.
However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula,
including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands,
Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would
likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other
areas in the region have notably higher ratings such as in the vicinity of
UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the
north and in Orange County to the west.
The Low Poverty Index rates family poverty by household (based on
the federal poverty line) and provides an index regarding the access to
poverty by census tract. The higher the scores, the less likely a
neighborhood is exposed to poverty. There was little difference
between the various ethnic and racial groups. Indices ranged from
65.42 for Hispanics to 71.23 for Whites, which indicates that all racial
and ethnic groups have low exposure to poverty in Temecula. Except
for Asians, there was little difference between those below the poverty
line. They ranged for 54.98 for Blacks to 67.95 for Native Americans.
The only anomaly was for Asians at 46.21 who were more exposed to
poverty than their counterparts. This could be reflective of recent
Filipino immigrants which now constitute over 3% of the City’s
population and 40% are limited English speaking according to Table 1.
Though a small minority group, there are a number living in a low
income area. Again, there was a substantial difference between the City
residents and those within the region. In the region, the range was
between 37.51 for Hispanics to 60.42 for Asians. For those below the
poverty line, there was even a larger difference. They ranged from 23.78
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-238 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
for Hispanics to 42.30 for Asians. City residents have less exposure to
poverty than the region as a whole.
According to Map 14 in the 2017 Assessment, -Demographics and
Poverty, there were three adjoining census tracts in north Temecula
that had low scores indicating a higher exposure to poverty. Three of
the census tracts are CDBG eligible lower-income areas, but one of the
adjoining areas is not, yet affected by its exposure to poverty. Another
adjoining area is an eligible CDBG area but did not indicate a high
exposure to poverty. The area has a number of market-rate and
subsidized apartment complexes in the vicinity of the Temecula
Elementary School, which may be affecting this index score. The
corridor also contains many of the City’s commercial shopping centers.
Summary of Access to Opportunity
The vast majority of Temecula residents enjoy a consistent level of
access to opportunities.
Analysis of the HUD-provided maps and data did not reveal any
overarching patterns of poor access to opportunity and did not reveal
adverse community factors. However, Census Tract 432.16 along the
Margarita Corridor, is identified on Map 14 in the 2017 Assessment as
having high exposure to poverty. The City will continue to
targetsupport low income census tracts with Capital Improvements
(over $300,000) in ADA implements approved in 2020, alone. The City
also utilizes residential rehab programs (through Habitat for
Humanity), as described in Program 22. Through implementation of
Program 28, a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel, the City
will continue to reinforce its CDBG programs to focus on these areas.
Two of the three block groups are in CDBG-eligible areas and the third
is not. Yet the HUD data indicates that the third block group also has
a high exposure to poverty. The only Title 1 School in the district is
located in this neighborhood. The area is characterized by commercial
retail and uses and the presences of a mix of multifamily and single
familysingle-family housing. Two of the multi-family complexes in one
of the block groups are subsidized, the 40-unit Oak Tree Apartments
on Lyndie Lane and the 55 unit55-unit Rancho California Apartments
off of Margarita Road. There are a number of subsidized units west of
I-Interstate 15, which is a CDBG eligible area, but that area does not
have a high exposure factor. This could be partly because the City has
focused its CDBG and local funds in addressing this area.
The City does not show any patterns of segregation, nor does it have
any R/ECAPS.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD-
provided information regarding the lack of disparities in access to
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-239
opportunity in Temecula affecting groups with other protected
characteristics.
The City is involved in a number of efforts aimed at improving air
quality of the entire region including the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) Clean Cities Coalition, which aims to reduce
the consumption of petroleum fuels. The City also participates in
WRCOG’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program.
The TUMF program makes improvements to the regional
transportation system and provides transportation demand
management through funds from new development.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-240 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource (Rapidly
Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation and Poverty
Missing or Insufficient Data
F i g u r e 2 3 : T C A C /H C D O p p o r t u n i t y A r e a M a p
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract_2021."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-242 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource (Rapidly
Changing)
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation and Poverty
Missing or Insufficient Data
F i g u r e 2 4 : T C A C /H C D O p p o r t u n i t y A r e a s - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract_2021."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-244 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-245
CD. Disproportionate Housing Need
HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for
housing for different groups in the community. A disproportionately
greater burden exists when the members of a particular group
experience a housing problem at a greater rate (90 percent or more)
than the group as a whole.
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Temecula
evaluated existing housing need, need of the future housing population,
and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate
(which are limited).The four HUD-designated housing problems
include when a 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2)
housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is
overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. Households are
considered to have a housing problem if they experience at least one of
the above. Table 738 summarizes the demographics of households
with disproportionate housing needs in the City and County. As shown
in Table 738, Temecula has a lower percentage of residents
experiencing housing problems compared to the region. For both the
City and the region as a whole, non-White households are more likely
to experience at least one of the housing problems than White
households.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-246 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Table 783: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate
Housing Needs (Temecula, CA CDBG) Jurisdiction (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario,
CA) Region
Households
experiencing any of 4
housing problems
# with
problems
#
households
% with
problems
# with
problems
#
households
% with
problems
Race/Ethnicity
White 7,555 20,520 36.82% 223,865 602,650 37.15%
Black 725 1,495 48.49% 55,330 100,005 55.33%
Hispanic 3,545 6,910 51.30% 277,845 509,940 54.49%
Asian or Pacific Islander 1,160 3,025 38.35% 35,970 81,445 44.16%
Native American 90 159 56.60% 2,665 5,119 52.06%
Other, Non-Hispanic 349 829 42.10% 12,245 25,460 48.10%
Total 13,435 32,950 40.77% 607,925 1,324,635 45.89%
Household Type and Size
Family households, <5
people 7,570 20,900 36.22% 291,945 736,650 39.63%
Family households, 5+
people 2,525 5,555 45.45% 149,095 251,595 59.26%
Non-family households 3,335 6,495 51.35% 166,885 336,390 49.61%
Households
experiencing any of 4
Severe Housing
Problems
# with
severe
problems
#
households
% with
severe
problems
# with
severe
problems
#
households
% with
severe
problems
Race/Ethnicity
White 3,400 20,520 16.57% 112,650 602,650 18.69%
Black 345 1,495 23.08% 33,280 100,005 33.28%
Hispanic 1,885 6,910 27.28% 175,300 509,940 34.38%
Asian or Pacific Islander 610 3,025 20.17% 19,645 81,445 24.12%
Native American 65 159 40.88% 1,660 5,119 32.43%
Other, Non-Hispanic 175 829 21.11% 6,885 25,460 27.04%
Total 6,480 32,950 19.67% 349,430 1,324,635 26.38%
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Database, 2020.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-247
Future Growth Need
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA production of
1,356 very-low and 801 low incomelow-income units within the 2021-
2029 planning period. As discussed throughout this Background
Report, both existing and proposed affordable units are well dispersed
throughout the community and do not present a geographic barrier to
obtaining affordable housing. Appendix A of this Housing Element
shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income
levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the
anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.
Existing Need
As described earlier in this Background Report, the City has a strong
history of providing housing for lower-income households in
Temecula. Temecula has 759 deed-restricted units, representing
approximately 2% of the City’s housing stock. The City is proud of
meeting the needs of its existing residents but continues to identify and
implement meaningful housing programs to expand opportunities for
lower-income households throughout Temecula, including by
continuing to implement its recently adopted Affordable Housing
Overlay and Specific Plans, many of which allow for develop of
housing projects at densities of at least 30 du/ac.
Based on the data in the Table 11 in the 2017 Assessment, there are a
limited number of Project Based Section 8 units for families in the City.
There are 54 two- and three-bedroom units and only 36 units are
households with children. There are also a limited number of Housing
Choice Voucher Program (HCV) units where there are 30 two- and
three-bedroom units and only thirteen units are households with
children. Additional affordable housing units for families continue to
be a high demand in the City.
Through its 2017 Assessment, the City identified the availability of
affordable units in a range of sizes as a contributing factor of
disproportionate housing needs.
Cost Burden
A household is considered cost burdened if the household pays more
than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs. For renters,
housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For home
owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and
utilities. As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, as with most
communities, the location of the home is one of the biggest factors
with regard to price.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-248 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for
housing for different groups in the community. A disproportionately
greater burden exists when the members of a particular group
experience a housing problem at a greater rate (90 percent or more)
than the group as a whole.As shown in Table 29 of the Housing Needs
Assessment, 37% of total households in the City of Temecula have a
cost burden of paying over than 30% for housing. For renter
households, a total of 49.9% pay over 30% of their income for housing.
As shown in Figure 25, these renters on more concentrated in west
Temecula, where there are overall a greater concentration of renters
versus home owners, compared to east Temecula. This follows the
Countywide pattern where overpayment is concentrated in more urban
centers, as illustrated in Figure 26. For home owner households, there
is a concentration of overpayment in census tracts 432.20, 432.16, and
432.1, located in central Temecula, east of the I-15 freeway, as
illustrated in Figure 27. Countywide, there is an increased
concentration of overpayment for homeowners located just outside of
City centers (see Figure 28).
Overcrowding
Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more
than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more
than 1.5 persons per room. Table 20 in the Housing Needs Assessment
summarizes overcrowding data for Temecula and shows that 2% of
owner households are considered overcrowded and 4.7% of renter
households. Generally, overcrowding is not an issue in the City.
However, as shown in Figure 29, census tract 432.20 has a higher
percentage of overcrowding compared to the rest of the City (12.85%).
As shown in Figure 30, Temecula and the surrounding jurisdictions
have a much lower concentration of overcrowding than other
jurisdictions in western Riverside County.
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Jobs Proximity Index
> 80 (Closest Proximity)
60 - 80
40 - 60
20 - 40
0 - 20 (Furthest Proximity)
F i g u r e 2 5 : J o b s P r o x i m i t y I n d e x b y B l o c k G r o u p
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "JobsProxim ity Index_B lockG rp_2014_17."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-250 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of RenterHouseholds for whom GrossRent (Contract Rent PlusTenant-Paid Utilities) is 30%or More of H ouseholdIncome
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
F i g u r e 2 6 : C o s t -B u r d e n e d R e n t e r H o u s e h o l d s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Overpay ment_Tract_2015-19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-252 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of RenterHouseholds for whom GrossRent (Contract Rent PlusTenant-Paid Utilities) is 30%or More of H ouseholdIncome
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
F i g u r e 2 7 : C o s t -B u r d e n e d R e n t e r s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Overpay ment_Tract_2015-19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-254 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percent of OwnerHouseholds with Mortgageswhose Monthly Owner Costsare 30% or More ofHousehold Income
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
No Data
F i g u r e 2 8 : C o s t -B u r d e n e d O w n e r H o u s e h o l d s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Overpay ment_Tract_2015-19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-256 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
L O S A N G E L E S
C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percent of RenterHouseholds for whom GrossRent (Contract Rent PlusTenant-Paid Utilities) is 30%or More of H ouseholdIncome
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
No Data
F i g u r e 2 9 : C o s t -B u r d e n e d O w n e r s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Overpay ment_Tract_2015-19."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-258 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Percentage of Households thatare Overcrowded
< 8.2% (Statewide Average)
8.2 - 12%
12 - 15%
15 - 20%
> 20%
F i g u r e 3 0 : O v e r c r o w d e d H o u s e h o l d s b y C e n s u s T r a c t
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "OvercrowdedHouseholds_Tract," and "OvercrowdedHous eholds_Sev ere_Tract."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-260 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-261
Substandard Housing
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the City’s housing
stock is relatively new with only 7.2% of dwelling units in Temecula
having been constructed prior to 1980. As such, while structural
deterioration and maintenance problems may exist, only a small portion
is likely to require rehabilitation. The City will continue to implement
its Residential Improvement Program using CDBG funds to help
lower-income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing. In
comparison, the housing stock in Riverside County is older than the
City’s. The County AI found that as of 2017, 32.3% of housing was at
least 38 years old, with the majority of the housing being developed
from 1960 to 2009.
According to Table 9, half of the City’s households are experiencing
one of the four housing problems identified above. There is a disparity
in this category with 47.37% of the White households experiencing a
housing problem, Asians at 54.31% and Blacks at 55.04%. Hispanics
are higher at 62.24% and Native Americans at 80.90%. For severe
housing problems, they range from 20.76% for White households to
35.56% for Hispanic households. Native Americans were at 33.71%.
Map 5 - Publicly Supported Housing and Map 6 - Housing Choice
Vouchers (HCV) provides the location of the limited number of
publicly supported and HVC housing units in the City. Given the
housing costs in the City and the region, there is a high demand for
affordable rental housing.
While comparable with the region, all households, except Black
households, were slightly more burdened in the City than in the region.
For those below the poverty level, all groups, except for Native
Americans, were less burdened in the City than in the region. Based on
our examination of the data in Table 9 and demonstrated in Map 7-
Housing Cost Burden and Race/Ethnicity, there were no
disproportionate housing problems based on race, ethnicity, national
origin, household type and size.
These results are not unexpected with the high costs of housing in
Southern California as a whole.
Based on the data in the Table 11, there are a limited number of Project
Based Section 8 units for families in the City. There are 54 two- and
three-bedroom units and only 36 units are households with children.
There are also a limited number of Housing Choice Voucher Program
(HCV) units where there are 30 two- and three-bedroom units and only
thirteen units are households with children. Additional affordable
housing units for families continue to be a high demand in the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-262 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Through its 2017 Assessment, the City identified the availability of
affordable units in a range of sizes as a contributing factor of
disproportionate housing needs.
DE. Displacement Risk
As previously discussed, there are two deed-restricted affordable
projects representing 180 units which can be considered as high risk as
converting to market-rate units within the planning period. The City is
actively engaged with the property owners of these projects (Rancho
Creek Apartments and Rancho West Apartments) to evaluate
preservation options. The City also has a number of units which are
affordable to lower-income families but are not deed-restricted. As
described in Section V of this Background Report, the City plans to
accommodate the vast majority of its 2021-2029 RHNA on vacant
parcels already zoned for residential development, with a focus on new
development in the City’s Specific Plan areas (Harveston, Altair,
Uptown, and Old Town), which have good access to transit, amenities,
and programmed infrastructure improvements. Given that new
development is expected to occur on vacant parcels, there is not a
significant displacement risk associated with the City’s current
affordable housing stock. The City has included Program 17 in the
Housing Plan to assist in the preservation of at-risk housing units.
There are four census tracts in the City that according to the HCD
AFFH Data and Mapping Resources Map, are considered “Sensitive
Communities” where residents may be particularly vulnerable to
displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in
housing costs. Communities were designated sensitive if they currently
have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased
redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is
defined as share of very low-income residents is above 20% in 2017
and the tract meets one other criteria related to renters, diversity, and
housing burden. As shown in Figure 31, this includes census tracts
512.00, 496.00, 432.16, and 432.20, located in north-central Temecula
along the I-15 freeway corridor. There are potential housing sites
located in all four census tracts, that would potentially displace existing
residents due to redevelopment.
The City recognizes that even though it has identified sufficient vacant
land to accommodate its RHNA at all income levels, there is still the
potential for economic displacement because of new development and
investment. This “knock-on” effect can occur at any time, and it can
be challenging for the City to predict market changes and development
patterns which have the potential to impact rental rates and sales prices
for housing units available in the marketplace. To date, the City has no
evidence that new development (affordable or market-rate) has resulted
in economic displacement. However, the City appreciates the
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-263
possibility that economic displacement might occur in the future and
has developed Program 24 27 to study and address potential issues
related to displacement.
The City has also considered the risk of displacement specifically for
protected classes, including persons with disabilities, female-headed
households, seniors, and nonwhite residents (as discussed previously
throughout Section 3 of this Background Report). The highest levels
of persons with disabilities, seniors, and female-headed households are
not located in areas where no residential development is planned, and
the risk of displacement to these groups (like to the City’s lower-income
residents) is low. However, some future housing sites are located in
areas with high levels of Hispanic and non-Wwhite residents, and these
groups appear to be more vulnerable to potential future displacement.
As discussed above, Program 24 27 has been included in the City’s
Housing Plan to study and address issues related to future
displacement, and the City remains committed to maintaining its
existing affordable housing stock, which includes deed-restricted
affordable units throughout the City, including in the census tracts with
high levels of Hispanic and nonwhite residents.
To the extent that future development occurs in areas where there is
existing housing, all housing must be replaced according to SB 330's
replacement housing provisions (Government Code Section 66300).
SB 330 also provides relocation payments to existing low incomelow-
income tenants. The State has also adopted just cause eviction
provisions and statewide rent control to protect tenants from
displacement.
The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage
underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying
displacement. Programs 22 25, 27, and 28and 24, among others, detail
efforts the City will take to engage these communities during the
planning period.
Research has shown that low-income renter populations are
disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and that housing
tenure is a telling determinant of social vulnerability to disasters.
Renters bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage, and
their adaptive capacity to cope and recover from the impacts of
environmental hazards may be reduced due to systemic inequities and
limited resources. As discussed in the Housing Constraints section
under Environmental Constraints, Temecula is impacted by various
environmental hazards that include active fault traces, liquefaction and
subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. To protect the health, safety,
and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted regulations
that limit development within areas of high risk and/or require design
standards that can withstand natural hazards. The City has applied a
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-264 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
Flood Plain Overlay District to portions of the City that are threatened
by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes design requirements
that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of
structures within the district. Liquefaction and other seismic-related
issues are addressed by the State Universal Building Code (UBC). Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas
encroach at the City’s western and southern boundaries, encompassing
or partially encompassing several large vacant developable parcels,
including the Altair Specific Plan. As included in the Altair Specific
Plan, the project’s Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between
wildland areas and new development.
L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y
O R A N G E C O U N T Y
R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y
S A N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O C O U N T YUV76
UV66
UV371
UV22
UV259
UV71
UV57
UV55
UV330
UV39
UV73
UV76
UV38
UV90
UV83
UV133
UV74
UV142
UV72
UV164
UV1
UV91
UV79
UV111
UV74
UV18
UV60
UV1
UV79
UV62
UV66
UV60
UV247
UV261
UV78
UV210
UV74
UV243
UV241
§¨¦210
§¨¦10
§¨¦5
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
§¨¦605
§¨¦215
§¨¦405
O
0 52½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Riverside C ounty
Surrounding County
Percentage of Households thatare Overcrowded
< 8.2% (Statewide Average)
8.2 - 12%
12 - 15%
15 - 20%
> 20%
Percentage of Householdsthat are SeverelyOvercrowded
>0 - 20%
>20%
F i g u r e 3 1 : O v e r c r o w d e d H o u s e h o l d s b y C e n s u s T r a c t - R e g i o n a l
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor niaDepartment of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "Ov ercr owdedHouseholds_Tract," and "OvercrowdedHouseholds_Severe_Tract."Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
PACIFI
C
O
C
E
A
N
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-266 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-267
E. Assessment of Contributing Factors to
Fair Housing Issues in Temecula
In its 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing, the City identified the
following contributing factors to fair housing issues in Temecula:
Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive
services to serve special needs populations (Disproportionate
Housing Needs)
High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing
costs in the community and the region (Publicly Supported
Housing Location and Occupancy)
Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
(Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and
Resources)
The analysis above regarding other fair housing issues within Temecula
yielded the following results:
The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups that score
higher than 60 on the dissimilarity index, indicating that while
there are racial and ethnic groups with higher levels of
segregation than others within Temecula, none meet the
standard set to identify segregated groups.
The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated
census tracts (RECAPs) as identified by HUD. This indicates
that there are no census tracts within Temecula with a non-
white population of 50% percent or more or any census tracts
that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more
times the average tract poverty rate for the
metropolitan/micropolitan area.
The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the
majority of residents within Temecula have average- to high-
levels of access to opportunity throughout the majority of the
City, with three census tracts showing lower people-based
access to opportunity and two census tracts showing lower
place-based access to opportunity. Based on the data used to
identify opportunity access, the City has varying degrees of
ability to influence the trajectory of the indicator (for example,
low rates of US citizenship result in a lower opportunity
assessment for place-based civic life). The City accommodates
a significant portion of its RHNA in areas planned for a mix of
uses located in proximity to each other, where new residential
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-268 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
development can be supported by easy access to goods and
services (like supermarkets and financial institutions), and the
introduction of new residential development into areas where
these challenges exist can expand opportunities for existing
residents.
Analysis of the TCAC/HCD opportunity Area Maps show that
most census tracts in Temecula are classified with either the
“High Resource”, or “Highest Resource” designation, and the
remaining one tract is classified as “Moderate Resource”. This
indicates that the most census tracts designated as “High
Resource” or “Highest Resource” are within the top forty
percent in the region in terms of areas that lower-income
residents may thrive if given the opportunity to live there.
The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated
future affordable housing needs of the community through the
designation of sites to meet the very-low and low income
RHNA need of all income levels (Section 5 of the Background
Report) and Programs 1 and 2 address the City’s ability to meet
the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation and outline the mechanism to
ensure continued compliance for the duration of the planning
period. Existing deed-restricted affordable units are located
throughout the community and new accessory dwelling unit
production throughout the City will result in new development
affordable to a variety of income levels. The City plans to
accommodate its very low and low income RHNA need in key
planned growth areas located near transit facilities and adjacent
to major infrastructure projects, to ensure adequate access to
goods, facilities and jobs, while jobs and housing to be located
closer together, thereby reducing vehicle miles travels, improve
air quality, and create a more equitable jobs-housing balance.
The relationship between existing affordable units and
comprehensively planned growth on vacant parcels in and
outside of Specific Plan areas allows the City to minimize
displacement and improve access to opportunities for existing
and future residents.
There are 180 256 existing affordable units at-risk of converting
to market-rate within the planning period. Program 17 20
addresses monitoring and working with partners, as feasible, to
preserve at-risk units within the City over the planning period.
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
UV79
§¨¦15
§¨¦215 UV79
UV79
TEMECULA
M U R R I E T A
W I L D O M A R
LAKE SKIN NER
VAIL LAKE
O
0 1½
Miles
Legend
City of Temecula
Other Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Potential Housing Sites
Site Suitable for All Income
Levels
Site Suitable for
Moderate/Above Moderate
Income Levels
Sensitive Communities
Vulnerable
Other
F i g u r e 3 2 : D i s p l a c e m e n t R i s k
Sour ces: A FFH Data and Mapping Resources, Califor nia Department of Housing and Comm unity Developm ent, "SensitiveComm unities_U CB _U rbanDisplacem entProject,"PlaceWorks 2021, U C B erkeley U rban Displacem ent Project.Map date: Decem ber 14, 2021.
Riverside C ounty
San Diego County
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-270 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-271
F. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the
community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively
further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not
only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided
in Section 5), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of
replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced
living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas
of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of
all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further
fair housing. However, special attention is paid to those sites identified
to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA to ensure
that the City is thinking carefully about how the development of new
affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and
inclusiveness.
Segregation/Integration
Both existing affordable units and proposed very-low and low income
RHNA candidate sites, including very low and low-income sites, are
well dispersed throughout the city City and do not disproportionately
impact areas with larger concentrations of the Hispanic population,
although as described previously, the City has no historic patterns of
segregation or isolation and there are no trends to indicate that a
pattern may emerge in the future (see Figures 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16).
The City of Temecula is proud to have adopted an Affordable Housing
Overlay to promote the development of affordable housing options
throughout the community. In addition, the City is proactively taking
steps to plan for, promote, and streamline development of accessory
dwelling units as part of the solution to the City’s housing needs.
Together, the City’s plan to accommodate its lower income RHNA at
AHO sites and through ADUs will further strengthen the City’s
reputation as being a well-integrated community without patterns of
isolation or segregation.
R/ECAPs
The City does not have any racially or ethnically concentrated areas of
poverty and the identification of sites to accommodate the City’s
RHNA is not expected to alter this finding.
Access to Opportunity
No sites identified to accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA
and only two sites identified to accommodate the City’s moderate and
above moderate income RHNA are located in areas with low levels of
place-based opportunity (representing approximately 230 units) and
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-272 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
only a limited number of sites (representing 500 units), all within the
City’s Affordable Housing Overlay, are located in areas with lower
levels of people-based opportunity (see Figures 19 and 21). The
concerns in these limited areas include high housing cost burdens, low
levels of homeownership, and low voting rates. The introduction of
new affordable housing options in this area, facilitated through the
City’s new Affordable Housing Overlay, will help to create more
housing affordable to households at lower-income levels, introduce
new residents to an area which can contribute to higher levels of civic
engagement, and expand opportunities for people to live and work in
the same area. Additionally, the Specific Plan areas identified to
accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA (specifically
Harveston, Altair, Uptown, and Old Town) are located in areas with
relatively high opportunity and resources. By locating new affordable
housing in these areas, the City continues to promote an integration of
economic backgrounds and household incomes and ensure that all
Temecula residents have access to high levels of opportunity, regardless
of income or other characteristics.
Displacement Risk
The City plans to accommodate its RHNA for all income levels at
vacant sites throughout the City. Past residential development projects
have not caused displacement to existing Temecula residents, and there
is no expectation that the City’s program to accommodate its RHNA
at vacant sites throughout the City would create displacement risk for
current or future lower income residents. However, there are four
census tracts that have been designated as “Sensitive Communities”
that are at risk for displacement (see Figure 32)., Most of the new
development anticipated in “Sensitive Communities” will be part of
Specific Plans, particularly Altair and Harveston. As master planned
projects, these developersments are required to plan for comprehensive
development in accordance with the City’s vision for the area. The City
envisions that housing affordable to lower-income households will be
part of both developments and does not find that development in
“sensitive communities” has a high probability of resulting in
displacement. so in an abundance of caution, tThe City ahs has
included Program 24 27 to study the risk if displacement to residents
as a result of new residential development at vacant sites in and outside
of Specific Plan areas.
Site Analysis Findings
The City of Temecula has a history of developing affordable housing
projects throughout the community, at vacant and infill sites. To
accommodate the City’s RHNA, the City has undertaken a robust
inventory of available vacant residential sites inside and outside of Specific
Plan areas, many of which are identified as part of the City’s Affordable
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-273
Housing Overlay. While tThe City’s very-low and low RHNA needs at all
income levels are largely accommodated in its Specific Plan areas (5,753
units, of which 1,851 units are accommodated at densities and intensities
consistent with providing housing affordable for lower income
households). These Specific Plan areas, which do not represent extremely
concentrated racial or ethnic populations; nonetheless, the City has
included programs to encourage additional development of lower-
income units throughout the community through its accessory dwelling
unit program and through its Affordable Housing Overlay. For these
reasons, the City finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA
need do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic
homogeneity, poverty, or other characteristics. Moreover, the sites
contribute to affirmatively further fair housing by helping to stimulate
investing in areas where additional people- and place-based opportunity
is desired, and where new residential and/or mixed-use development can
help to improve some of the opportunity level characteristics discussed
earlier in this section.
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-274 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
G. Analysis of Contributing Factors and Fair
Housing Priorities and Goals
The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule
Guidebook identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair
housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach
capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity,
disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities,
disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites
inventory. Based on the analysis included in this Background Report,
the City has identified the following potential contributing factors to
fair housing issues in Temecula and, as described later in this section,
has developed a series of specific programs to address these
contributing factors.
The following are contributing factors that have been identified on the
fair housing issues presented in the 2017 Assessment and the analysis
in this document that affect fair housing choice in Temecula.,
sSpecifically Table 794 lists the fair housing issues and contributing
factors that exist in the City of Temecula and outlines the meaningful
actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in the table relate to
the actions identified in the Housing Plan.
Table 794: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
Fair Housing Issue Contributing
Factors
Priority Meaningful Action
Disparities in Access to
Opportunity
High demand for
affordable housing,
due to the high
housing costs in the
community and the
region
Land use and zoning
laws
Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies
and organizations
Private discrimination
Availability of
affordable units in a
range of sizes
Location and type of
affordable housing
Highest Program 1
Program 2
Program 4
Program 5
Program 7
Program 8
Program 9
Program 10
Program 14
Program 15
Program 17
Program 18
Program 25
Program 28
Disproportionate Housing
Needs, Including
Displacement Risks
High demand for
affordable housing,
due to the high
housing costs in the
community and the
region
High Program 1
Program 2
Program 4
Program 5
Program 7
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-275
Availability of
affordable units in a
range of sizes
Location and type of
affordable housing
Land use and zoning
laws
Increased demand of
affordable housing
with supportive
services to serve
special needs
populations
Program 8
Program 9
Program 10
Program 11
Program 14
Program 17
Program 18
Program 23
Program 25
Disparities in Access to
Opportunity for Persons with
Disabilities
Increased demand of
affordable housing
with supportive
services to serve
special needs
populations
Inaccessible
sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, or other
infrastructure
Inaccessible
government facilities
or services
High Program 10
Program 25
Outreach Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies
and organizations
Medium Program 25
Fair Housing Enforcement
and Outreach Capacity
Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies
and organizations
Medium Program 22
The City has identified the following top three contributing factors and
prioritized them in order of importance.
1. Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive
services to serve special needs populations. The City of
Temecula is home to residents with special needs who need
additional opportunities for safe and affordable housing. This
includes persons with developmental disabilities. Program 910,
Special Needs Housing Construction, has been included in the
City’s Housing Plan to address this contributing factor. Program
28, a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance Panel, has also been
createdadded to bring together developers of special needs
housing, providers of supportive services, and other housing
advocates to ensure that this issue can be adequate addressed
during the planning period.
2. High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing
costs in the community and the region. Temecula is located in
an area easily accessible to San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino,
Orange, and Los Angeles counties. Due to its proximity to a variety
of jobs centers, Temecula is a desirable and relatively affordable
place to reside, and this pressure has increased demand for
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-276 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
affordable housing options within the City. The City has included
numerous programs in its Housing Plan to increase the supply of
affordable housing, including Programs 1 and 2 to ensure that the
City provides sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA at all
income levels for the duration of the planning period, Program 4
which addresses the replacement of affordable units, and Program
5 which promotes ADUs as an option to expand the City’s
affordable housing stock. Throughout the Housing Plan, the City
is also committed to engaging the development community
biennially to discuss a host of factors, including nongovernmental
constraints such as high land and construction costs (see new
Program 19, Mitigation of Nongovernmental Constraints).
Through this effort, the City will seek input on how it can help to
reduce nongovernmental constraints to the extent feasible, such as
accelerated permit processes, land assemblage, making cCity-
owned sites available for development of affordable housing, and
other programs within the City’s control. Moreover, given the high
costs of housing, it is critical to maintain the City’s supply of
affordable housing. The City has included Program 20 to preserve
existing at-risk units, so that the City’s existing affordable housing
stock can be maintained in light of the high cost of construction of
new/replacement units.
3. Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations.
Like agencies throughout the region, Temecula has limited
resources available to implement a variety of fair housing plans and
programs. Other agencies with which the City regularly partners,
including the Riverside County Consortium and Fair Housing
Program of Riverside County, also face limited resources. The City
has included Program 22, Equal Housing Opportunity, to do its
part in promoting fair housing agencies and organizations and
working with partner agencies to affirmatively further fair housing
in Temecula. The City has created Program 28 to create a new Fair
Housing Task Force to bring together the City Council Finance
Subcommittee, fair housing service providers, community groups,
nonprofits, and/or other advisory groups to ensure that
community interests are well-represented. The City will work
diligently to specifically engage panelists focused on the issues of
lower-income communities and communities with special needs,
including persons with disabilities and persons experiencing or at
risk of homelessness. The assistance panel will meet in conjunction
with the City’s CDBG annual program review (this is composed of
nonprofits, stakeholders, and agencies) which are conducted near
the end of each calendar year (near the APR timeframe).
To affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula, the City is
committed to implementing its Affordable Housing Overlay,
promoting affordable accessory dwelling units, and providing sites
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HBR-277
suitable for affordable housing in areas near transit, which are not
unduly racially or ethnically concentrated, and where new residential
development affordable to very-low and low income households can
help to expand people- and place-based opportunities. The City of
Temecula has a long history of supporting affordable housing
development and as described previously in this Background Report.
Moving forward, the City remains committed to providing a diversity
of housing options for all income levels, and is committed to
encouraging their development throughout the community to help
overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free
from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics. The vast majority of the City’s Housing Programs
designed to address fair housing are required to be implemented on an
ongoing basis, with annual progress reports and programs evaluations
to ensure they are achieving the City’s objectives. The following list
summarizes those programs identified in this Housing Element which
affirmatively further fair housing and implement the City’s 2017 Fair
Housing Assessment:
• Program 5, to promote ADUs including ADUs affordable to
lower-income households
• Program 67, to ensure that the City’s density bonus ordinance
continues to be in compliance with state law
• Program 78, to promote land assemblage and affordable
housing development
• Program 89, to address the special needs of the City’s extremely
low income households
• Program 1314, to expedite processing of affordable housing
projects
• Program 1617, to accommodate specialized housing types and
update the City's policies and procedures regarding low barrier
navigation centers, supportive housing, employee housing, and
farmworker housing
• Program 1720, to monitor and preserve at-risk housing
• Program 2225, to promote equal housing opportunities
• Program 2326, to continue offering housing referral services
• Program 2427, to study and address economic displacement
risks
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
HBR-278 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND REPORT
• Program 28, to create a new Fair Housing Technical Assistance
Panel
To the extent that these programs represent ongoing work efforts,
these programs are evaluated for effectiveness within Section 2 of this
Background Report. The City has already undertaken a series of
proactive amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to address new
requirements related to density bonus law and accessory dwelling units,
and the City will continue to partner with local and regional
stakeholders to affirmatively further fair housing in Temecula.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX A:
SITE INVENTORY
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Please Start Here, Instructions in Cell A2,
Table in A3:B15 Form Fields
Site Inventory Forms must be submitted to
HCD for a housing element or amendment
adopted on or after January 1, 2021. The
following form is to be used for satisfying
this requirement. To submit the form,
complete the Excel spreadsheet and submit
to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov.
Please send the Excel workbook, not a
scanned or PDF copy of the tables.
General Information
Jurisidiction Name TEMECULA
Housing Element Cycle 6th
Contact Information
First Name Brandon
Last Name Rabidou
Title ior Management Ana
Email don.rabidou@TemeculaCA
Phone (951) 506-5142
Mailing Address
Street Address 41000 Main Street
City TEMECULA
Zip Code 92590
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2Jurisdiction NameSite Address/Intersection5 Digit ZIP CodeAssessor Parcel NumberConsolidated SitesGeneral Plan Designation (Current)Zoning Designation Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre)Max Density Allowed (units/acre)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Use/VacancyInfrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s)Lower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal CapacityOptional Information1Optional Information2Optional Information3TEMECULA{AVENIDA ARIZONA}{CALLE CONTENTO} 964640006 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 12.88626045374 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element30 30No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640008 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 14.39582203696 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element25 25No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{PENSTEMON WAY}{WILDRYE WAY} 964640018 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 11.68191631072 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element100 100No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{HILLSTONE ST}{WILDRYE WAY} 964640010 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 11.81111491325 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element100 100No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{AVENIDA ARIZONA}{CALLE CONTENTO} 964640007 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 17.38005571772 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element74 74No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FOXTAIL DR}{HILLSTONE ST} 964640019 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 12.55011155163 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element107 107No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FOXTAIL DR}{HILLSTONE ST} 964640012 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 20.02586044729 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element34 34No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD}{CALLE CHAPOS} 964640009 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 19.16974914001 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element163 163No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{COUNTY CENTER DR}{YNEZ RD} 910271008 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.68521454709 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant25 25No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{MADISON AVE} 910272014 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.74355499919 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CHERRY ST}{DIAZ RD} 909370050 PI PDO‐10 20.00000000000 30.00000000000 10.83986155317 VacantYES ‐ Planned YES ‐ City‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element243 243Yes_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COUNTY CENTER DR}{YNEZ RD} 910271007 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 2.74719326205 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant41 41No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CHERRY ST}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910272018 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.43252560056 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element15 11 11 37Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{MADISON AVE}{MCCABE CT} 910272023 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.12804522550 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element129930No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910272029 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.02257251888 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element118827Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 SBOFF} 910271005 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.97981840115 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant30 30No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910272017 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.20337052236 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element129930Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{MADISON AVE} 910272022 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.03611809741 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element98825No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CHERRY ST}{DIAZ RD} 909370049 PI PDO‐10 20.00000000000 30.00000000000 19.14157090441 VacantYES ‐ Planned YES ‐ City‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element429 429Yes_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{MADISON AVE}{MCCABE CT} 910262003 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.36929581408 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element13 10 10 33Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CHERRY ST}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910262009 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.64112919540 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element16 12 12 40Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{MADISON AVE}{MCCABE CT} 910272001 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.67908316319 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element16 12 12 40Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910272025 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.53584219699 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element16 12 12 40Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CHERRY ST}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910262010 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.53091893299 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca16 12 12 40Yes_AHO Yes_SP XTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 NBON} 910271006 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 2.47545009056 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant37 37No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{MADISON AVE} 910272002 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.73682844051 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUECKING DR}{JEFFERSON AVE} 910272019 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.34335204554 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element13 10 10 33No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{AUTO MALL PKWY}{RANCON CENTER BLVD} 916400042 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 10.20729207087 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element44 32 32 108No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{DATE ST}{YNEZ RD} 916400039 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 5.96524900225 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element25 19 19 63No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400063 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.19515541274 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element54413No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400064 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.31557528200 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400066 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 6.77494109387 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element28 21 21 70No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{TEMECULA CENTER DR}{WAVERLY LN}{YNEZ RD} 916400034 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.03073961384 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{DATE ST}{YNEZ RD} 916400036 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.01958611575 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{TEMECULA CENTER DR}{WAVERLY LN}{YNEZ RD} 916400060 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 10.26397292025 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element44 33 33 110No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CHARLESBURG DR}{LOCK HAVEN CT} 916400035 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 3.64828296981 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element16 12 12 40No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 SBOFF} 916400053 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 7.86975680691 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element118 118No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{DATE ST}{YNEZ RD} 916400062 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.17444664130 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400067 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 3.44262737238 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element15 11 11 37No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CORRIGAN PL}{DALTON RD} 916400044 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.68303895229 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element3227No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400065 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.51268718788 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element3115No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{SH‐79/WINCHESTER RD}{WINCHESTER RD} 920110004 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.99696981341 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element21 21Yes_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BUSINESS PARK DR}{DIAZ RD} 921020089 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 3.65103419998 VacantYES ‐ Planned YES ‐ City‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element55 55No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{MARGARITA RD}{SOLANA WAY} 921330052 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.10899953275 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca24 24Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{MARGARITA RD}{VIA LA VIDA} 921330053 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.19546397309 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca26 26Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{DLR DR}{YNEZ RD} 921300013 CC CC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 20.08883602211 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant301 301No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 NBON} 921060058 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 3.50653633072 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element36 27 27 90Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{DIAZ RD}{RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD} 921280002 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.21668082240 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca27 27Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{VALLEJO AVE}{YNEZ RD} 922140010 VL VL 0.2 0.4 7.73706892709 VacantYES ‐ Planned YES ‐ City‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant22No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{YNEZ RD}{YORBA AVE} 922180015 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.26813651671 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{FIRST ST}{OLD TOWN FRONT ST}{SANTIAGO RD} 922100048 SPI SP‐5 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.97659937342 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element117725No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{I‐15 SBOFF}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922120017 HT HT 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.86857532708 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant13 13No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{OLD TOWN FRONT ST}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922120018 HT HT 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.31170166821 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant20 20No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 NBON} 922120019 HT HT 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.17894707632 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant18 18No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 SBOFF} 922100036 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.85543382207 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant13 13No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{FLORES DR}{YNEZ RD} 922160024 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.26621075354 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{TEMECULA PKWY}{WABASH LN} 922190033 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.53345181579 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{TEMECULA PKWY}{WABASH LN} 922190034 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.55079399454 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{JEDEDIAH SMITH RD}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922200009 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.58515811152 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{PECHANGA PKWY}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922190019 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.53981800356 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{PECHANGA PKWY}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922190022 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.84385090147 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{OLD TOWN FRONT ST}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922210011 M SP‐15 7.00000000000 30.00000000000 10.23337393260 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element51 38 38 127No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CALLE BELVIA}{RAINBOW CANYON RD} 922230026 M M 7.00000000000 12.90000000000 30.11030766873 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant271 271No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{MAIN ST}{PUJOL ST} 922053047 SPI SP‐5 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.74208942647 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element17 13 13 43No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{PECHANGA PKWY}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922190031 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.64596974045 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 SBOFF} 922110048 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.80950312572 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant12 12No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BEDFORD CT}{SH‐79}{TEMECULA PKWY} 922210042 HT HT 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.87967210305 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant28 28No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{DATE ST}{YNEZ RD} 916400043 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.49100103581 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element20 14 14 48No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400051 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 5.75484796662 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element24 18 18 60No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EQUITY DR}{YNEZ RD} 916400052 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 5.35807578200 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element23 17 17 57No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{AUTO MALL PKWY}{RANCON CENTER BLVD} 916400058 SC SP‐13 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.81058419447 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element20 15 15 50No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA28731 PUJOL ST TEMECULA CA 92590940320002 SPI SP‐15 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 20.34294443646 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element1007575250No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{VIA HORCA}{VIA SANTA ROSA} 940320007 M SP‐15 7.00000000000 30.00000000000 12.71716315220 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element63 47 47 157No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{TIERRA VISTA RD}{YNEZ RD} 944330007 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 3.06992206311 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca69 69Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{TIERRA VISTA RD}{YNEZ RD} 944330008 H H 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.74281882569 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca40 40Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{LOMA PORTOLA DR}{RANCHO VISTA RD} 944290015 M M 7.00000000000 30.00000000000 11.39702329343 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca256 256Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{COSMIC DR}{NEBULA LN} 944370001 PO PDO‐5 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.93731403173 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca20 20Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{COSMIC DR}{NEBULA LN} 944370010 PO PDO‐5 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.71241871366 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element38 38Yes_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{ELINDA RD}{VIA BRISA} 945060015 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 2.09339734130 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant33No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{JOHN WARNER RD}{SANTIAGO RD}{VIA VALENCIA} 945100005 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 18.56052135404 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant28 28No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COSMIC DR}{NEBULA LN} 944370006 PO PDO‐5 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.83631803584 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca19 19Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{BRIGHTON RIDGE LN}{PAUBA RD} 945090003 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 4.15834616791 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant66No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CABRILLO AVE}{JEDEDIAH SMITH RD} 945160022 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.23588698976 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{RANCHO VISTA RD}{YNEZ RD} 944290017 M M 7.00000000000 12.90000000000 7.99094738469 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant72 72No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LOLITA RD}{PAULITA RD} 945180006 VL VL 0.2 0.4 10.10194951570 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant33No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{JOHN WARNER RD}{LA PRESA LOOP} 945180012 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.45063801623 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{I‐15 NBOFF}{I‐15 NBON}{RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD} 944330019 HT SP‐2 13.00000000000 20.00000000000 1.39795188385 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant55No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BRIGHTON RIDGE LN}{PAUBA RD} 945090001 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 4.71317880106 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant77No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE CAMELLIA}{PAUBA RD} 945090007 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 2.12654562337 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant33No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CABRILLO AVE}{CAJON DR} 945120003 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.63591952805 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{ORMSBY RD}{SANTIAGO RD} 945120004 VL VL 0.2 0.4 21.57541501678 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant66No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CRESTA VERDE CT}{SANTIAGO RD} 945140007 VL VL 0.2 0.4 5.21040845358 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{ESTERO RD}{ESTERO ST}{ORMSBY RD} 945070009 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 1.39115774751 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant22No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LOLITA RD}{SANTIAGO RD} 945100019 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 5.74364143579 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element88No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{VIA HORCA}{VIA SANTA ROSA} 940320006 H SP‐15 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 5.18741187362 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element19 19 19 57No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{COSMIC DR}{NEBULA LN} 944370005 PO PDO‐5 20.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.74641474808 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca17 17Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{COSMIC DR}{NEBULA LN} 944370007 PO PDO‐5 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.98533997957 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca21 21Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{PAUBA RD}{SHOWALTER RD} 945070003 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 2.47376182039 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant44No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{JERAMIE DR}{LOS CABALLEROS WAY} 945130003 VL VL 0.2 0.4 8.06555333884 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant33No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA29648 SOLANA WY TEMECULA CA 92590921330025 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.94975530739 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca21 21Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{I‐15}{SANTIAGO RD} 922100038 SPI SP‐5 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.87076941318 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant71522No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{CABRILLO AVE}{E VALLEJO AVE} 922200017 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.63199966194 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE BELVIA}{RAINBOW CANYON RD} 922230025 M M 7.00000000000 12.90000000000 43.49404115289 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant261 261No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{MORAGA RD}{VIA LAS COLINAS} 944060009 H H 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.77139264041 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca40 40Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{RANCHO HIGHLAND DR}{TIERRA VISTA RD} 944290016 M M 7.00000000000 12.90000000000 8.81027827899 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant53 53No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COSMIC DR}{NEBULA LN} 944370013 PO PDO‐5 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.74812063280 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element40 40Yes_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{PAUBA RD}{SHOWALTER RD} 945070016 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 0.64100920552 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BRIGHTON RIDGE LN}{PAUBA RD} 945090020 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 6.65119889688 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element10 10No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{MARGARITA RD}{PAUBA RD} 945110008 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 3.62939619539 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant55No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{SANTIAGO RD}{VALLEJO AVE} 945120001 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.93393695124 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{SANTIAGO RD}{VALLEJO AVE} 945120002 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.62991638770 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{JOHN WARNER RD}{LA PRESA LOOP} 945120007 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.86962539713 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{VIA LEVANTAR}{VIA SIERRA} 955040020 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.07310719284 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA41758 GREEN TREE RD TEMECULA CA 92592955050018 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.78971481644 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant22No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{RITA WAY}{SERAPHINA RD} 957080014 LM LM 3.00000000000 6.90000000000 20.19113984584 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant91 91No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{FINBROOK RD}{JOSEPH RD} 957080019 LM LM 3.00000000000 6.90000000000 8.79117260730 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant40 40No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{ABRUZZO ST}{LOMBARDY ST} 957170031 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.09144164200 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE GIRASOL}{JEFFREY HEIGHTS RD} 957120017 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.00758776424 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LIEFER RD}{PALA VISTA DR} 957090012 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.16125806101 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LOS CHORAS RANCH RD}{NICOLAS RD} 957080018 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.54653885948 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LIEFER RD}{NICOLAS RD} 957120005 VL VL 0.2 0.4 19.76533581081 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant66No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{KIMBERLY LN}{LIEFER RD} 957090010 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.91668333852 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LIEFER RD}{NICOLAS RD} 957090015 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.89176917798 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LIEFER RD}{NICOLAS RD} 957120004 VL VL 0.2 0.4 9.04123769777 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant33No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{JESSIE CIR}{NICOLAS RD} 957340013 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.45272543535 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COUNTRY VIEW RD}{PAGOSA SPRINGS DR} 957340024 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.05200965404 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE SANTA ANA}{RANCHO VISTA RD} 955040005 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.25841272238 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SP
Jurisdiction NameSite Address/Intersection5 Digit ZIP CodeAssessor Parcel NumberConsolidated SitesGeneral Plan Designation (Current)Zoning Designation Minimum Density Allowed (units/acre)Max Density Allowed (units/acre)Parcel Size (Acres)Existing Use/VacancyInfrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s)Lower Income CapacityModerate Income CapacityAbove Moderate Income CapacityTotal CapacityOptional Information1Optional Information2Optional Information3TEMECULA{CAMINO CIELO}{PALA VISTA DR} 957340020 VL VL 0.2 0.4 6.03098332872 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant22No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COUNTRY VIEW RD}{RIMROCK RANCH RD} 957340023 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.53212386102 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE CHAPOS}{CALLE GIRASOL} 957170040 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.09663172895 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LIEFER RD}{PALA VISTA DR} 957340022 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.64678286035 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA39250 GREENWOOD LN TEMECULA CA 92591957340038 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.99301675673 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{DE PORTOLA RD}{MARGARITA RD} 959050009 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.38627019991 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LIEFER RD}{NICOLAS RD} 957120003 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.79591311963 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{DE PORTOLA RD}{VERDE DR} 959040017 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.29458087885 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COUNTRY VIEW RD}{TRAIL CREEK LN} 957340025 VL VL 0.2 0.4 5.47444293216 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{ALCOBA DR}{DE PORTOLA RD} 959400002 LM SP‐4 3.00000000000 6.00000000000 21.33960850808 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant109 109No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{MURDOCK LN}{S WOLF CREEK DR} 962010007 CC SP‐12 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 12.01319199020 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant306 306No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{PECHANGA RD}{PRIMROSE AVE} 962020001 M SP‐9 7.00000000000 12.00000000000 6.62999866113 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant68 68No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{LOS CHORAS RANCH RD}{NICOLAS RD} 957080017 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.52907736382 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE GIRASOL}{TOMMY LN} 957150020 VL VL 0.2 0.4 5.14551884249 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{FIESTA RANCH RD}{NICOLAS RD} 964460003 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 2.08513133218 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant44No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{HILLSTONE ST}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640002 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 6.36068733425 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element11 11No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FIESTA RANCH RD}{RORIPAUGH VALLEY RD} 964460015 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 4.84800429079 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant41 41No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{DEERGRASS DR}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640016 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 12.12233897087 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element103 103No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FIESTA RANCH RD}{RORIPAUGH VALLEY RD} 964460009 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 15.99724291178 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant136 136No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FIESTA RANCH RD}{NICOLAS RD} 964460014 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 4.72831093049 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant88No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{EVERVIEW TERR}{LUPINE DR} 964630005 LM SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 34.72787502365 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element177 177No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{AVENIDA LYNELL}{VINO WAY} 964640004 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 17.49360940996 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element30 30No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FIESTA RANCH RD}{NICOLAS RD} 964460017 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 9.07580412911 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant77 77No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD}{NICOLAS RD}{SOMMERS BE964460018 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 1.22951583556 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant10 10No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{DEERGRASS DR}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640015 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 20.04829400505 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element170 170No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{HILLSTONE ST}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640001 LM SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 24.62049243503 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element125 125No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{HILLSTONE ST}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640003 L SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 10.74151244008 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element18 18No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{LUPINE DR}{VERBENA WAY} 964630006 LM SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 7.87961722124 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element40 40No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FOXTAIL DR}{HILLSTONE ST} 964640013 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 22.57299063354 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element192 192No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{DAWNING RIDGE}{KINDLER LN} 964661011 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 0.76189146722 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element66No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{ALCOBA DR}{DE PORTOLA RD} 959400001 LM SP‐4 3.00000000000 6.00000000000 20.97375942098 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant107 107No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{S WOLF CREEK DR}{WOLF CREEK DR N}{WOLF VALLEY961020026 NC SP‐12 7.00000000000 30.00000000000 7.80685662523 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant133 133No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{FIESTA RANCH RD}{RORIPAUGH VALLEY RD} 964460008 NC SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 15.21062310556 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant114 114No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA41755 ENTERPRISE CR TEMECULA CA 92590909270024 SC SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.83732988217 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element86620Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA41582 ENTERPRISE CR TEMECULA CA 92590909282013 IP SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.64857013336 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element55515Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA41480 SANBORN AV TEMECULA CA 92590910272008 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 1.19670032486 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element129930Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA29648 SOLANA WY TEMECULA CA 92590921330005 PO PO 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 4.81334253903 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vaca107 107Yes_AHO No_SP XTEMECULA{I‐15 NBON}{I‐15 SBOFF}{I‐15 SBON}{SH‐79/WINCHES910282002 SPI SP‐14 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 0.83290452300 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element86620Yes_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA42146 6TH ST TEMECULA CA 92590922053037 SPI SP‐5 0.00000000000 no max 0.67547373453 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant51217No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA80134 WINCHESTER RD TEMECULA CA 92591920110005 NC NC 7.00000000000 20.00000000000 6.36235347762 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element57 57No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{COUNTY CENTER DR}{YNEZ RD} 910271002 SC SC 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 6.14432679206 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant92 92No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31249 INDIAN SUMMER RD TEMECULA CA 92590957090022 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.54754894004 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31291 TOMMY LN TEMECULA CA 92591957150017 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.82293897831 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{ANDREA CIR}{WALCOTT LN} 957170029 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.27439546240 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA39250 GREENWOOD LN TEMECULA CA 92591957340036 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.51349330305 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA39250 GREENWOOD LN TEMECULA CA 92591957340037 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.48855525636 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA29234 VALLEJO AV TEMECULA CA 92592922190013 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.16626871008 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA43811 CALLE DE VELARDO TEMECULA CA 92592945160001 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.32975994738 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA43938 CALLE DE VELARDO TEMECULA CA 92592945160015 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.92433098219 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CRESTA VERDE CT}{SANTIAGO RD} 945140006 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.55286014063 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA43506 MANZANO DR TEMECULA CA 92592945020010 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.33107492057 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31011 PESCADO DR TEMECULA CA 92592945150016 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.32363976196 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31011 PESCADO DR TEMECULA CA 92592945170005 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.63175284552 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31331 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD TEMECULA CA 92592945030016 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.32772799704 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{PAUBA RD}{SHOWALTER RD} 945070001 L L‐1 0.50000000000 2.90000000000 2.74973168173 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant44No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA43586 EL FARO PL TEMECULA CA 92592945170006 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.65647146954 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{LOLITA RD}{PAULITA RD} 945180023 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.55055638480 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA43677 CALLE DE VELARDO TEMECULA CA 92592945150011 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.93571965820 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{E VALLEJO AVE}{VALLEJO AVE}{YNEZ RD} 922200010 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.05506313678 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{CALLE SANTA ANA}{RANCHO VISTA RD} 955040002 VL VL 0.2 0.4 1.73486001542 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA39830 CANTRELL RD TEMECULA CA 92592957130017 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.03973595118 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA39830 CANTRELL RD TEMECULA CA 92592957130022 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.33548131077 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA39830 CANTRELL RD TEMECULA CA 92592957130020 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.46159929107 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA40105 CALLE MEDUSA TEMECULA CA 92592957170003 VL VL 0.2 0.4 4.96216082452 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31103 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD TEMECULA CA 92592959010013 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.25548447796 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA30235 DE PORTOLA RD TEMECULA CA 92592959030014 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.41479953554 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA30951 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD TEMECULA CA 92592959010006 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.41020100333 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA31103 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD TEMECULA CA 92592959010011 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.38554485149 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA30951 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD TEMECULA CA 92592959010005 VL VL 0.2 0.4 3.07850994529 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA41758 GREEN TREE RD TEMECULA CA 92592955050012 VL VL 0.2 0.4 2.65630187557 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant11No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{DEERGRASS DR}{SOMMERS BEND} 964640011 M SP‐11 2.00000000000 12.00000000000 2.91756937640 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element25 25No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{VIA HORCA}{VIA SANTA ROSA} 940320005 SPI SP‐15 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 19.61389543705 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element96 72 72 240No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{I‐15}{I‐15 SBON} 922210049 SPI SP‐15 0.00000000000 30.00000000000 54.80545628053 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element269 202 202 673No_AHO Yes_SPTEMECULA{JEDEDIAH SMITH RD}{SAMANTHA LN} 961410008 HT HT 13.00000000000 30.00000000000 2.11205303708 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element32 32No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD}{DE PORTOLA RD} 965400001 M M 7.00000000000 12.90000000000 8.57559884431 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant51 51No_AHO No_SPTEMECULA{DE PORTOLA RD}{VIA SABINO} 965400001 LM LM 3.00000000000 6.90000000000 11.87154414054 VacantYES ‐ Planned NO ‐ Privately‐Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements ‐ Vacant53 53No_AHO No_SP
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need, Table Starts in Cell A2Jurisdiction NameSite Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP CodeAssessor Parcel NumberVery Low-IncomeLow-IncomeModerate-IncomeAbove Moderate-IncomeType of Shortfall Parcel Size(Acres)Current General Plan DesignationCurrent ZoningProposed General Plan (GP) DesignationProposed ZoningMinimum Density Allowed Maximum Density AllowedTotal CapacityVacant/NonvacantDescription of Existing UsesOptional Information1Optional Information2Optional Information3TEMECULATEMECULA1
Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
(From Table A, Column G)General Land Uses Allowed
VL Very Low Density Residential (VL). The very lo
L‐1 Low Density Residential (L‐1 and L‐2). The low
LM Low Medium Density Residential (LM). The lo
M Medium Density Residential (M). The medium
H High Density Residential (H). The high density
HT Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). The highw
SC Service Commercial (SC). The service comme
PO Professional Office (PO). The professional off
NC Neighborhood Commercial (NC). The neighbo
CC Community Commercial (CC). The community
PDO‐5 http://www.qcode.us/codes/temecula/view.
PDO‐10 The Temecula Education Center (TEC) planne
SP‐2Specific Plan 2, Rancho Highlands. Residential, of
SP‐4Specific Plan 4, Paloma Del Sol. Residential, comm
SP‐5Specific Plan 5, Old Town. Residential, mixed‐use
SP‐9Specific Plan 9, Redhawk. Residential, commercia
SP‐11 Specific Plan 11, Roripaugh Ranch. Residential, co
SP‐12 Specific Plan 12, Wolf Creek. Residential, comme
SP‐13 Specific Plan 13, Harveston. Residential, public/in
SP‐14 Specific Plan 14, Uptown. Residential, open space
SP‐15 Specific Plan 15, Altair. Medium Residential, High
This page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX B:
GLOSSARY
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
APPENDIX B:
HOUSING ELEMENT
GLOSSARY
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): An attached or a detached
residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living
facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a
proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be
situated.
Acre: A unit of land measure equal to 43,560 square feet.
Acreage, Net: The portion of a site exclusive of existing or planned
public or private road rights-of-way.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): As required by
California Assembly Bill 686, the City of Temecula has a duty to
affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions, in
addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that
restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Affordability Covenant: A property title agreement which places
resale or rental restrictions on a housing unit.
Affordable Housing: Under state and federal statutes, housing
which costs no more than 30 percent of gross household income.
Housing costs include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, taxes,
insurance, homeowner association fees, and other related costs.
Area Median Income (AMI): The AMI is determined by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is the
midpoint income for the area—half of all wage earners have salaries
higher than the median, and half of all wage earners have salaries
lower than the median. Each year, HUD sets area median incomes for
the Riverside area. The AMI is then used to establish income limits
for certain housing programs.
Annexation: The incorporation of land area into the jurisdiction of
an existing city with a resulting change in the boundaries of that city.
Assisted Housing: Housing that has been subsidized by federal,
state, or local housing programs.
At-Risk Housing: Multi-family rental housing that is at risk of losing
its status as housing affordable for low and moderate income tenants
due to the expiration of federal, state or local agreements.
California Department of Housing and Community
Development – HCD: The State Department responsible for
administering State-sponsored housing programs and for reviewing
housing elements to determine compliance with state housing law.
Census: The official United States decennial enumeration of the
population conducted by the federal government.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program
administered by HUD. This grant allots money to cities and counties
for housing rehabilitation and community development activities,
including public facilities and economic development.
Condominium: A building or group of buildings in which units are
owned individually, but the structure, common areas and facilities are
owned by all owners on a proportional, undivided basis.
Congregate Care: Apartment housing, usually for senior citizens, or
for the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
50062.5 that is arranged in a group setting that includes independent
living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared
dining and recreational facilities (see Temecula Municipal Code
Section 17.34.010.B).
Congregate Living Health Facility: A facility with a
noninstitutional, home-like environment that provides inpatient care,
including the following basic services: medical supervision, twenty-
four hour skilled nursing and supportive care, pharmacy, dietary,
social recreational, and at least one type of service specified in the
Health and Safety Code. The primary need of congregate living health
facility residents shall be for availability of skilled nursing care on a
recurring, intermittent, extended or continuous basis. This care is
generally less intense than that provided in general acute care
hospitals but more intense than that provided in skilled nursing
facilities (see Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.34.010.B).
Density: The number of dwelling units per unit of land. Density
usually is expressed “per acre,” e.g., a development with 100 units
located on 20 acres has density of 5.0 units per acre.
Density Bonus: The allowance of additional residential units beyond
the maximum for which the parcel is otherwise permitted usually in
exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing
units at the same site or at another location.
Development Impact Fees (DIF): A fee or charge imposed on
developers to pay for a jurisdiction’s costs of providing services to
new development.
Development Right: The right granted to a land owner or other
authorized party to improve a property. Such right is usually
expressed in terms of a use and intensity allowed under existing
zoning regulation. For example, a development right may specify the
maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted per acre of
land.
Dwelling, Multi-family: A building containing two or more dwelling
units for the use of individual households; an apartment or
condominium building is an example of this dwelling unit type.
Dwelling, Single-family Attached: A one-family dwelling attached
to one or more other one-family dwellings by a common vertical wall.
Row houses and town homes are examples of this dwelling unit type.
Dwelling, Single-family Detached: A dwelling, not attached to any
other dwelling, which is designed for and occupied by not more than
one family and surrounded by open space or yards.
Dwelling Unit: One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended
for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and
sanitary facilities provided within the unit for the exclusive use of a
household.
Efficiency Unit Housing: Any residential building containing five or
more individual secure rooms intended or designed to be used or
which are used rented or hired out to be occupied for sleeping
purposes by residents as their primary residence.
Elderly Household: As defined by HUD, elderly households are
one- or two- member (family or non-family) households in which the
head or spouse is age 62 or older.
Element: A division or chapter of the General Plan.
Emergency Shelter: An emergency shelter is a facility that provides
shelter to homeless families and/or homeless individuals on a limited
short-term basis.
Fair Market Rent (FMR): Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are freely set
rental rates defined by HUD as the median gross rents charged for
available standard units in a county or Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA). Fair Market Rents are used for the Section 8
Rental Program and many other HUD programs and are published
annually by HUD.
First-Time Home Buyer (FTHB): Defined by HUD as an
individual or family who has not owned a home during the three-year
period preceding the HUD-assisted purchase of a home. Jurisdictions
may adopt local definitions for first-time home buyer programs which
differ from non-federally funded programs.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The gross floor area of all buildings on a
lot divided by the lot area; usually expressed as a numerical value (e.g.,
a building having 10,000 square feet of gross floor area located on a
lot of 5,000 square feet in area has a floor area ratio of 2.0).
Group Home: The City of Temecula’s Zoning Code defines a group
home as any residential care facility for six or fewer persons which is
licensed by the state (Temecula Municipal Code Section
17.344.810.B).
General Plan: The General Plan is a legal document, adopted by the
legislative body of a City or County, setting forth policies regarding
long-term development. California law requires the preparation of
seven elements or chapters in the General Plan: Land Use, Housing,
Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Additional
elements are permitted, such as Economic Development, Urban
Design and similar local concerns.
Group Quarters: A facility which houses groups of unrelated
persons not living in households (US Census definition). Examples of
group quarters include institutions, dormitories, shelters, military
quarters, assisted living facilities and other quarters, including single-
room occupancy (SRO) housing, where 10 or more unrelated
individuals are housed.
Growth Management: Techniques used by a government to regulate
the rate, amount, location and type of development.
HCD: The State Department of Housing and Community
Development.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA): The Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act requires larger lending institutions making home
mortgage loans to publicly disclose the location and disposition of
home purchase, refinance and improvement loans. Institutions
subject to HMDA must also disclose the gender, race, and income of
loan applicants.
Homeless: Unsheltered homeless are families and individuals whose
primary nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed
for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for
human beings (e.g., the street, sidewalks, cars, vacant and abandoned
buildings). Sheltered homeless are families and persons whose
primary nighttime residence is a supervised publicly or privately
operated shelter (e.g., emergency, transitional, battered women, and
homeless youth shelters; and commercial hotels or motels used to
house the homeless).
Household: The US Census Bureau defines a household as all
persons living in a housing unit whether or not they are related. A
single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a
house is considered a household. Household does not include
individuals living in dormitories, prisons, convalescent homes, or
other group quarters.
Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a
household. A household is usually described as very low income, low
income, moderate income, and upper income based upon household
size, and income, relative to the regional median income.
Housing Problems: Defined by HUD as a household which:
(1) occupies a unit with physical defects (lacks complete kitchen or
bathroom); (2) meets the definition of overcrowded; or (3) spends
more than 30% of income on housing cost.
Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance
aimed at reducing housing sales or rent prices to more affordable
levels. Two general types of housing subsidy exist. Where a housing
subsidy is linked to a particular house or apartment, housing subsidy
is “project” or “unit” based. In Section 8 rental assistance programs
the subsidy is linked to the family and assistance provided to any
number of families accepted by willing private landlords. This type of
subsidy is said to be “tenant based.”
Housing Unit: A room or group of rooms used by one or more
individuals living separately from others in the structure, with direct
access to the outside or to a public hall and containing separate toilet
and kitchen facilities.
HUD: See US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Income Category: Four categories are used to classify a household
according to income based on the median income for the county.
Under state housing statutes, these categories are defined as follows:
Very Low (0–50% of County median); Low (50–80% of County
median); Moderate (80–120% of County median); and Upper (over
120% of County median).
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A unit that is no more
than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing
single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include
separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the
existing structure
Large Household: A household with 5 or more members.
Low Income Home Energy Act Program (LIHEAP): LIHEAP
helps pay the winter heating bills or summer cooling bills of low-
income and elderly people.
Manufactured Housing: Housing that is constructed of
manufactured components, assembled partly at the site rather than
totally at the site. Also referred to as modular housing.
Market Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open
market without any subsidy. The price for housing is determined by
the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location.
Median Income: The annual income for each household size within
a region which is defined annually by HUD. Half of the households in
the region have incomes above the median and half have incomes
below the median.
Mobile Home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections,
which is at least 8 feet in width and 32 feet in length, is built on a
permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit when
connected to the required utilities, either with or without a permanent
foundation.
Mobile Home Park Assistance Program (MPAP): To preserve
affordable housing opportunities found within mobile home parks,
HCD provides financial and technical assistance to low income
mobile home park residents through MPAP. MPAP provides loans of
up to 50% of the purchase price plus the conversion costs of the
mobile home park so that low income residents, or organizations
formed by low income residents can own and/or operate the mobile
home park.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC): Administered by Riverside
County, and authorized by Congress in the Tax Reform Act of 1984,
the MCC provides assistance to first-time homebuyers for the
purchase of owner-occupied single-family homes, townhomes, and
condominiums. An MCC reduces the amount of federal income taxes
otherwise due but not to exceed the amount of federal taxes owed for
the year after other credits and deductions have been taken. (Unused
tax credits can be carried forward three years, until used.)
Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB): A state, county or city program
providing financing for the development of housing through the sale
of tax-exempt bonds.
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP):
The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was
established in March of 2004. The plan encompasses 1.2 million acres
in the western Riverside County and is designated to protect 146
species.
Overcrowding: As defined by the US Census, a household with
greater than 1.01 persons per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens,
hallways, and porches. Severe overcrowding is defined as households
with greater than 1.5 persons per room.
Office of Planning and Research (OPR): The Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) provides legislative and policy
research support for the Governor’s office. OPR also assists the
Governor and the Administration in land-use planning and manages
the Office of the Small Business Advocate.
Overpayment: The extent to which gross housing costs, including
utility costs, exceed 30 percent of gross household income, based on
data published by the US Census Bureau. Severe overpayment, or cost
burden, exists if gross housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross
income.
Parcel: The basic unit of land entitlement. A designated area of land
established by plat, subdivision, or otherwise legally defined and
permitted to be used, or built upon.
Poverty: The income cutoffs used by the Census Bureau to
determine the poverty status of families and unrelated individuals
included a set of 48 thresholds. The poverty thresholds are revised
annually to allow for changes in the cost of living as reflected in the
Consumer Price Index. The average threshold for a family of four
persons in 1989 was $12,674. Poverty thresholds were applied on a
national basis and were not adjusted for regional, state, or local
variations in the cost of living.
Project-Based Rental Assistance: Rental assistance provided for a
project, not for a specific tenant. A tenant receiving project-based
rental assistance gives up the right to that assistance upon moving
from the project.
Public Housing: A project-based low-rent housing program
operated by independent local public housing authorities. A low-
income family applies to the local public housing authority in the area
in which they want to live.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): The RHNA is
based on State of California projections of population growth and
housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region’s future
housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG (Southern
California Association of Governments) region. These housing need
numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in
each California city and county.
Rehabilitation: The upgrading of a building previously in a
dilapidated or substandard condition for human habitation or use.
Section 8 Rental Voucher/Certificate Program: A tenant-based
rental assistance program that subsidizes a family’s rent in a privately
owned house or apartment. The program is administered by local
public housing authorities. Assistance payments are based on
30 percent of household annual income. Households with incomes of
50 percent or below the area median income are eligible to participate
in the program.
Service Needs: The particular services required by special
populations, typically including needs such as transportation, personal
care, housekeeping, counseling, meals, case management, personal
emergency response, and other services preventing premature
institutionalization and assisting individuals to continue living
independently.
Small Household: Pursuant to HUD definition, a small household
consists of two to four non-elderly persons.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): The
Southern California Association of Governments is the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) which encompasses six counties:
Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and
Ventura. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the RHNA.
Special Needs Groups: Those segments of the population which
have a more difficult time finding decent affordable housing due to
special circumstances. Under California Housing Element statutes,
these special needs groups consist of the elderly, handicapped, large
families, female-headed households, farm workers and the homeless.
A jurisdiction may also choose to consider additional special needs
groups in the Housing Element, such as students, military
households, other groups present in their community.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing: Any residential
building containing five or more individual secure rooms intended or
designed to be used, or which are used, rented, or hired out, to be
occupied for sleeping purposes by residents as their primary
residence.
Subdivision: The division of a lot, tract or parcel of land in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government
Code Section 66410 et seq.).
Substandard Housing: Housing which does not meet the minimum
standards contained in the State Housing Code (i.e., does not provide
shelter, endangers the health, safety or well-being of occupants).
Jurisdictions may adopt more stringent local definitions of
substandard housing.
Substandard, Suitable for Rehabilitation: Substandard units which
are structurally sound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is
considered economically warranted.
Substandard, Needs Replacement: Substandard units which are
structurally unsound and for which the cost of rehabilitation is
considered infeasible, such as instances where the majority of a unit
has been damaged by fire.
Supportive Housing: A facility that provides housing with no limit
on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined
by Section 50675.14 of the California Health and Safety Code, and
that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist tenants in
retaining housing, improving their health status, maximizing their
ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
Supportive Services: Services provided to residents of supportive
housing for the purpose of facilitating the independence of residents.
Some examples are case management, medical or psychological
counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job
training.
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: A form of rental assistance in
which the assisted tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right
to continued assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not
for the project.
Transitional Housing: A residential facility that provides rental
housing accommodations and support services for persons and
families, but restricts occupancy to no more than 24 months. Support
services may include meals, counseling, and other services.
Uniform Building Code (UBC): First enacted by the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) in 1927, the UBC provides
standards for building codes. Revised editions of this code are
published approximately every 3 years.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
The cabinet level department of the federal government responsible
for housing, housing assistance, and urban development at the
national level. Housing programs administered through HUD include
CDBG, HOME and Section 8, among others.
Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG): WRCOG
consists of representatives from all 14 cities and the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors, which have seats on the WRCOG Executive
Committee, the group that sets policy for the organization. Together,
as a joint powers agency, they take up regional matters, from air
quality to solid waste and from transportation to the environment.
Zoning: A land use regulatory measure enacted by local government.
Zoning district regulations governing lot size, building bulk,
placement, and other development standards vary from district to
district, but must be uniform within the same district. Each city and
county adopts a zoning ordinance specifying these regulations.
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX C:
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 1
City of Temecula Housing
Element Update
September 2021
In partnership with De Novo Planning Group
Public
Engagement
Summary
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 2
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 33
General Education and Advertisements .................................................................... 33
Project Website ........................................................................................................ 44
Community Survey ................................................................................................... 44
Survey Respondent Demographics ........................................................................ 55
Survey Responses Executive Summary .................................................................. 55
Complete Responses ......................................................................................... 1515
Virtual Community Meeting ................................................................................. 1616
Public Review of Draft Housing Element ............................................................... 1616
Public Comments: Open House ......................................................................... 1817
Public Comment: Ortiz ...................................................................................... 1918
Public Comment: LaMont .................................................................................. 2019
Public Comment: McGlaston ............................................................................. 2120
Feedback Influence ............................................................................................... 2221
Figures
Figure 1: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula? ................................................ 66
Figure 2: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what
issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time? ................................... 99
Figure 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you
considered making on your home? ........................................................................... 99
Figure 4: How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in?
............................................................................................................................. 1111
Figure 5: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet
your housing needs? ............................................................................................. 1212
Figure 6: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula? .......... 1313
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 3
Introduction
The City of Temecula is updating its Housing Element as part of the 2021‐2029 Housing Element Cycle
(Cycle 6). Temecula is dedicated to meeting the future housing needs of its residents. The Housing
Element Update process is a unique opportunity to connect with residents of Temecula and learn more
about residents’ values, priorities, concerns, and ideas.
The City’s public engagement program connected to the Housing Element Update began in early 2020,
prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Throughout the process, the City supported bilingual (English and
Spanish) public engagement by sending direct advertisements, posting to social media, hosting surveys,
facilitating workshops, and sharing summaries of feedback to validate what we heard. The City also
circulated the Public Review Draft Housing Element for thirty days to seek community input on the
draft goals, policies, and programs.
The following activities have been conducted in support of the Housing Element Update and are
summarized in this document; copies of key advertisements and presentations are included at the end
of this document and are also available on the project website at https://temeculaca.gov/432/Housing‐
Element.
General Education and Advertisements
Project Webpage
Community Survey (available in English and Spanish)
Virtual Workshop
Public Review of Draft 2021‐2029 Housing Element
General Education and Advertisements
The City of Temecula planned and implemented a robust general education campaign to advertise the
Housing Element Update and seek input on housing priorities and included specific efforts to engage
underrepresented communities and lower income households. As part of this work effort, the City
utilized the following tools:
Newsletter sent to every resident including an article about the Housing Element Update
Social media posts using the hashtag #Housethis?
Economic Development email blast
Email to community stakeholders
Channel 3 spot
Temecula Chamber Mixer presentation
Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors advertisements
Flyers at laundromats/coffee shops to reach traditionally underrepresented residents
Emails to affordable housing property management (to share with residents with lower
household incomes)
Focused in‐person outreach to persons experiencing homelessness and seniors
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 4
In total over 55,000 emails were sent and dozens of social media posts were shared advertising the
Housing Element Update. The #Housethis? campaign resulted in 77,068 media impressions and 849
social media clicks.
Project Website
The project website includes the following information:
Project overview
Regional Housing Needs Allocation discussion
Description of what’s included in the Housing Element
Timeline
Upcoming events and meetings
Email sign‐up
Copies of all presentations and videos of presentations
Housing Survey (and results)
Draft Housing Element
Common questions and answers
Links to more information/supporting documents
Community Survey
The City of Temecula is updating its Housing Element as part of the 2021‐2029 Housing Element Cycle
(Cycle 6). Temecula is dedicated to meeting the future housing needs of its residents. The Housing
Element Update process is a unique opportunity to connect with residents of Temecula and learn more
about residents’ values, priorities, concerns, and ideas.
As part of the community outreach, a bilingual (English and Spanish) survey was conducted. The survey
was available on the City’s website from March 26 through September 30, 2020 and hard copies were
also available around the community, including at the Senior Center to reach the community’s elderly
population. Advertisements were also placed in area laundromats to target households of different
incomes. The City included a Housing Element article in 33,000 newsletters that were sent to each
residence, had over 52,341 social media impressions, and sent over 10,000 emails to engage the public.
Over 860 responses (provided online and in hard copy) were collected—a notable accomplishment
given recent COVID‐19‐related public engagement challenges and a testament to Temecula’s focus on
outreach and community engagement. The survey was 16 questions long.
The survey focuses on housing‐related issues such as maintenance, affordability, home types, and living
conditions in Temecula as well as demographic questions. This report is a summary of the responses
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 5
received and the general themes that emerged. Appendix A includes a copy of the survey questions;
specific questions are referenced throughout this report as relevant.
Survey Respondent Demographics
The survey contained 7 questions related to demographics. One of those questions included an
opportunity for users to sign‐up for more information about the Housing Element update process. The
other 6 questions highlighted the following about the respondents:
Most respondents (42%) both lived and worked within the City. In total, approximately 86% of
respondents live in Temecula, with only 13% working in the City but living elsewhere.1
Of those individuals who live in Temecula, approximately 58% have lived here for 10+ years.
The next highest response (16%) was 5‐10 years.2
Most of the respondents own their home (71%), with 25% of respondents renting.3
Most of the respondents (81%) live in single‐family homes, with the next highest category being
multi‐family homes (12%).4
Of the respondents surveyed, the most common types of households include couples with
children younger than 18 (33%), couples (25%), single‐person households (11%), multi‐
generational households (10%) and single‐parents household with children younger than 18
(6%). There was considerable range in household types including 6% (or 41 respondents), who
were an unlisted household type including couples with adult children living with them, which
could be a temporary phenomenon associated with the impacts of COVID‐19 on housing
patterns for young adults.5
The respondents represented a valid cross‐section of the community’s age profile; respondents
were primarily 40‐55 years old (36%), followed by 56‐74 years old (30%), and 24‐39 years old
(26%).6
Survey Responses Executive Summary
The survey responses reveal information about housing in Temecula. The results are grouped into 5
topical categories: values and priorities; housing affordability; housing maintenance; housing fit; and
general feedback. In addition to looking at the survey results as a whole, this report also considers
survey responses by demographic groups including how age, homeownership status, and household
type influenced responses.
1 Question 1: Do you live and/or work in the City of Temecula?
2 Question 2: How long have you lived in the City of Temecula?
3 Question 6: Do you currently own or rent your home?
4 Question 8: Select the type of housing that best describes your current home.
5 Question 9: Which of the following best describes your household type?
6 Question 11: What age range most accurately describes you?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 6
VALUES AND PRIORITIES
When respondents were asked, “Why have you chosen to live in Temecula,”7 the most common
answers were:
Safety of neighborhood (61%)
Affordability (52%)
Quality of local school system (49%)
Local recreational amenities and scenery (38%)
Proximity to shopping and services, including Old Town Temecula (33%)
Proximity to family and/or friends (32%)
Figure 1: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula?
When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur:
Respondents who own their own home vs. rent are far more likely to cite affordability as a factor (60%)
than those who rent (33%). Similarly, quality of the housing stock is viewed more favorably by those
7 Question 5: Why have you chosen to live in Temecula?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 7
who own (29%) than those who rent (17%), which may reflect the “pride of ownership” that comes
with being able to maintain a property you own.
There are also differences between respondents of different ages. Proximity to family and friends was
far more important to those 75 years and older (42%) who may be less likely/able to travel long
distances, than to those 23 years old or younger (29%) who are more mobile. However, quality of the
local school system and safety of the neighborhood were far more important to those 23 years old and
younger (71% for both indicators) who may be thinking about their own educational experiences or
planning for the education of a child, than those 75 years old and older (9% and 33% respectively).
There are also differences when it relates to household type. Couples with children under 18 ranked
quality of school system (76%) and safety of neighborhood (76%) as their highest concern, while these
issues were less important for single person households. Affordability was seen as a key issue across
the board; it was ranked as the first or second highest issue in every household type except for young
adults living with parents (where it fell to third).
When respondents were asked, “How important are the following concerns to you and your family?”8
the following issues were identified as the most likely to be “very important":
Ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula (57%)
Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing stock in older neighborhoods (49%)
Establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with
disabilities (48%)
Ensure that the housing market in Temecula provides a diverse range of housing types, including
single‐family homes, townhomes, apartments, duplex/triplex and condominiums to meet the
varied needs of local residents (48%)
Fair/Equitable Housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods
that have suffered foreclosures (48%)
Establish programs to help at‐risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan
programs (47%)
When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur:
When it comes to comparisons of answers by age of respondents, there were some nuanced trends.
Ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula was ranked highest by
those 23 years old and younger (86%) and least important to those 75 years and older (39%); these
trends represent the importance of affordability for young adults looking to move into their own home
for the first time, versus the established housing choices of the community’s older generation. Those
aged 23 years old and younger felt extremely strongly (100%) about integrating affordable housing
8 Question 12: How important are the following concerns to you and your family?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 8
throughout the community to create mixed‐income neighborhoods while only 28% of those 75 years
and older felt that it was very important. Those 23 years old and younger also ranked “fair/equitable
housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods that have suffered
foreclosures” (86%) and “provide shelters and transitional housing for the homeless, along with
services to help move people into permanent housing” as very important (71%).
There were also differences in what mattered the most to homeowners versus those who rent. The issue
of “ensuring that the housing market in Temecula provides a diverse range of housing types, including
single‐family homes, townhomes, apartments, duplex/triplex and condominiums to meet the varied
needs of local residents,” was far more important to those who rent (70%) than to those who own their
own home (38%). Similarly, renters ranked the issue of, “integrate affordable housing throughout the
community to create mixed‐income neighborhoods,” far higher (63%) than homeowners (25%). Likewise,
renters placed higher value (61%) on the issue of “establish special needs housing for seniors, large
families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities,” than did homeowners (42%).
When it comes to household types, young adults living with parents and multi‐generational households
ranked “ensuring that children who grow up in Temecula can afford to live in Temecula,” as much
higher (74% and 71% respectively) that do single person households (36%). Multi‐generational
households also ranked “establish special needs housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or
persons with disabilities,” much higher (58%) than did couples with children under 18. However, for
single parents with children under 18, the issue of “integrate affordable housing throughout the
community to create mixed‐income neighborhoods,” ranks much higher (58%) than single person
households (32%).
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
When respondents were asked, “If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one,
what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time?”9 the answers pointed to issues of
affordability. The top 3 responses included:
I cannot find a home within my price range in Temecula (55%)
I do not currently have the financial resources for an appropriate down payment (52%)
I do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment
(33%)
Potential answers related to housing stock diversity or housing quality were not heavily
selected, indicating that if people were able to overcome the financial obstacles, the housing
choices available in Temecula are generally desirable.
9 Question 7: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from
owning a home at this time?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 9
Figure 2: If you wish to own a home in Temecula but do not currently own one, what issues are
preventing you from owning a home at this time?
When responses are broken down further by demographic groups, the following differences occur:
When it comes to differences between respondents of different age groups, Millennials (age 24‐39)
had the highest financial barriers: 71% say there are no homes within their desired price range; 64%
do not have a down payment; and 46% do not have enough for a mortgage payment.
When it comes to household type, couples with children under 18 had the most significant financial
constraints, with 75% responding that there were no homes within their price range, and 55% reporting
that did not have enough for a down payment.
HOUSING MAINTENANCE
When respondents were asked, “Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you
considered making to your home?”10 the top responses included:
Painting (42%)
Solar (28%)
HVAC (22%)
Figure 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on
your home?
10 Question 3: Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making to your home?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 10
While a large proportion of respondents indicated 1 or more improvements, over a third stated that
this question does not apply, meaning that they are not considering any upgrades or expansions at this
time. Not surprisingly, this question applied more to homeowners than renters. However, while 80%
of renters responded, “Does not apply,” the other 20% indicated that there were minor improvements
including painting (10%) that occupants have considered making.
When it comes to comparing respondents based on age, respondents age 40‐55 had the longest list of
upgrades and expansions they were considering including room additions (15%), roofing (12%), and
accessory dwelling units (11%).
Respondents were also allowed to provide specific feedback regarding other (non‐listed) types of
improvements they were interested in pursuing. The most popular write‐in responses include:
New windows
New flooring
Pool construction
Upgraded landscaping
Kitchen renovation
Patio cover installation
Garage improvements
When asked, “How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in?” respondents
stated that their home:
Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (i.e., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) (46%)
Excellent condition (33%)
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 11
Needs 1 or more modest rehabilitation improvements (i.e., new roof, new wood siding, etc.)
(13%)
Needs 1 or more major upgrades (i.e., new foundation, new plumbing, new electrical, etc.) (5%)
Figure 4: How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in?
Homeowners were more likely than renters to rate the physical condition of their residence as excellent
(40% as opposed to 16%).
Single parents with children under 18 (17%), young adults living with parents (17%), and single persons
living with roommates (20%) were the 2 household groups least likely to rate their housing condition
as excellent.
Respondents ages 75 and older were the age group most likely to rate their housing quality as excellent.
HOUSING FIT
When asked, “How satisfied are you with your current housing situation?”11 the top responses were:
I am very satisfied (48%)
I am somewhat satisfied (35%)
I am somewhat dissatisfied (10%)
I am dissatisfied (6%)
There were significant differences in responses, however, between homeowners and renters. 61% of
homeowners were “very satisfied” as opposed to only 15% of renters.
11 Question 10: How satisfied are you with your current housing situation?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 12
Single parents with children under the age of 18 showed the highest levels of dissatisfaction with a 20%
stating, “I am very dissatisfied,” and 17% stating, “I am very satisfied.”
Only 14% of respondents age 23 and younger were very satisfied with their housing situation, as
opposed to 61% of those 75 years old and older.
When asked, “Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing
needs?”12 respondents answered:
Yes (65%)
No (35%)
Figure 5: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing
needs?
However, the breakdown along homeownerships lines were different with 77% of homeowners
answering “Yes”, as opposed to 40% of renters.
The contrast was even more stark along household type comparisons. 63% of single parents with
children under age 18 answered, “no” with the next lowest score being single persons living with
roommates (56%).
Those on the opposite end of the scale for age, had nearly opposite reactions. For those age 23 and
younger, 71% said that Temecula did not meet their housing needs as opposed to 81% of those 75
years old and older who stated that it did meet their housing needs.
When asked, “What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula?”13 respondents
answered:
Single family detached (49%)
12 Question 13: Do you feel that the different housing types in Temecula currently meet your housing needs?
13 Question 14: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula?
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 13
Senior Housing (34%)
Condominiums (multifamily ownership homes) (24%)
Other (24%)
Duplex/Attached Housing (20%)
Figure 6: What types of housing are most needed in the City of Temecula?
The household group most interested in more single‐family homes are adult head of households (non‐
parents) with children under age 18 (75%) and the least interested in more single‐family housing are
single persons with roommates (22%).
When it comes to age comparisons, Millennials are most interested in more single‐family homes (61%)
as opposed to seniors 75 years old and older (27%).
A significant percentage of the respondents indicated that “other” (non‐listed) types of housing options
are needed in Temecula. Respondents provided a range of specific answers, many of which were
already identified as an answer choice (i.e., senior housing, housing for persons with disabilities).
Moreover, many respondents used this opportunity to indicate that they did not support new
development of any type, generally due to concerns related to traffic, safety, and access to public
facilities and infrastructure. Of those “other” types of housing identified in the individual responses,
which were not already listed as a possible answer, the responses generally included:
Housing options affordable to people with lower incomes
Multigenerational homes
Permanent supportive housing
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 14
Mixed use development
Housing options specific to the needs of single parents
Single‐story homes
GENERAL FEEDBACK
At the conclusion of the survey, respondents could provide general feedback on topics not addressed
in earlier questions. As expected, general feedback received was varied in tone and content. Written
responses were divided but fell into 2 general categories.
Group A: Those who feel that Temecula is unaffordable and housing prices are too high across the
board. These individuals suggested building more affordable housing of all types (from single family
homes to multi‐family housing) as well as taking care of seniors and the homeless.
Some sample responses include:
“The cost of rent here does not match the income that many of us have forcing many to
struggle, have roommates, constantly move etc. More affordable housing that matches the jobs
available that only want to pay $17 or less would help out a great deal so people can afford to
live without roommates and without struggling to pay everything.”
“Just want affordable housing for all income types. It would reduce homelessness and bring
diversity to the city.”
Group B: Those who moved to Temecula for its affordability and safety, and feel that it has changed in
a negative way over the years. These individuals are worried about continued impacts on congestion
and lack of infrastructure. They want the City to focus on improving current conditions and adding
more infrastructure (such as improved roadway conditions) instead of building additional housing.
Some sample responses include:
“It is disappointing to see zonings changed and other adjustments that are aimed to please the
person(s) financially benefitting rather than thinking about the value in the original zoning as
well as congestion and overloading the market.”
“Too much growth without infrastructure to support. Roads/traffic too heavy and maintenance
not adequate to support the additional homes being built.”
“Temecula is overcrowded. Way too many apartments and condos. The city council was going
the right direction with making it more of a destination or tourist town but now they want to
ruin the natural beauty with more housing. There are areas north of Menifee that can take more
housing and where new infrastructure can be built. Temecula is maxed out.”
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 15
Other issues that were raised include:
Making the process of building an accessory dwelling unit easier
Increasing the number and availability of bike and walking trails
Keeping water usage for landscaping low
Preserving open space and views of the mountains
Focusing on Temecula as a tourist destination
Address issues of housing discrimination and diversity
Complete Responses
A copy of the complete Community Survey along with responses is provided under separate cover and
can be accessed via the project website at https://temeculaca.gov/432/Housing‐Element.
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 16
Virtual Community Meeting
The City hosted a Virtual Community Meeting on the Housing Element in September, 2020. The intent
of the Community Meeting was to provide another avenue/opportunity for the public to learn about
the Housing Element, provide input, and ask questions. The Community Meeting included a live
presentation in English and Spanish via Zoom. Given that this meeting was held at the end of the two‐
month window to participate in the Community Survey, and covered the same topics as what was
available on the Project Website, the Community Meeting did not have a large attendance (fewer than
a dozen participants), which can be interpreted to mean that individual interested in the Housing
Element may have already participated in the online survey and did not necessarily feel the need to
attend a meeting which occurred at a set time and place. A copy of this presentation was also made
available on the project website.
Public Review of Draft Housing Element
The Public Review Draft 2021‐2029 Housing Element was made available to the public on August 17,
2021. That same evening, the City of Temecula hosted an in‐person Open House to educate the
community about the Housing Element Update and present the draft goals, policies, and programs
contained therein. The material was also posted to the project website and a press release was posted
to the City’s website and advertised at public hearings and to individuals registered for project
notifications. The City is also advertising the Public Review Draft and providing direction on how
individuals can provide public comment via its social media challenges and direct letters to stakeholder
engaged in housing services in and around Temecula.
Interested parties are invited to submit public comments using a fillable comment card at the Open
House, provide written comments via mail to City Hall, or email comments to the City’s Housing
Element Project Manager.
The City received two written comments at the Open House and three subsequent public comments
(sent to the Housing Element Project Manager via email) on the draft Housing Element. These
comments are included in this section and responses to these comments are included at the end of this
Report.
The Public Draft Housing Element was also presented to the City of Temecula Planning Commission on
September 15, 2021 and City Council on October 12, 2021. At this these meetings, the City received
additional comments via public testimony. Responses to these comments are included at the end of
this Report.
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 17
Fair Housing Outreach
The City hosted two additional public outreach workshops on October 27, 2021, with notices in English,
Spanish, and Tagalog. The focus of these hearings included specific topics of AFFH and Fair Housing
feedback as well as affordable housing. The City is also currently conducting a resident survey (in
conjunction with CDBG) which discusses housing, AFFH, and other housing related priorities.
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 18
Public Comments: Open House
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 19
Public Comment: Ortiz
From: Rynicia Ortiz <ryniciaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:22 PM
To: Brandon Rabidou <brandon.rabidou@temeculaca.gov>
Subject: Housing element
Hello, I am currently a resident of south Temecula. I am strongly against the new housing plan. My family and I
moved to Temecula because of the safe area and the family friendly environment. I believe having very low
income housing will drastically change the dynamics of the city. Most of the housing being built will be for those
of very low income levels. This will bring crime to the area and change the entire environment of the city.
Temecula is a rare area in Southern California, where there are many families, a strong sense of community,
low crime, and maintained very well. I do not want to see this city change.
Please reconsider this housing plan. I have spoken to many friends in Temecula regarding this and we all agree
this would be a disaster for the city.
Thank you for your time.
Rynicia Ortiz
Sent from my iPhone
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 20
Public Comment: LaMont
Good morning,
In preparation for today’s discussion, my concerns are as follows;
I recognize the City has met the state required boxes for the Housing Element; however, a series of checked
boxes simply is not enough. It will make state-inflicted headaches go away, but it won’t resolve the housing
crisis. And I’ve heard council members publicly comment about ineffective California policies enough to know
that you know this. So please. Let’s make solutions the goal, not strictly compliance with a state mandate.
During this meeting, please highlight the tangible steps the city will make toward solutions to the housing crisis
and how it will specifically address the local workforce, often referred to as the missing middle. I’d like to
emphasize the words “tangible” and “specific.” Meaning, every staff member here knows I’ve dedicated an
obscene amount of personal time advocating for the local workforce and attainable home ownership. I’d venture
to say I’ve dedicated more hours to this cause than any person, paid or unpaid, since Temecula’s inception.
None of this advocacy has centered on trigger words or divisive rhetoric. Typical activists pounce on the
opportunity to turn a well-intended statement by city officials into accusations of “corruption” “white supremacy”
or any number of click bait words that attack rather than resolve. Moreover, I’ve never expected the City to wave
a magic wand and fix a complicated and longstanding issue. My point here is that I’ve done my due diligence,
put in my time, and worked to create real solutions. I’ve been honest, reasonable, and direct. I expect the same
from you tonight. Please spare me flowery terms and vague statements. Please share with us, your
constituents, the City’s plan to provide attainable home ownership for its local workforce. We request the City
specifically respond to the following points and whether it will adopt any of these action items:
A) policy of inclusion
B) eliminate the segregation of the affordable housing overlay zone
C) Land trusts
D) provide incentives to local businesses to help contribute to employee housing
E) Down zone (up zoning costs the city money, down zoning would not)
F) Pilot programs designed to incorporate specific employees into “mixed use” housing. As to
meet the true intentions of mixed use by supplying the housing to the employees who work
below.
I would have ccd Amanda Tropiano in this thread however I do not have her email
information. Please feel free to forward.
Looking forward to speaking in detail later today.
Thank you,
Laurel LaMont
Director of Upward Community
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 21
Public Comment: McGlaston
Hi Brandon,
I hope this message finds you well. This is my initial suggestion on the housing element work
you’re doing, in particular on getting the word out to more people.
My husband and (at the time) infant daughter sold our house in SD and moved to Temecula
about 2.5 years ago. We bought in the Redhawk area and have loved being here since we
moved. I’ve noticed a lot of similar family dynamics and recent moves to Temecula for the
same reasons that brought us here (more affordable, more family friendly, clean and beautiful
communities with wide streets and many parks, etc.).
To get to the point, I think you all need to have some sort of ambassador program to share
this info with people (and perhaps specifically target the women/moms) of the area. I learned
about this via text from one of my neighbor friends who is a stay at home mom and I can see
this spreading quickly if it got passed around similarly.
That’s all I have for now, but I’ll likely be at the meeting next week. Thanks for the work you’re
doing!!
Kindly,
Rachael
City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN │ Housing Element Appendix C – September December 2021 │ Page 22
Feedback Influence
The feedback received from the public during preparation of the Housing Element and on the Public
Draft Housing Element directly influenced the goals, policies, and programs included in the Housing
Plan. Table 1 below summarize how public input is reflected in the Housing Plan.
General Input
Received
Applicable Reference
Goal Policy Program Other
There should be more
affordable housing
choices for people
who want to own a
home in Temecula
Goal 2
Goal 3
Policy 2.1
Policy 2.2
Policy 3.1
Policy 3.2
Program 10
Program 12
Existing homes are in
good condition by
need general
maintenance
Goal 4 Policy 4.2 Program 18
Program 19
A variety of home
types are needed in
Temecula
Goal 1
Goal 2
Policy 1.2
Policy 1.3
Policy 1.6
Policy 2.1
Program 1
Program 5
Program 6
Program 7
Program 8
Program 9
Temecula should not
have any more
housing/traffic
Existing General Plan and
Zoning designations allow
for development. No new
sites are identified in the
Housing Element.
Work with regional
partners to address
affordable housing
issues
Goal 2 Policy 2.8
Work with local
employers to address
affordable housing
issues
Goal 2 Policy 2.9
Adequate parking
near new future
housing sites should
be considered
The City’s Zoning
Ordinance requires
minimum parking
standards for all new
development
CITY OF TEMECULA
GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
APPENDIX D:
2017 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
City of Temecula
Assessment of Fair Housing
Prepared by
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Approved March 2017
This page intentionally left blank.
Cover Sheet
1. Submission date: October 4, 2016
2. Submitter name: City of Temecula
3. Type of submission (e.g., single program participant, joint submission): Single program
participant
4. Type of program participant(s) (e.g., consolidated plan participant, PHA): Consolidated Plan
5. For PHAs, Jurisdiction in which the program participant is located: N/A
6. Submitter members (if applicable): N/A
7. Sole or lead submitter contact information:
a. Name: Lynn Kelly-Lehner
b. Title: Principal Management Analyst
c. Department: Community Development Department
d. Street address: 41000 Main Street
e. City: Temecula
f. State: CA
g. Zip code: 92590
8. Period covered by this assessment: July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2022
9. Initial, amended, or renewal AFH: Initial
10. To the best of its knowledge and belief, the statements and information contained herein are true,
accurate, and complete and the program participant has developed this AFH in compliance with
the requirements of 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150-5.180 or comparable replacement regulations of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
11. The program participant will take meaningful actions to further the goals identified in its AFH
conducted in accordance with the requirements in §§ 5.150 through 5.180 and 24 C.F.R. §§
91.225(a)(1), 91.325(a)(1), 91.425(a)(1), 570.487(b)(1), 570.601, 903.7(o), and 903.15(d), as
applicable.
All Joint and Regional Participants are bound by the certification, except that some of the
analysis, goals or priorities included in the AFH may only apply to an individual program
participant as expressly stated in the AFH.
_________________________________________________
Aaron Adams Date
City Manager
12. Departmental acceptance or non-acceptance:
______________________________________________________
U.S Department of Housing & Urban Development/D ate
This page intentionally left blank.
i
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary............................................................................................................................... 1
II. Community Participation Process .......................................................................................................... 4
III. Assessment of Past Goals and Actions .................................................................................................. 9
IV. Fair Housing Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 14
A. Demographic Summary
B. General Issues
i. Segregation/Integration
ii. Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs
C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
D. Disability and Access Analysis
E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities ........................................................................................................ 42
Appendices
A. HUD-Provided Maps
B. HUD-Provided Tables
C. City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Resident Surveys (English/Spanish)
D. City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing Stakeholder Survey
E. Stakeholder Consultation List
F. General Plan Land Use Map
G. CDBG-Eligible Area Map
H. Public Transportation Maps (Employers, Public Facilities, Publicly Assisted Housing)
I. List of Public Services funded with CDBG and General Fund
J. List of Units Funded with Redevelopment Agency Funds
ii
K. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
L. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Fair Housing Initiatives Program Testing Results
(2010-2015)
M. Survey Results
N. Eagle Soar Program
O. Public Hearing Notices
P. Summary of Public Comments at Public Hearings and Community Meetings
Q. City Resolution Approving Assessment of Fair Housing
1
I. Executive Summary
1. Summarize the fair housing issues, significant contributing factors, and goals. Also include
an overview of the process and analysis used to reach the goals.
The City of Temecula is located in the extreme southwest corner of the Riverside-San Bernardino
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in area in the continental United
States. Temecula is 45 miles from Riverside, the County Seat, and nearly 70 miles from the City
of San Bernardino, the County Seat of San Bernardino County. At 60 miles away, Temecula is
closer to the City of San Diego than to San Bernardino. It is 172 miles from Blythe in Riverside
County and 240 miles from Needles in San Bernardino County. Because of its location in the
corner of the region, one must be cautious to draw too many conclusions in comparing Temecula
to the regional data supplied by HUD. This Assessment compares and contrasts the City with the
regional data, but as one would expect, there are some substantial differences in the data profiles
and the needs between the City and the region. Many of these differences are evident and detailed
in the HUD-supplied maps and charts included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
The City is located in a cluster of cities in Temecula Valley in southwest Riverside County. The
other cities include Murrieta, Menifee, Wildomar and Lake Elsinore. All have experienced
tremendous growth in the past twenty years, yet they remain separate and some distance from
the metropolitan areas to the north and south.
Through its growth, Temecula has remained an integrated and diverse City with racial and ethnic
groups spread evenly throughout the City. There are no HUD-identified racially or ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in the City. During the housing crisis of 2007-2008,
the City was hit with many foreclosures and, as such, that issue was the greatest concern in the
previous Analysis of Impediments, completed in 2010. Now with the housing industry in
recovery, the greatest need in the City is affordable housing, as many new homebuyers find
themselves priced out of the market.
Like all cities in the State of California, Temecula is challenged by a lack of financial resources
to address its affordable housing needs due to the dissolution of all the State’s redevelopment
agencies. This was the main source of hundreds of affordable housing units constructed in the
City since the 1990s.
Fair housing issues in Temecula appear to be individualized and not systemic, but preventing
systematic issues requires continuous training and education of those persons employed in the
housing industry, as well as educating the residents of their fair housing rights.
The City has developed four fair housing goals to overcome the contributing factors identified
in the Assessment of Fair Housing. These goals have been prioritized based on feedback from
community meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Highest priority
is given to those contributing factors that limit or deny fair housing choice of access to
opportunity. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority.
Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws
Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to Opportunity
2
Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
Contributing Factor 2B: Location and type of affordable housing
Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with disabilities
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure
Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services
Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
Contributing Factor 4B: Private discrimination
Based on the above goals and contributing factors, a number of actions were identified that can
be taken over the next five years that will promote fair housing for its residents. These action
items will be discussed at the end of this report, but a summary of these actions items is provided
below.
Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Program by Amending Title 17 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula’s regional housing need for
2,007 affordable units for lower income households. The City will establish an AHO on at
least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require:
minimum densities of 20 units per acre
50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses
multi-family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by
right, without a conditional use permit
Enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer to allocate $12.4 million in
remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to create or rehabilitate an
estimated 100 affordable housing units, subject to market forces. The selection process
includes priority consideration for proposals that incorporate housing units for persons with
disabilities. Based on a preliminary review of the siting for these proposals, none are located
in the three Census Tracts identified as having relatively high exposure to poverty.
Interviews with developers expected by July 2017; Selection of developer to occur by
December 2017; Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by June 2018; Entitlements to be secured
by June 2019. Construction to begin by June 2020. Estimates are subject to financing,
property negotiations, market demand, and economic forces.
All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a
result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative outreach methods
targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native American households
as well as households that include persons with disabilities. Units advertised to contain
specific accessibility features shall be prioritized for occupancy by persons identifying
themselves as disabled. At least 50 units will benefit the aforementioned protected classes
identified as having disproportionate housing needs. All (100%) of marketing plans will be
reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development Department prior
to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to
maintain records related to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the
City. Marketing plans will be based conceptually on HUD form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair
3
Housing Marketing Plan – Multi-Family Housing, where applicable or practical.
(Completion date subject to completion of affordable housing construction and
commencement of sale or leasing. Expected June 2021)
Require marketing materials for any new City of Temecula-assisted affordable housing
project to be made available in Spanish. (July 1, 2017)
Translate City Affordable Housing Brochure in Spanish to promote meaningful access to
affordable housing. (July 1, 2017)
Continue the partnership with Habitat for Humanity for the administration of a Critical Home
Repair program to provide funding to at least 30 low income home owners to make repairs
addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing.
Complete construction of Phase III of Madera Vista (formerly Summerhouse), which
includes 30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8
units are very low income. (Entitlements are complete; Building permits to be issued by
September 2017; Construction to be completed by September 2019)
Complete substantial rehabilitation of Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable
housing complex. 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (One
manager’s unit.) (Rehab has begun. Expected completion date – March 2018.)
Adopt an ADA Transition Plan to evaluate public facilities to ensure equal access for persons
with disabilities. The assessment will include 38 city parks, three trail systems, four
tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations, 110
signalized intersections, 95 bus stops and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. (Adopt
Plan by December 31, 2018)
Include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG
funds to upgrade the City’s infrastructure and public facilities to provide accessibility for
those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be constructed each year
with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding
during the planning cycle. (Consolidated Plan adopted by May 15, 2017. Allocation adopted
annually by June 30.)
In the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, allocate $150,000 for the construction of a new
sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services,
subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. (Plan adopted by May
15, 2017; Construction completed by December 31, 2018)
Construct accessibility upgrades at Pala Park, located in Census Tract 432.50, including 4
additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new playground with
approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive and provide access to those with
special needs. (Construction completed by January 2019).
Complete the construction of a new playground at Sam Hicks Park, located in Census Tract
512.00, utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure,
and two ADA compliant ramps. (Construction completed by December 31, 2017).
4
Annually provide approximately 12% of CDBG public service funds to a fair housing
provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair housing laws –
particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents. (Annually by June 30)
Increase public awareness of accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting
representatives of the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one
annual workshop hosted by the City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations will
be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community that
graduated from the City’s Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing
complexes in the City. (Annually by June 30)
The City will distribute and replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including
literature concerning reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at
five City facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips
Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center. (Monthly,
by the 30th day of each month)
The City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of
representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and
Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and affordable housing
advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents
with disabilities. (June 2022)
5
II. Community Participation Process
1. Describe outreach activities undertaken to encourage and broaden meaningful community
participation in the AFH process, including the types of outreach activities and dates of
public hearings or meetings. Identify media outlets used and include a description of
efforts made to reach the public, including those representing populations that are
typically underrepresented in the planning process such as persons who reside in areas
identified as R/ECAPs, persons who are limited English proficient (LEP), and persons with
disabilities. Briefly explain how these communications were designed to reach the broadest
audience possible. For PHAs, identify your meetings with the Resident Advisory Board.
The City planned a robust community outreach program in the development of the City’s
Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). To reach the largest number of people and a wide variety
of interests, the City conducted two surveys, one directed primarily at residents and the second
toward the stakeholders. The City believed that a separate stakeholder survey was necessary,
because many of the stakeholders did not reside in the City and many of the housing quality
questions in the resident survey might not be relevant. At the same time, the City sought more
in-depth responses from the stakeholders about the needs of the community and as well as to
obtain data supporting their responses.
The resident survey was available on the City webpage and advertised in the San Diego Union
Tribune newspaper, a media of general circulation in Temecula. The City engaged with City
staff that interacts with the public, including Senior Center staff and the Public Works,
Community Development, City Manager’s office and Community Services departments. The
survey was also distributed at the front counter and permit center at City Hall. To further reach
the public, paper copies of the survey were given to various focus groups including:
Temecula Pantry
Regional Homeless Alliance
Churches whose congregation mostly served minority populations
In the process, the City doubled the number of stakeholders from its previous consolidated
planning process as part of its outreach efforts to ensure a broader citizen participation process
to fully assess the City’s fair housing issues and community development needs. In many cases,
the City followed up with individual phone calls to achieve clarification and a greater
understanding of needs that they identified. The City notified over 150 stakeholders by email
of the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing preparation process and solicited their insight and
input. On June 20, 2016, stakeholders were asked to complete a fair housing and community
development needs assessment survey. A copy of the survey completed by residents is included
in this report as Appendix C in English and Spanish, with a copy of the survey completed by
stakeholders included in Appendix D and a full list of stakeholders consulted in Appendix E.
The City conducted two public hearings. A public hearing before the City Council was convened
on June 28, 2016 to obtain the views of the community on affirmatively furthering fair housing
in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs prior to drafting this AFH.
No public comments were received during this hearing. A second public hearing before the City
Council was convened September 27, 2016 to obtain comments on the draft Assessment of Fair
Housing. No comments were received.
6
The City conducted three community workshops. The first two community meetings were held
on June 29, 2016. The first was conducted at 4:00 p.m. to accommodate those who preferred to
come during working hours, followed by another after hours at 6:00 p.m. for those who could
not attend during the day A third community meeting was conducted on Saturday, July 30, 2016
at 10:00 a.m. The community meetings were interactive workshops with questions and answers
on various needs of the City including: fair housing, community facilities and infrastructure,
affordable housing and economic development.
A concerted effort was made to reach out to organizations that represented persons with
disabilities, both through the community meetings and during the City’s consultation stage of
its citizen participation process. During the outreach, the City talked with pastors of three
ethnocentric churches and provided surveys to them for their members.
The City does not have any Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).
2. Provide a list of organizations consulted during the community participation process.
The City expanded its mailing list of stakeholders to over 150 persons and agencies. (See
Appendix E for a list of the persons contacted.)
3. How successful were the efforts at eliciting meaningful community participation? If there
was low participation, provide the reasons.
Public hearings before the City Council were convened on June 28, 2016 and September 27,
2016 to obtain the views of the community on AFH-related data and affirmatively furthering
fair housing in the jurisdiction's housing and community development programs. No public
comments were received during this hearing. Low community participation is attributed to that
fact that community feedback was overwhelmingly positive during the public outreach process
and the community was generally satisfied with the fair housing efforts in the City. This would
consistent with previous community outreach surveys that indicated a 96% satisfaction rating
with the City.
A total of 91 persons responded to our surveys, 45 responses from residents and 46 responses
from stakeholders.
While the response rate was lower than expected, the City received valuable feedback from the
surveys received.
Another recent City-sponsored survey for local municipal issues was undertaken separately, and
just prior to the launch of the Assessment of Fair Housing Survey. In response to outreach and
marketing efforts for the resident survey, a number of residents indicated to staff that they had
already taken the survey when in fact they did not realize the Assessment of Fair Housing survey
was a separate survey on different topics. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities also
conducted a workshop during this same period. Despite significant promotional efforts, they
also faced low response issues.
The City conducted a random telephone survey for a Community Opinion Study in 2014 and
was able to secure the participation of 400 respondents. This survey found that 96 percent of
Temecula residents felt that they had a good or excellent quality of life in the City. Less than
one percent had a poor opinion of the City. There was no difference between the responses from
renters and homeowners. The greatest response was that they liked the small town feeling and
7
community involvement of its residents. Traffic congestion was cited as the greatest problem.
Over 90 percent of respondents were satisfied with City services, facilities and programs. Only
four percent said that the Temecula schools were poor. When compared to a similar study in
2000, there was no significant difference in opinion of the respondents, despite the fact that the
City had grown substantially during that period.
At the June 29, 2016 community meetings, eight residents and stakeholders participated in a
discussion of fair housing issues and community needs. The attendance at these meetings was
lower than expected due to local traffic challenges associated with a Cal-Trans freeway closure
at Rancho California Boulevard and the I-15 near City Hall. At the July 30, 2016 community
meeting, five residents and stakeholders participated in the discussion.
For future planning efforts, the City wishes to improve stakeholder and resident feedback. The
next AFH will be due 195 days prior to the start of the program year instead of 270 days prior
to the start of the program year. This will allow the City to schedule its community participation
process to coincide with a time of the year when many residents and stakeholders are not on
summer vacations.
4. Summarize all comments obtained in the community participation process. Include a
summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons why.
On June 3, 2016, the City consultant met with the pastors of Iglesia Bautista del Valle de
Temecula and they agreed to work with the City in obtaining input from their 300 member
Spanish-speaking congregation. In talking with the pastor, they considered traffic congestion
to the greatest problem that the City currently has. To reach the African American and Filipino
communities, the City consultant contacted Nu-Way International Christian Ministries, which
serves a mostly Black congregation and the Love of Christ Fellowship, which serves a mostly
Filipino congregation. The City also connected with Rancho Community Church and St.
Catherine Catholic Church which have ministries to minority groups.
June 29, 2016: At the two community meetings on June 29, 2016, participants had the following
comments. There was a discussion for the need of accessible sidewalks and the group was
excited about the improvements being made with CDBG funds to Old Town. According to the
participants, there is a need for another senior center and felt that an intergenerational facility
would be important to the residents. This could address the great need for more programs for
the teens. Participants pointed out that since most of the Pujol neighborhood needs have been
met, the area of greatest need for community facilities and programs is the Margarita corridor,
where Eagle Soar, a new community facility, was recently completed to serve the area.
There was considerable discussion about the need for support services for families with special
needs children. Currently, many of those services are only available in Riverside, which is forty
minutes away. They believed that the homelessness need is great in the City. Affordable housing
is the greatest need in the City with home prices climbing again. With the demand for housing,
it is hard for those who cannot provide all cash in a purchase. This is especially important issue
for the increasing senior population who will need care facilities in the future. Job training for
local employers is needed.
There is an issue with the school district not having the resources to fully fund special education
programs. There was a discussion about historic preservation with respect to the Vail Ranch
project. The City should look at whether there are any ADA issues at private facilities that could
8
be addressed with CDBG funds. There is a high demand for first time home buyer assistance,
especially for off-base military personnel and veterans.
A complete summary of the comments is provided in Appendix P.
July 30, 2016: At the community meeting on July 30, 2016, the participants had the following
comments. They noted that the City has made great strides in addressing the needs of the Pujol
community. There is still a need to include an additional bridge on Via Montezuma over the
creek from Jefferson to Diaz Road to provide greater access to that side of the community. There
was talk about the need for additional centers for teens.
There was a discussion about the increased demand for mental health facilities especially for the
young people. The expansion of programs for the special needs community seemed to be a
recurring theme at the community meetings for the City. There was a discussion for the increased
in demand for services for homeless persons and for an additional homeless shelter in the region,
and it was suggested that the City consider a zoning change to allow for “tiny houses” for the
homeless. Affordable housing is a major problem in the City, so much so that many of the local
workforce is priced out of the market. This is exasperated by the fact that the FHA mortgage
limits are artificially too low to assist many new homebuyers in Temecula’s housing market.
Participants in the meeting indicated that any racial/ethnic segregation was likely more of a
function of minorities, and particularly immigrants, choosing to locate near family and friends
for support. With housing prices increasing beyond many families’ income, there are increased
instances of multi-generational households. To address this issue, there are several private
housing projects, adjacent to Temecula, in unincorporated Riverside County, that provide a large
number of bedrooms to multi-generational families. This is believed to especially benefit
immigrant families with their assimilation process, who are accustomed to this familial situation.
There was discussion about the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood. It is the only Title
1 School in the City and participants thought that the area may be experiencing some problems.
A complete summary of the comments is provided in Appendix P.
Survey Results:
Two surveys were conducted with two purposes in mind. The first was to address fair housing
issues and the second was to initiate the five-year consolidated planning process. Some of the
consolidated planning process applied to the fair housing assessment and the results are
summarized below. (See Appendix M for a summary of the survey results and comments.)
While the survey responses were less than anticipated, the results reflected a good cross section
of the community.
Respondents included residents, various public services sectors, homeless providers, youth and
senior services, agencies serving the disabled, AIDS groups, health care, mental health, service
providers for the developmentally disabled, real estate and banking industries, affordable
housing industry, apartment association, law enforcement, regional government and City
officials. The survey revealed that if there is discrimination occurring in the community, most
people, whether residents or stakeholders, are unaware that it is occurring.
Consultations:
9
In conducting this assessment, the City consulted with a number of stakeholders including
meetings on June 3, 2016 with various church groups; June 29, 2016 with Habitat for Humanity;
August 3, 2016 with the Southwest Riverside Association of Realtors and Temecula Valley
Unified School District; August 5, 2016 with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities
and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County; August 11, 2016 with the Southwest
Riverside County Homeless Alliance, Riverside County Continuum of Care, Wells Fargo Bank,
and Inland Regional Center; and on August 12, 2016 with the Riverside County Sheriff’s
Department and on August 15, 2016 with the Riverside County Economic Development Agency
and Housing Authority of Riverside County.
10
III. Assessment of Past Goals, Actions and Strategies
1. Indicate what fair housing goals were selected by program participant(s) in recent Analyses
of Impediments, Assessments of Fair Housing, or other relevant planning documents:
a. Discuss what progress has been made toward their achievement:
The Analysis of Impediments identified the following impediments and observations:
Observation No 1 – Lack of affordable housing could become a future barrier to
housing choice.
Action Item No. 1-1 Continue to diversify housing stock. The City should make a
concerted effort to increase the number of affordable rentals located east of 1-15.
Progress Made: The City continues to support the development affordable housing.
The City issued a request for proposal(s) out for the remaining Tax Allocation Bond
proceeds ($12.4 million), which could include more than one site, some of which
are located east of 1-15. The request for proposals closed in May 2016. The City
received twenty proposals from interested developers. The proposals are currently
being reviewed by City staff.
Action Item No. 1-2. Address the basic needs of low income households. The City
should also use CDBG and other HUD funds it may receive to preserving the safety
net for its lowest income households who have difficulty finding affordable rentals
and are likely cost burdened and/or at risk of homelessness. This could include
supporting homeless shelters, food pantries, emergency assistance programs and
social services operations.
Progress Made: Since the adoption of the City’s previous Analysis of
Impediments, the City has focused its CDBG public services funds on addressing its
homeless needs as well as those at-risk of becoming homeless by providing
assistance to the Inclement Weather Shelter Program, clothing for low income
school children, domestic violence services, child care services and assistance to
three organizations that provide food services to the homeless and those at risk of
homelessness. The City also provides discretionary General Fund moneys to a
number of organizations, which are listed in Appendix I. The City also participates
in the Continuum of Care as well as a Southwest Riverside County Regional
Homeless Alliance that includes four cities in the region.
In addition, the City is providing a home repair and maintenance grant program to
low income households administered by Habitat for Humanity. The City has also
funded a solar energy installation program for low income homeowners through
GRID.
The City amended its ordinances to efficiency units housing structures in 2013. The
City now allows the use of Section 8 vouchers for those with second units on their
property.
11
The City supported retaining the affordability of the Rancho California apartments
at the TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) hearing which were at-
risk of being converted to market rate rents.
Observation No. 2 — Steering may be a fair housing impediment.
Action Item 2. Conduct fair housing outreach and education with Temecula’s real
estate professionals.
Progress Made: The City has annually provided CDBG funding to the Fair
Housing Council of Riverside County for fair housing education, training and
enforcement program for low income households. The City also provides fair
housing information on its City website and includes referrals to the Fair Housing
Council of Riverside County for residents and nonprofits.
Impediment No. 3 —Zoning regulations could be improved to facilitate affordable
housing development.
Action Item 3. The City should clarify the definition of family so that it does not
exclude unrelated parties living in group home settings and add congregate care and
residential care facilities with seven or more occupants to some residential zones.
Progress Made: On April 23, 2013, the City adopted Ordinance 13-03 which
defined certain housing-related terms, designated zoning districts for residential care
facilities, transitional, supportive and efficiency unit housing and established
development standards for efficiency unit housing. Included in that ordinance was
a change in the definition of family.
The City is intending to bring to the City Council an ordinance in 2017 that would
establish an Affordable Housing Overlay that will identify sites throughout the City
where transitional and supportive housing is allowed by right, identify incentives for
affordable and senior housing and establish a density bonus program. This will assist
the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets
established by the Southern California Association of Governments.
Staff is continuing to encourage opportunities for senior and affordable housing
projects throughout the City.
In the update of the City’s Housing Element, the City committed to taking the
following actions to address fair housing:
o Provide incentives for affordable housing development
o Increase housing options through better definition of both transitional and
supportive housing
o Provide homebuyer assistance
o Subdivide larger sites for development of housing for low-income
households.
Like all cities in California, the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies has had a
major adverse impact in the ability of the City to aggressively accomplish some of
12
its affordable housing goals. As a result, the City’s homebuyer program has been
put on hold as well as its land assemblage programs.
The City has $12.4 million in Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. The City recently
issued a request for proposals (RFP) seeking innovative projects that address one or
more of the following housing needs: special needs, veterans, seniors, housing first,
transitional and supportive housing. Reductions in HUD funding for housing has
further limited the City to address these needs.
Observation No. 4 — High loan denials in low income area.
Action Item No. 4. Invest in low income neighborhoods. The City should invest in
community projects in its low income areas. Such investments will mitigate
neighborhood deterioration, which is particularly important given the high rates of
loan denials in the areas east of 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 predominantly occupied by
members of protected classes.
Progress Made: The City has focused its CDBG capital funding in CDBG eligible
census tracts, including the Pujol neighborhood and Old Town. The City has
upgraded Temecula Community Center and parks and is providing sidewalk
improvements in those areas. Mixed-income housing developments are
transforming this area into a vibrant place to live and work, while maintaining its
diversity.
Five years ago, the City was coping with a high foreclosure rate as a result of the
housing bust of 2007-2008. It was estimated that nearly 15% of the housing stock
was bank-owned or in some state of foreclosure. According to Property Radar, there
were only 97 bank-owned properties (REO inventory) in the City in May 2016. This
was a drop of 22.4% in the past year.
Since 2007-2008, housing prices have rebounded and fewer homeowners are under
water with their mortgages. According to the Southwest Riverside County Realtor
Report published in 2016, the median home price is $436,577 with the average home
sale exceeding $500,000 for the first time since December 2007. This indicates that
median home prices have increased by 5% in the last 12 months. Compared to 2007
sales price levels, the City is now less than 10% of what it was at its highest levels.
While this is good for the homeowner, it can be difficult for the first-time
homebuyers to afford homes in Temecula. Nonetheless, home sales have increased
by 18% for both April and May of 2016 over 2015 levels.
The City evaluated home loans for both mortgages and refinancing. The data
revealed that none of the racial or ethnic groups experienced disproportionately
lower approval rates, compared to other groups in the City. (See Appendix K for
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data charts.)
Observation No. 5 — There is a lack of information and knowledge about fair housing.
13
Action Item No. 5. Improve access to fair housing information. The City of
Temecula should add easy to find fair housing information on its website. It is
critical that the City have a link to HUD’s complaint-taking website and the State of
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), where residents
may file complaints if they so desire.
Progress Made: The City has added information on its website directing residents
with fair housing questions to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County website
that contains resource links to HUD, DFEH and other legal and regulatory agencies.
The City site also provides an explanation of the services provided by the Fair
Housing Council.
b. Discuss how you have been successful in achieving past goals, and/or how you have
fallen short of achieving those goals (including potentially harmful unintended
consequences); and
As described above, the City has been very successful in achieving its goals. They are
reflected in its commitment to address the needs that were identified as well as by the results
of the survey.
The greatest deterrent in meeting the needs for affordable housing has been the dissolution
of the redevelopment agencies by the State of California. This had been the greatest source
of funding for cities such as Temecula in addressing its affordable housing needs.
c. Discuss any additional policies, actions, or steps that you could take to achieve past
goals, or mitigate the problems you have experienced.
Without the use of redevelopment funds, the City will be highly dependent upon the limited
funds available through the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and HUD funded
programs. The City will continue to pursue affordable housing grant program opportunities
and partnerships with nonprofits, county, regional, and State agencies.
As mentioned earlier in this Assessment, the City is intending to bring to the City Council
an ordinance in 2017 that would establish an Affordable Housing Overlay that will identify
sites throughout the City where transitional and supportive housing is allowed by right,
identify incentives for affordable and senior housing and establish a density bonus program.
This will assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets
established by the Southern California Association of Governments.
Also previously mentioned, the City issued a request for proposal(s) out for the remaining
Tax Allocation Bond proceeds ($12.4 million), which could include more than one site, some
of which are located east of 1-15. The request for proposals closed in May 2016. The City
received twenty proposals from interested developers. The proposals are currently being
reviewed by City staff.
d. Discuss how the experience of program participant(s) with past goals has influenced
the selection of current goals.
Until the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies, the City had an aggressive and effective
program in addressing its affordable housing needs. Through the redevelopment program,
the City assisted eleven rental projects that provided 588 units for low and moderate income
14
families and individuals. In addition, it provided for 18 owner-occupied housing units. (See
Appendix J for a list of the redevelopment projects completed by the City prior to the
dissolution of the redevelopment agency.)
Current goals are being established as part of this planning process with the understanding
that housing and community development resources are scarcer and the development of
affordable housing is more challenging.
15
IV. Fair Housing Analysis
A. Demographic Summary
1. Describe demographic patterns in the jurisdiction and region, and describe trends over
time (since 1990).
In comparing Map 1-Race and Ethnicity 2010 with Map 2-Race and Ethnicity Trends 1990,
the City of Temecula has grown substantially in population. Through this period of
tremendous growth, the City remains a diverse and integrated community, and there are no
significant concentrations of segregation. Table 2-Demographic Trends describes the
growth rates during the twenty year period from 1990 to 2010 and pr ovides trends for
race/ethnicity, national origin, limited English proficiency, sex, age and families with
children.
While all racial and ethnic groups, except Native Americans, have increased numerically,
Hispanics and Asians have far exceeded the proportionate growth of other racial and ethnic
groups. Whites are continuing to increase, but at a slower rate. This is also true for the
region as a whole. This trend is also reflected in the percentage of persons from other
nations. However, the proportion of those with limited English proficiency has not increased
as dramatically as the ethnic populations have, both within the City and in the region as
whole. The number families with children in proportion to the general population (and
correspondingly those under the age of 18) increased over the twenty year period, but
decreased in the last ten years for both the City and region.
2. Describe the location of homeowners and renters in the jurisdiction and region, and
describe trends over time.
Multi-family areas are located throughout the City particularly along major arterials, in the
downtown area and west side of the town. Undeveloped land in the north and south is
projected on the General Plan for higher density residential. (See Appendix F for a map of
the land use element of the City’s adopted General Plan.)
B. General Issues
i. Segregation/Integration
1. Analysis
a. Describe and compare segregation levels in the jurisdiction and region.
Identify the racial/ethnic groups that experience the highest levels of
segregation.
According to the HUD provided Map 1-Race and Ethnicity, Temecula had no areas
of concentrations of racial or ethnic groups. All ethnic groups are spread evenly
throughout the City. The City also had no HUD-defined racially or ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP areas). Local knowledge confirmed this
observation. Map 2 shows no appreciable difference from 1990.
This is also confirmed with Table 3-Racial and Ethnicity Dissimilarity Trends.
According to HUD, if a jurisdiction has an Index value of less than 40, there is high
16
diversity (low segregation) in the City. The City has a score between 18.93 and
26.05 for the various racial and ethnic groups.
Likewise, Map 3-National Origin shows no segregation pattern based on national
origin. The top five population groups are spread evenly throughout the City,
showing the City’s diversity and high integration.
In comparing the City with the region from Table 2-Demographic Trends, the
percentage of Blacks and Hispanics is about half that in the region. There are more
Whites and Asians in Temecula than the regional average. Twenty-two percent of
the City’s Hispanics were born in Mexico compared to 27% for the region based
on calculation of figures in Table 1. Eighty-nine percent of the Hispanic
immigrants are Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This is roughly the same as for
the region.
There was a significant increase in the percentage of foreign born over the past
twenty years, but the percentage of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons
remained about the same, even though their population increased. Although only
3% of the population, 40% of Filipinos are LEPs, compared to 27% region-wide.
According to Map 4-Persons with LEP, their populations are spread evenly across
the City.
According to Table 1, the largest disabled population are those who are ambulatory
(3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty (3.54%), independent living
difficulty (2.90%) and those with hearing loss (2.67%). There is probably
considerable overlap in these populations.
According to Table 1, eight percent of the City’s population is seniors compared to
10.4% region-wide. Fifty-six percent of the households are families with children
compared to 51% region-wide. While all age groups increased in population, there
was a slight decrease in the percentage of children and an increase in those of
middle age. That could further be seen in a decrease in the proportion of families
with children, even though it remains higher than the regional percentages.
b. Explain how these segregation levels have changed over time (since 1990).
According to Table 2-Demographic Trends, racial and ethnic diversity has
increased dramatically in the City over the past twenty years. Except Native
Americans, the population of all racial and ethnic groups has grown; however, the
Hispanic and Asian populations have increased at a much faster rate than the other
population groups. Hispanics have increased from 14.5% to 25% of the population
and Asians / Pacific Islanders from 2.40% to 9.71%. Despite an increase in
population of over 28,000 in twenty years, the proportion of Whites has decreased
from 80.23% in 1990 to 57% in 2010. Blacks have increased at a less dramatic rate
from 1.3% to 4% from 1990 to 2010, but showed a slight decline percentagewise
from 4.16% in 2000 to 3.88% in 2010, even though their population increased.
While Native Americans constitute only .6% of the population, they were the only
ethnic group to show a decrease in population between 2000 and 2010.
Through the tremendous growth in populations, Table 3 demonstrates that the
Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Index range was still between 18.93 and 26.05, well
below the HUD threshold of 40, meaning there is minimal segregation and high
17
integration within the City. This compares to a range between 41.29 and 47.66 for
the region.
c. Identify areas with relatively high segregation and integration by
race/ethnicity, national origin, or LEP group, and indicate the predominant
groups living in each area.
According to Maps 1 through 4 pertaining to racial and ethnic data and dissimilarity
indexes, there are no patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity, national origin
or LEP groups in the City.
d. Consider and describe the location of owner and renter occupied housing in
determining whether such housing is located in segregated or integrated areas.
Based on the above discussion, there are no patterns of segregation in the City by
race, ethnicity, national origin or LEP. The majority of multi-family residential is
located in areas with easy access to transit systems and employment centers
throughout the City.
e. Discuss how patterns of segregation have changed over time (since 1990).
There has been little change in segregation patterns over the last twenty years even
though the City has grown dramatically during that period. The City has no patterns
of segregation.
f. Discuss whether there are any demographic trends, policies, or practices that
could lead to higher segregation in the jurisdiction in the future.
Based upon data in Table 2, the trend is that the City is becoming increasingly
diverse as it has grown over the last twenty years. This is in line with trends
throughout the region. Maps 1 and 2 do not reveal trends of segregation patterns
forming within the City as a result of the growth.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if
any, about segregation in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with
other protected characteristics.
Information gathered from community meetings and surveys along with data
sources provided stakeholders did not provide any information that segregation
exists in the City affecting other protected characteristics was provided through
stakeholder consultations. Workshop participants also concluded that the City is
highly diverse.
The region does have higher scores than the City, indicating a very diverse and
integrated population, but as mentioned in the introduction, the region represents
the largest MSA in the nation.
18
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its
assessment of segregation, including activities such as place-based investments
and mobility options for protected class groups.
CDBG funds have been focused on the needs of the City’s CDBG eligible census
tracts. Public services and housing programs have been focused on the CDBG
eligible areas of the City. (See Appendix F for the location of the CDBG eligible
areas.)
3. Contributing Factors of Segregation
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and
region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or
increase the severity of segregation.
☐ Community Opposition
☐ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
☐ Lack of community revitalization strategies
☐ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
☐ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
☐ Lack of regional cooperation
☐ Land use and zoning laws
☐ Lending Discrimination
☐ Location and type of affordable housing
☐ Occupancy codes and restrictions
☐ Private discrimination
☒ Other: There are no patterns in the City.
ii. R/ECAPs
1. Analysis
a. Identify any R/ECAPs or groupings of R/ECAP tracts within the jurisdiction.
HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within the City.
b. Which protected classes disproportionately reside in R/ECAPs compared to the
jurisdiction and region?
N/A
c. Describe how R/ECAPs have changed over time (since 1990).
N/A
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if
any, about R/ECAPs in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups with other
protected characteristics.
19
N/A
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its
assessment of R/ECAPs, including activities such as place-based investments
and mobility options for protected class groups.
N/A
3. Contributing Factors of R/ECAPs
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and
region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or
increase the severity of R/ECAPs.
☐ Community Opposition
☐ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
☐ Lack of community revitalization strategies
☐ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
☐ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
☐ Lack of regional cooperation
☐ Land use and zoning laws
☐ Lending Discrimination
☐ Location and type of affordable housing
☐ Occupancy codes and restrictions
☐ Private discrimination
☒ Other: Not Applicable. HUD data and mapping does not identify any R/ECAPs within
the City.
iii. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
1. Analysis
a. Educational Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to proficient schools based on
race/ethnicity, national origin, and family status.
The City does not have jurisdiction over the local schools. They are
administered by independent public school districts, such as the Temecula
Valley Unified School District.
Table 12 - Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity provides an index
regarding how well fourth graders of the various racial and ethnic groups are
doing on their State exams in comparison with national indices. Higher scores
indicate higher proficiencies in the schools.
According to Table 12, the school proficiency index is essentially the same for
all races and ethnic groups in the City. On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being
the highest, Hispanics scored 79.00, Blacks at 80.36, Native Americans at 80.86,
20
Asians at 81.58 and Whites at 82.20. In comparison, the region scored between
40.97 for Hispanics on the low end and 58.09 for Whites on the high end.
The City has one Title 1 school (Temecula Elementary School) in the northern
end of the City. A school is a Title 1 School if at least 40% of the children
participate in a free or reduced lunch program. The school is located in one of
the City’s CDBG eligible areas. There are no Title 1 Middle Schools or High
Schools in the City.
The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children from
school to school subject to availability. Parents would responsible for providing
transportation to the new school. Public transportation is available, although it
may be limited based on the location of the school from their place of residence.
ii. Describe the relationship between the residency patterns of racial/ethnic,
national origin, and family status groups and their proximity to proficient
schools.
There is no difference in the school proficiency index Citywide between the
higher income households and those populations below the poverty line;
however, there is some difference in scores between some of the schools in the
higher income areas and one school in a lower income area in the northwest part
of the City. This can be found on Map 9 Demographics and School Proficiency
by Race/Ethnicity, National Origin and Family Status. The lower income area
is predominately Whites along with some Mexican, Korean, and Filipino
immigrants. The Temecula Elementary School is located in this neighborhood.
iii. Describe how school-related policies, such as school enrollment policies,
affect a student’s ability to attend a proficient school. Which protected
class groups are least successful in accessing proficient schools?
The City does not have jurisdiction over the public schools. However, all
protected classes Citywide are performing at above regional levels as discussed
above and there is virtually no difference between the various racial groups.
The school district has a policy that parents can transfer their children from
school to school subject to availability. Parents would be responsible for
providing transportation to the new school. Public transportation is available,
although it may be limited based on the location of the school from their place
of residence.
b. Employment Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to jobs and labor markets by protected
class groups.
The Jobs Proximity Index in Table 12-Opportunity Indicators provides an index
for the physical distances between place of residence and jobs by race/ethnicity.
The Labor Market Index also in Table 12 provides a measure of unemployment
21
rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and
above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. The higher scores
represent greater the access to employment opportunities, and are better
prepared to enter the labor market with higher incomes.
According to the Map 10 series for Job Proximities, persons in the lower-income
areas live substantially closer to employment opportunities than their
counterparts in the higher-income areas, often located farther away from the
Interstate. Again, there was little difference between racial and ethnic groups
or national origin according to Map 10 and Table 12 for Job Proximity.
The Labor Market Index for the various races and ethnicities range from 46.38
for Native Americans to 49.79 for Whites. These scores, which are based on a
scale from 1 to 100, would be in the average range based on HUD’s perspective
nationwide. There was no difference between the City as a whole and those
below the poverty line. In fact, all races except Asians who were below the
poverty line had slightly higher scores than those above the poverty level. They
ranged between 44.15 for Asians and 51.31 for Blacks with Whites at 48.79.
When compared with the region, the City residents scored much higher. The
region ranged from 24.20 for Hispanics to 43.02 for Asians and unlike the City,
there was a substantial difference for those below the poverty line. They ranged
from 16.42 for Hispanics to 30.51 for Asians. Whites were at 25.55.
Although some classes are available locally, the lack of a community college
in Temecula in 2010 is probably part of the reason for this deficiency.
However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula, including
Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands, Concordia
University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an
improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas in the region
have notably higher ratings such as in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State
San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the
west.
ii. How does a person’s place of residence affect their ability to obtain a job?
According to Map 11 Labor Market Engagement, those living in the high
income areas have a greater labor-force participation rate than those who are
living in the lower income areas. The Job Proximity Index on Table 12
demonstrates virtually no difference between racial and ethnic groups, ranging
from 43.37 for Asians on the low end to 44.36 for Hispanics on the upper end.
There was a wider range for those below the poverty line. They ranged from
39.32 for Native Americans to 57.42 for Asians. Except for Native Americans,
all their scores exceeded the counterparts who were above the poverty line.
There was no substantial difference between the City and the region for these
indices.
iii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin, or family status groups are least
successful in accessing employment?
22
There was no appreciable difference between the various groups.
c. Transportation Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to transportation based on place of
residence, cost, or other transportation related factors.
The Transportation Cost Index in Table 12 provides an index regarding the cost
of transportation and proximity to public transportation. The score for this index
was the only index where the City fared lower than the region. The low scores
indicate that the City needs to improve access to public transportation, however
low transportation costs are a challenge to the entire region, and are not just
limited to City boundaries.
According to Map 12-Demographics and Transit Trips and Map 13-
Demographics and Low Transportation Costs, the lower-income areas had the
highest scores, indicating that lower income residents have greater usage of
public transportation than the higher income residents. This would be expected
since the lower income persons are more dependent upon public transportation.
The scores in Table 12 ranged from 18.10 for Native Americans and 19.98 for
Whites to 25.05 for Hispanics. The scores for those below the poverty line have
greater usage of public transportation as well, but higher than those who are
above the poverty level. They ranged from 24.93 for Whites to 35.10 for Asians.
The exception is that Native Americans had a low score at 15.77. The reason
for that anomaly is unclear.
There is one area in the north that has a low usage of public transportation. This
is Census Tract 432.17 known as the Meadowview neighborhood. It is not an
eligible CDBG area, because its median income is too high. It is also an area,
as shown in Map 11, with a higher than average labor market engagement. This
would indicate that there is not a great of a need for public transportation in
that particular area.
The scores for the region were low, from 25.75 to 32.68 for the region as a
whole; and 29.20 to 37.05 for those populations below the poverty line;
however, somewhat higher than for the City for racial and ethnic groups.
ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most
affected by the lack of a reliable, affordable transportation connection
between their place of residence and opportunities?
Except for Native Americans below the poverty line, there was no difference
with the various protected class groups with access to low cost transportation.
The reason for the anomaly is unclear.
iii. Describe how the jurisdiction’s and region’s policies, such as public
transportation routes or transportation systems designed for use personal
vehicles, affect the ability of protected class groups to access transportation.
Public transportation is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency and is not
under the authority of the City. However, the City is served by several bus
23
lines that provide service throughout the week and weekends. (See Appendix
H for a map showing the service provided to the community.) As it has done
in the past, the City will continue to partner with developers to privately fund
transportation options as development occurs.
d. Low Poverty Exposure Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in exposure to poverty by protected class groups.
The Low Poverty Index rates family poverty by household (based on the federal
poverty line) provides an index regarding the access to poverty by census tract.
The higher the scores, the less likely a neighborhood is exposed to poverty.
There was little difference between the various ethnic and racial groups. Indices
ranged from 65.42 for Hispanics to 71.23 for Whites, which indicates that all
racial and ethnic groups have low exposure to poverty in Temecula. Except for
Asians, there was little difference between those below the poverty line. They
ranged for 54.98 for Blacks to 67.95 for Native Americans. The only anomaly
was for Asians at 46.21 who were more exposed to poverty than their
counterparts. This could be reflective of recent Filipino immigrants which now
constitute over 3% of the City’s population and 40% are limited English
speaking according to Table 1. Though a small minority group, there are a
number living in a low income area.
Again, there was a substantial difference between the City residents and those
within the region. In the region, the range was between 37.51 for Hispanics to
60.42 for Asians. For those below the poverty line, there was even a larger
difference. They ranged from 23.78 for Hispanics to 42.30 for Asians. City
residents have less exposure to poverty than the region as a whole.
ii. What role does a person’s place of residence play in their exposure to
poverty?
According to Map 14-Demographics and Poverty, there were three adjoining
census tracts in north Temecula that had low scores indicating a higher exposure
to poverty. Three of the census tracts are CDBG eligible lower-income areas,
but one of the adjoining areas is not, yet affected by its exposure to poverty.
Another adjoining area is an eligible CDBG area but did not indicate a high
exposure to poverty. The area has a number of market-rate and subsidized
apartment complexes in the vicinity of the Temecula Elementary School, which
may be affecting this index score. The corridor also contains many of the City’s
commercial shopping centers.
iii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups are most
affected by these poverty indicators?
There is not a substantial difference among the groups, except for Asians below
the poverty line. This group may include recent immigrants from the
Philippines, some of which have limited English proficiency.
24
iv. Describe how the jurisdiction’s and region’s policies affect the ability of
protected class groups to access low poverty areas.
The City has adopted land use policies concentrating multi-family housing
projects along major arterials, shopping, employment centers, and recreational
facilities. This allows lower income persons easier access to opportunities; but
at the same time, concentration of multi-family housing may statistically
increase residents’ exposure to poverty.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) represents six
counties in the southern California area, which includes Temecula and
Riverside County. In an effort to meet the affordable housing needs of the
region and distribute this need evenly across the region, SCAG has provided
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets for creating a certain
number of affordable housing units in every city in the region. The City’s goal
is to provide housing for 375 very low income households and 251 low income
households. The City is using its available resources and the Affordable
Housing Overlay to meet those targeted amounts.
e. Environmentally Healthy Neighborhood Opportunities
i. Describe any disparities in access to environmentally healthy
neighborhoods by protected class groups.
The Environmental Health Index measures exposure based on EPA estimates of
air quality carcinogenic, respiratory and neurological toxins by neighborhood.
The higher the scores, the less likely households are exposed to adverse
environmental conditions.
According to Table 12 Environmental Health Index, there was virtually no
difference between the racial/ethnic groups with ranges from 39.99 to 40.42.
For those below the poverty line, the range was similar with a range from 38.06
to 40.93. This means that in this category, all City’s racial/ethnic population
groups and income groups are slightly below the national average in their
exposure to environmental issues. The City scored somewhat better than the
region where the scores ranged from 26.57 to 41.33 and for those below the
poverty line, ranging from 24.89 to 40.58. The wide scoring range for the region
would reflect the enormous size of the region. The areas with the greatest
exposure to environmental health concerns are located along the freeway.
Temecula’s exposure to environmental health issues is lower than the region,
on average.
ii. Which racial/ethnic, national origin or family status groups have the least
access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods?
According to Map 15-Demographics and Environmental Health and
Race/Ethnicity, there was one area east of the Interstate, north of Temecula
Parkway, west of Margarita Road and south of Pauba that had a low
environmental score in this category, but there was no concentration of any of the
protected groups in that area. The only distinguishing feature was that there were
25
few households with families in that area. The Temecula Valley Hospital is
located in that area.
f. Patterns in Disparities in Access to Opportunity
i. Identify and discuss any overarching patterns of access to opportunity and
exposure to adverse community factors based on race/ethnicity, national
origin or familial status. Identify areas that experience an aggregate of
poor access to opportunity and high exposure to adverse factors. Include
how these patterns compare to patterns of segregation and R/ECAPs.
Analysis of the HUD-provided maps and data did not reveal any overarching
patterns of poor access to opportunity and did not reveal adverse community
factors. However, Census Tract 432.16 along the Margarita Corridor, is
identified on Map 14 as having high exposure to poverty. Two of the three
block groups are in CDBG-eligible areas and the third is not. Yet the HUD data
indicates that the third block group also has a high exposure to poverty. The
only Title 1 School in the district is located in this neighborhood. The area is
characterized by commercial retail and uses and the presences of a mix of multi-
family and single family housing. Two of the multi-family complexes in one of
the block groups are subsidized, the 40-unit Oak Tree Apartments on Lyndie
Lane and the 55 unit Rancho California Apartments off of Margarita Road.
There are a number of subsidized units west of Interstate 15, which is a CDBG-
eligible area, but that area does not have a high exposure factor. This could be
partly because the City has focused its CDBG and local funds in addressing this
area.
The City does not show any patterns of segregation, nor does it have any
R/ECAPS.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information,
if any, about disparities in access to opportunity in the jurisdiction and
region affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD-provided
information regarding the lack of disparities in access to opportunity in
Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to
its assessment of disparities in access to opportunity, including any
activities aimed at improving access to opportunities for areas that may
lack such access, or in promoting access to opportunity (e.g., proficient
schools, employment opportunities, and transportation).
Consultations with residents and stakeholders confirmed the HUD-provided
information regarding the lack of disparities in access to opportunity in
Temecula affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
26
The City is involved in a number of efforts aimed at improving air quality of
the entire region including the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) Clean Cities Coalition, which aims to reduce the consumption of
petroleum fuels. The City also participates in WRCOG’s Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TUMF program makes
improvements to the regional transportation system and provides
transportation demand management through funds from new development.
3. Contributing Factors of Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region.
Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the
severity of disparities in access to opportunity.
☐ Access to financial services
☐ The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation
☐ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
☐ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities
☐ Lack of regional cooperation
☐ Land use and zoning laws
☐ Lending Discrimination
☐ Location of employers
☐ Location of environmental health hazards
☐ Location of proficient schools and school assignment policies
☐ Location and type of affordable housing
☐ Occupancy codes and restrictions
☐ Private discrimination
☒ Other: None of the maps and tables provided by HUD, nor our consultations with residents
and stakeholders, revealed any significant disparities in access opportunities.
iv. Disproportionate Housing Needs
1. Analysis
a. Which groups (by race/ethnicity and family status) experience higher rates of
housing cost burden, overcrowding, or substandard housing when compared
to other groups? Which groups also experience higher rates of severe housing
burdens when compared to other groups?
HUD requires all grantees to compare and assess the burdens for housing for
different groups in the community. A disproportionately greater burden exists when
the members of a particular group experience a housing problem at a greater rate (90
percent or more) than the group as a whole.
Table 9-Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs shows
the percentage of race/ethnicity groups and families with children experiencing two
potential categories of housing burden. The first category is households
experiencing one of four housing problems:
27
Housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of income for
monthly housing costs including utilities)
Overcrowding
Lacking a complete kitchen
Lacking plumbing
The second category is households experiencing “one of four severe housing
problems” which are:
Severe housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 50% of one’s
income for monthly housing costs including utilities)
Overcrowding
Lacking a complete kitchen
Lacking plumbing
Table 10-Demographics of Household with Severe Housing Cost Burden
demonstrates the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity and family size
experiencing severe housing cost burden. There is no substantial difference between
racial and ethnic groups. Non-family households demonstrated the highest cost
burdens. The City scores are reflective of the region.
According to Table 9, half of the City’s households are experiencing one of the
four housing problems identified above. There is a disparity in this category with
47.37% of the White households experiencing a housing problem, Asians at
54.31% and Blacks at 55.04%. Hispanics are higher at 62.24% and Native
Americans at 80.90%. For severe housing problems, they range from 20.76% for
White households to 35.56% for Hispanic households. Native Americans were at
33.71%.
Map 5 - Publicly Supported Housing and Map 6 - Housing Choice Vouchers
(HCV) provides the location of the limited number of publicly supported and
HVC housing units in the City. Given the housing costs in the City and the region,
there is a high demand for affordable rental housing.
While comparable with the region, all households, except Black households, were
slightly more burdened in the City than in the region. For those below the poverty
level, all groups, except for Native Americans, were less burdened in the City than
in the region. Based on our examination of the data in Table 9 and demonstrated
in Map 7-Housing Cost Burden and Race/Ethnicity, there were no disproportionate
housing problems based on race, ethnicity, national origin, household type and
size.
These results are not unexpected with the high costs of housing in Southern
California as a whole.
28
b. Which areas in the jurisdiction and region experience the greatest housing
burdens? Which of these areas align with segregated areas, integrated areas,
or R/ECAPs and what are the predominant race/ethnicity or national origin
groups in such areas?
There are no R/ECAPS in the City. While mostly uniform throughout the City,
the greatest housing burden appears to be in the far north and adjacent to it in the
wealthier parts of the City. In the lower-income neighborhoods, there is much less
of a housing burden. According to Map 7-Housing Cost Burden, the greatest
housing burdens are in the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood which has
a concentration of apartments on the far north, indicating the need for affordable
rental housing. While there are two subsidized housing projects in the area, which
should lower the housing burden scores, there are also several market -rate
apartment complexes as well.
c. Compare the needs of families with children for housing units with two, and
three or more bedrooms with the available existing housing stock in each
category of publicly supported housing.
Based on the data in the Table 11, there are a limited number of Project Based
Section 8 units for families in the City. There are 54 two- and three-bedroom units
and only 36 units are households with children. There are also a limited number
of Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) units where there are 30 two- and
three-bedroom units and only thirteen units are households with children.
Additional affordable housing units for families continue to be a high demand in
the City.
d. Describe the differences in rates of renter and owner occupied housing by
race/ethnicity in the jurisdiction and region.
For the City, 67% of the households are owner-occupied and 33% are renter
occupied. While general conclusions may be drawn, the data was not provided by
HUD and is not available at the local level by tenure. It is evident that there
continues to be a high demand for Section 8 vouchers due to the housing cost burden
experienced by renters.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if
any, about disproportionate housing needs in the jurisdiction and region
affecting groups with other protected characteristics.
Based on a consultation with Inland Regional Center, and feedback from the
community workshops, there is a large need in the region for affordable housing for
adults with developmental disabilities. According to the Center, there are 651
persons with developmental disabilities in the three zip codes (92590, 92591 and
92592) that comprise the Temecula area. Some of these include large rural areas
outside the City and it is believed that at least 200 of these individuals live outside
the City limits. Regionally, many of those who independently live in group homes
face substandard conditions, according to Inland Regional Center. However, they
29
indicate that this is not an issue within the City. The greatest demand is for studio
and one-bedroom units for those with low and moderate disabilities.
In addition, there is a growing number of families for families with autistic children
in the community. The stress on families with autistic children is creating a demand
for housing single parent units. Often there is more than one child with autism in
the home creating the demand for larger three and four bedroom units. Children
with autism require housing units to address their sensory needs, such as dimmer
lights and controls on hot water faucets. Inland Regional Center also advised that
these units not be concentrated in a single complex so that integration of these
families can be achieved.
The City has met with developers regarding the needs of residents with special
needs. Some developers are willing to include options in the construction of new
homes that meet the sensory needs of residents with disabilities.
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its
assessment of disproportionate housing needs. For PHAs, such information
may include a PHA’s overriding housing needs analysis.
The City does not manage any public housing projects.
3. Contributing Factors of Disproportionate Housing Needs
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and
region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or
increase the severity of disproportionate housing needs.
☒ The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
☐ Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
☐ Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
☐ Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or
amenities
☐ Land use and zoning laws
☐ Lending Discrimination
☒ Other: Increased demand of affordable housing with supportive services to serve
special needs populations.
C. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
1. Analysis
a. Publicly Supported Housing Demographics
i. Are certain racial/ethnic groups more likely to be residing in one category
of publicly supported housing than other categories (public housing,
project-based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments,
and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV))?
30
Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be living in Project-based Section 8
housing units than reflective of the overall City percentages for these racial and
ethnic groups. According to the Housing Authority, there are 109 households
receiving Tenant-based Section 8 vouchers in Temecula. Ninety are White,
seventeen are Black, one is Asian, and one is Native American. Of the 109, 30
are Hispanic and 79 are non-Hispanic. Eighty five (85) are one person
households and the rest are families. Seventy-six (76) are elderly and 53 have
disabilities. The households are spread across the City with 47 households are
in zip code 92590; 51 in 92591 and 11 in 92592.
ii. Compare the demographics, in terms of protected class, of residents of each
category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project-based
Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, and HCV) to the
population in general, and persons who meet the income eligibility
requirements for the relevant category of publicly supported housing.
Include in the comparison, a description of whether there is a higher or
lower proportion of groups based on protected class.
According to Table 6 -Publicly Supported Housing Residents by
Race/Ethnicity, the HCV program (better known as the Tenant Based Section
8) generally reflects the population composition of the City, with the
exception of Asians. There are 57% White, 16% Black, 27% Hispanic, but
no Asians receive vouchers . It should be noted that Asians do not comprise
a large percentage within the City’s Section 8 population. There are a greater
proportion of Blacks and Hispanics taking advantage of the Project -Based
Section 8 program than the general population of the City . Only 37.04% of
the residents were White with 20.37% Black and 40.74% Hispanic. Most
of the units are occupied by those with incomes less than 30% of the
County’s median income.
According to the Housing Authority of Riverside County, there are 1 09
tenant-based Section 8 rental assistance vouchers in Temecula. Seventy-six
of the households are elderly and 53 have disabilities. Some of the
households are elderly and have disabilities .
b. Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
i. Describe patterns in the geographic location of publicly supported
housing by program category (public housing, project-based Section 8,
Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, HCV, and LIHTC) in
relation to previously discussed segregated areas and R/ECAPs.
There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. Most of the publicly
supportive housing units are located near employment centers and
transportation opportunities.
ii. Describe patterns in the geographic location for publicly supported
housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or
persons with disabilities in relation to previously discussed segregated
areas or R/ECAPs?
31
There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City.
iii. How does the demographic composition of occupants of publicly
supported housing in R/ECAPS compare to the demographic
composition of occupants of publicly supported housing outside of
R/ECAPs?
N/A
iv. (A) Do any developments of public housing, properties converted under
the RAD, and LIHTC developments have a significantly different
demographic composition, in terms of protected class, than other
developments of the same category? Describe how these developments
differ.
Black populations have a greater proportion living in public housing than the
general population of the City, while Asians have a lower percentage. But
with the limited number of units available in the City, it is not believed that
these differences are considered significant.
(B) Provide additional relevant information, if any, about occupancy, by
protected class, in other types of publicly supported housing.
No additional data is available.
v. Compare the demographics of occupants of developments, for each
category of publicly supported housing (public housing, project-based
Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted developments, properties
converted under RAD, and LIHTC) to the demographic composition of
the areas in which they are located. Describe whether developments that
are primarily occupied by one race/ethnicity are located in areas
occupied largely by the same race/ethnicity. Describe any differences for
housing that primarily serves families with children, elderly persons, or
persons with disabilities.
All races except Asians are represented in the HUD and LIHTC
developments. Black populations have a higher percentage living in publicly
supported units compared to the general population of the City. But with the
limited number of units available in the City, it is not believed that these
differences are considered significant.
c. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
i. Describe any disparities in access to opportunity for residents of publicly
supported housing, including within different program categories (public
housing, project-based Section 8, Other HUD Multifamily Assisted
Developments, HCV, and LIHTC) and between types (housing primarily
serving families with children, elderly persons, and persons with
disabilities) of publicly supported housing.
32
According to the HUD supplied data, there were no significant disparities
in access to opportunity for residents in publicly supported housing.
Anecdotal information gathered through the consultation and stakeholders
meetings confirm this.
2. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if
any, about publicly supported housing in the jurisdiction and region ,
particularly information about groups with other protected characteristics
and about housing not captured in the HUD -provided data.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders did not reveal other information
to disparities in publicly-supported housing in Temecula affecting groups.
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its
assessment of publicly supported housing. Information may include relevant
programs, actions, or activities, such as tenant self -sufficiency, place-based
investments, or mobility programs.
According to the Housing Authority of Riverside County, there are 109 tenant -
based Secti on 8 rental assistance vouchers in Temecula. Seventy -six of the
households are elderly and 53 have disabilities. Some of the elderly are also
disabled.
3. Contributing Factors of Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and
region. Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or
increase the severity of fair housing issues related to publicly supported housing,
including Segregation, RECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and
Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each contributing factor that is significant,
note which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor relates to.
Consultations with residents and stakeholders did not reveal other information to
disparities in access to opportunity in Temecula and the region affecting groups with
other protected characteristics.
☐ Admissions and occupancy policies and procedures, including preferences in
publicly supported housing
☐ Land use and zoning laws
☐ Community opposition
☐ Impediments to mobility
☐ Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
☐ Lack of public investment in specific neighborhoods, including services and
amenities
☐ Lack of regional cooperation
☐ Occupancy codes and restrictions
☐ Quality of affordable housing information programs
33
☐ Siting selection policies, practices and decisions for publicly supported
housing, including discretionary aspects of Qualified Allocation Plans and
other programs
☐ Source of income discrimination
☒ Other: High demand for affordable housing, due to the high housing costs in the
community and the region
D. Disability and Access Analysis
1. Population Profile
a. How are persons with disabilities geographically dispersed or concentrated in
the jurisdiction and region, including R/ECAPs and other segregated areas
identified in previous sections?
There are no R/ECAPs or segregated areas in the City. According to Map 16-
Disability by Type and Map 17-Disability by Age Group demonstrating the
location where the persons with disabilities live, persons with disabilities are
scattered throughout the City. There are 53 households with persons with
disabilities that receive tenant-based rental assistance. Their addresses are
confidential.
b. Describe whether these geographic patterns vary for persons with each type
of disability or for persons with disabilities in different age ranges.
There is no difference in the geographic patterns for persons with disabilities.
2. Housing Accessibility
a. Describe whether the jurisdiction and region have sufficient affordable,
accessible housing in a range of unit sizes.
Data is not available for the total number of accessible units; however, 33% of
the City’s occupied housing units were built after 2000, according to the 2008-
2012 American Community Survey five year estimates, suggesting that a number
of units are adaptable based on California Building Codes in effect during those
years.
b. Describe the areas where affordable accessible housing units are located. Do they
align with R/ECAPs or other areas that are segregated?
There are no R/ECAPs in the City and the HUD data did not reveal any areas that
were segregated.
c. To what extent are persons with different disabilities able to access and live in
the different categories of publicly supported housing?
According to the Housing Authority, their programs have a Reasonable
Accommodation Process to assure that all persons with disabilities are provided with
reasonable accommodations for equal access to housing programs. That includes
regulations regarding live-in aide and changes in voucher size.
34
3. Integration of Persons with Disabilities Living in Institutions and Other
Segregated Settings
a. To what extent do persons with disabilities in or from the jurisdiction or region
reside in segregated or integrated settings?
There are five licensed developmentally disabled adult residential (18-59) facilities
within the City or in unincorporated Riverside County. There are 26 beds provided in
these facilities. Additional facilities provide day services but would not be considered
as institutional settings. Despite these facilities, there are not concentrations of persons
with disabilities within the City, according to the Map 16 – Disability by Type.
b. Describe the range of options for persons with disabilities to access affordable
housing and supportive services.
As mentioned above, based on a consultation with Inland Regional Center, there is a
large need in the region for affordable housing for the developmentally disabled adults.
According to the Center, there are 651 persons with developmental disabilities in the
three zip codes (92590, 92591 and 92592) that comprise the Temecula area. Some of
these include large rural areas outside the City and it is believed that at least 200 of
these individuals live outside the City limits. Regionally, many of these adults
independently live in group homes, or face substandard conditions, according to the
Inland Regional Center. However, none of those homes are located in the City. The
greatest demand is for studio and one-bedroom units for those with low and moderate
delays.
In addition, there is a growing population of for families with children with autism.
The stress on families with children with autism is creating a demand for housing units
with additional bedrooms. Children with autism require housing units to address
sensory needs such as dimmer lights and controls on hot water faucets. Mr. Toms also
advised that these units not be concentrated in a single complex so that integration of
these families can be achieved.
The City of Temecula employs an inclusion program specialist in the Human Services
Division of the Community Services Department. The City has pioneered a
progressive program called “High Hopes” that provides recreation programs for adults
and children with developmental disabilities. They offer a wide variety of recreation,
enrichment and vocational programs that are geared toward those with specific needs
of individuals with disabilities. They not only serve those within the City of Temecula,
but the program is so popular that people drive their family members more than two
hours away to participate in the inclusionary programs.
In addition to a City staff inclusion specialist, the City has developed a webpage that
provides parents, caregivers and individuals with a list of local resources in the
community. The Human Services Resource Guide includes information on local
resources that serve special needs, aging adults and military, limited income, and at-
risk youth/families and much more. The site also provides the phone number of the
City staff person who can provide additional assistance. The City also has a Facebook
page for the “Family First” program that connects people with special needs.
35
The website for the guide is located here:
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/Youth/Human+Services+Resour
ce+Guide.htm
In addition there are a number of other programs in the area designed for persons
with special needs. They include the following in the Temecula-Murrieta area:
Top Soccer: Temecula
Up H.O.P.E: Temecula, Horseback riding.
Kindermusik: Temecula, Music program
High Hopes: Temecula, Performing arts. Singing, dance, photography, and
more. Older teens and adults.
My Gym (Capp’s Kids): Murrieta
S.C.E.G.: Temecula. Gymnastics, special needs friendly.
Actors Unlimited: Temecula. Performing Arts
Cal Oaks Pool: Murrieta. Summer swim lessons sponsored by the Special
Olympics.
Baseball: Murrieta.
Musicians Workshop: Temecula. http://www.musiciansworkshop.org
Guitar, choir, orchestra.
Pump it Up/Fun Zone: Murrieta.
Sensory Time: Murrieta. Child Play Center.
http://www.sensorytimecenter.com
Periodically, Building and Safety holds workshops for the construction industry to
discuss changes in the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The last
workshop was held on March 1, 2015.
4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
a. To what extent are persons with disabilities able to access the following? Identify
major barriers faced concerning:
i. Government services and facilities: City Hall and other City facilities are fully
accessible to persons with disabilities. The City needs to adopt an ADA Transition
Plan to identify if there are any remaining ADA needs at other public facilities.
ii. Public infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian
signals): Many of the City’s sidewalks and intersections are ADA compliant and
where there are existing needs, the City is addressing them in conjunction with
other construction projects. The City is currently constructing segments of
missing sidewalks in Old Town, which can be an impediment to residents
accessing City services, the neighborhood park, and the neighborhood grocery
store. The City intends to replace wooden sidewalks along Old Town Front Street,
removing an impediment to seniors and those with disabilities.
The City is at the forefront in the region in terms of addressing the recreational
needs of those persons with physical disabilities. The City recently completed the
construction of the Eagle Soar Playground and Splash Pad at Margarita Park. The
36
purpose of the park is to be inclusive and accessible in addressing the unique needs
of children with and without disabilities. A description of this popular program is
included as Appendix N.
The City continues to upgrade its infrastructure to address the physical barriers of
persons with disabilities. Nearly all of the intersections along major streets have
accessible ramps. Whenever there are improvements made to an intersection, the
intersection is upgraded to address the needs of residents with vision impairments.
iii. Transportation: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has accessibility ramps
on their buses. RTA also provides a Dial-A-Ride program designed to meet the
needs of those with disabilities. Fares are significantly reduced for the elderly and
persons with disabilities. According to the RTA Short Range Transit Plan 2014-
2016, “All RTA vehicles comply with clean fuel policies and come fully equipped
with ADA accessible wheelchair lifts, including the paratransit vans. In addition,
all fixed route vehicles are equipped with bicycle racks.” According to the State
Council on Developmental Disabilities, the greatest problem with the Dial-A-Ride
programs is that persons cannot depend upon these services for timely pickups.
iv. Proficient schools and educational programs: The City does not have
jurisdiction over the school district, and thus has limited influence on its
programming. There was a lawsuit claiming that the Temecula Valley Unified
School District discriminated against special education students at Vail Ranch
Middle School by denying them instruction in social studies and sciences, instead
doubling up on math and English classes. They doubled up on math and English
classes instead. The case determined that the School District cannot discriminate
against those with disabilities. Their situation has been corrected.
v. Jobs: According to the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, the greatest
priority in California is providing meaningful jobs that are not below the minimum
wage for those working adults with disabilities. It was originally thought that it
was acceptable to provide less that minimum wage to give persons with disabilities
access to jobs; however, research has found this leads to employer abuse. There
are now steps to being taken to change this practice at the State level by
introducing legislation. The City’s Office of Economic Development and
Community Services Department have an annual internship program for teenagers
and adults with special needs and developmental disabilities to learn valuable job
skills and lead them on the path towards self- sufficiency.
b. Describe the processes that exist in the jurisdiction and region for persons with
disabilities to request and obtain reasonable accommodations and accessibility
modifications to address the barriers discussed above.
The City is in compliance with State and federal law with respect to its ordinance
providing reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities. In addition to
information provided elsewhere in this assessment, the City has adopted a reasonable
accommodation ordinance to provide exceptions in zoning and land use for housing
persons with disabilities. The City annually evaluates constraints on development,
maintenance, and improvement to housing for persons with disabilities, including the
review of land use controls, permit procedures, and building codes for the development
of housing for persons with disabilities.
37
c. Describe any difficulties in achieving homeownership experienced by persons
with disabilities and by persons with different types of disabilities.
Affordable housing is an issue for most segments of the community, but it is especially
a challenge for persons with disabilities. According to Inland Regional Center, the
demand for affordable housing is high in the City. There is a demand for studio and
one-bedroom units for persons with disabilities with low and moderate delay issues as
well as larger units for especially single parent families with children with autism.
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
a. Describe any disproportionate housing needs experienced by persons with
disabilities and by persons with certain types of disabilities.
In consulting with the Fair Housing Council, the greatest proportion of fair housing
complaints are from persons with disabilities in both the City and the region.
Landlords are unaware or unwilling to make requested accommodations, either in
modifications to a unit or allowing for service animals. State law requires landlords
to make reasonable accommodations, when requested, to their units so that
accessibility issues are mitigated. Therefore, the greatest priority in this area continues
to be educating landlords and property managers on the rights of persons with
disabilities to ensure that discrimination is not limiting their access to housing.
6. Additional Information
a. Beyond the HUD-provided data, provide additional relevant information, if any,
about disability and access issues in the jurisdiction and region affecting groups
with other protected characteristics.
The City treats licensed residential care units serving six or fewer residents as single
family dwellings permitted by right as part of the zoning ordinance. Facilities serving
more than six are similarly permitted by right in high density residential zone districts
and are also conditionally permitted in any other residential zone.
Table 14 provides data of persons with disabilities by age range (5 -17, 18-64, and
65+) for the City and region. The table reflects the greatest numbers of those with
disabilities are adults between ages 18 and 64 followed by the elderly. Proportionately,
compared to the region, the City has fewer people with disabilities, except for children.
Some of this may be because of the large draw of the City’s services for the special
needs population. This belief was reflected in the community meetings.
b. The program participant may also describe other information relevant to its
assessment of disability and access issues.
No additional information.
7. Disability and Access Issues Contributing Factors
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region.
Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the
38
severity of disability and access issues and the fair housing issues, which are
Segregation, RECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate
Housing Needs. For each contributing factor, note which fair housing issue(s) the
selected contributing factor relates to.
☐ Access to proficient schools for persons with disabilities
☐ Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities
☐ Access to transportation for persons with disabilities
☐ Inaccessible government facilities or services
☒ Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure
☐ Lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services
☐ Lack of affordable, accessible housing in range of unit sizes
☐ Lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services
☐ Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications
☐ Lack of assistance for transitioning from institutional settings to integrated housing
☐ Land use and zoning laws
☐ Lending Discrimination
☐ Location of accessible housing
☐ Occupancy codes and restrictions
☐ Regulatory barriers to providing housing and supportive services for persons with
disabilities
☐ State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities
from being placed in or living in apartments, family homes, and other integrated
settings
☒ Other: City will prepare and adopt an ADA Transition Plan.
E. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis
1. List and summarize any of the following that have not been resolved:
A charge or letter of finding from HUD concerning a violation of a civil rights -
related law,
A cause determination from a substantially equivalent state or local fair housing
agency concerning a violation of a state or local fair housing law, a letter of
findings issued by or lawsuit filed or joined by the Department of Justice alleging
a pattern or practice or systemic violation of a fair housing or civil rights law, or
A claim under the False Claims Act related to fair housing, nondiscrimination,
or civil rights generally, including an alleged failure to affirmatively further fair
housing.
In addition to the City’s CDBG funding to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County,
the Fair Housing Council received a five year Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)
grant from 2010-2015 for private enforcement, and in 2015 received an additional
$270,895 for another three-year grant for that purpose. Under the previous contract, the
Council conducted fifteen tests in Temecula. Six of the tests were conducted for lending
institutions and nine for rental projects. Two of the cases warranted sending to HUD as
civil rights violations. One of those cases was against a lending agent who did not provide
an African American all of the loan options that other applicants were provided. The
39
second case was a rental manager who was accused of discriminating against a person with
disabilities who was not allowed a support animal. Of the remaining thirteen, seven are
pending further testing and six were closed. (For more detail the FHIP investigations, refer
to Appendix L.) In 2013, the Fair Housing Council also settled a familial status case.
The Council noted that those who have had fair housing complaints filed against them,
often voluntarily send new employees to Council training sessions.
In addition to the enforcement grant, the Fair Housing Council has applied for an additional
$125,000 grant for education and operations which, if approved, would begin in October.
According to the Fair Housing Council, the patterns of discrimination are more
individualized than systemic. They saw a spike in complaints, particularly against persons
with disabilities, during the recession when many realtors turned to rental management.
They were not as familiar with rental fair housing laws as they were with sale of property.
The greatest priority for the Fair Housing Council in the category is in training and
education, especially new real estate agents and property managers.
2. Describe any state or local fair housing laws. What characteristics are protected
under each law?
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act provides protection from harassment or
discrimination based on the following: age, ancestry, color, disability, marital status,
medical condition, genetic information, national origin, race, sex, familial status, religion,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, source of income, and
arbitrary discrimination. This year the State legislature added primary language,
citizenship and immigrant status to the protected class status.
3. Identify any local and regional agencies and organizations that provide fair housing
information, outreach, and enforcement, including their capacity and the resources
available to them.
The City of Temecula contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. The
City has funded this organization with CDBG since becoming an Entitlement City in 2012.
The Fair Housing Council is located 45 miles from Temecula, and unfortunately Fair
Housing does not have sufficient funds to locate an office in the Temecula Valley. The
Fair Housing Council indicates that, because of the distance, it is difficult to provide the
same level of service as with other cities in the County.
4. Additional Information
a. Provide additional relevant information, if any, about fair housing enforcement,
outreach capacity, and resources in the jurisdiction and region.
As described above, the City provides CDBG funds to the Fair Housing Council of
Riverside County for landlord tenant services, training and discrimination complaints.
During the last fiscal year (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016), there were calls from fifteen
households regarding discrimination issues above the ones described under the FHIP
discussion above in Temecula. Of that group, 87% were from White renter households.
Most were from households with disabled persons. The City provides fair housing
40
brochures at City counter, public libraries and community centers. Links and information
are provided on the City webpage.
During that same period, there were 222 calls to the Fair Housing Council regarding
landlord-tenant issues. Of those calls, 57% were from White households, 20% from
Hispanic households and 17% from Black households. The greatest number of calls
pertained to lease and rental terms, notices to vacate and evictions, security deposits,
repairs and rent increases.
The greatest gap in the City in this category is the provision of affordable housing for new
homebuyers and renters. There are a number of issues that the Fair Housing Council has
identified: large families have difficulty finding landlords that will rent to them;
unreasonable conditions placed on children; homeowners associations have restrictions on
service animals for the disabled; rent increases are forcing lower income renters out of the
local market; and crime-free restrictions create disparate treatment of minorities.
In addition, HUD’s fair market rent limits are lower than the average rents in Temecula.
It is increasingly difficult for tenants to find units that meet those limitations with their
vouchers, as there are an insufficient number of rental units that charge rents at or below
HUD’s current rental limits.
b. The program participant may also include information relevant to programs, actions,
or activities to promote fair housing outcomes and capacity.
The Fair Housing Council provides training for the Southwest Riverside Realtors
Association twice a year. City staff refers residents to the Fair Housing Council and there
is a link on the City’s website that directs them to the Fair Housing Council’s website.
5. Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Contributing
Factors
Consider the listed factors and any other factors affecting the jurisdiction and region.
Identify factors that significantly create, contribute to, perpetuate, or increase the
severity of fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources and the fair
housing issues, which are Segregation, RECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity,
and Disproportionate Housing Needs. For each significant contributing factor, note
which fair housing issue(s) the selected contributing factor impacts.
☐ Lack of local private fair housing outreach and enforcement
☐ Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
☒ Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
☐ Lack of state or local fair housing laws
☐ Unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights law
☐ Other:
41
V. Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
1. For each fair housing issue, prioritize the identified contributing factors. Justify
the prioritization of the contributing factors that will be addressed by the goals set
below in Question 2. Give the highest priority to those factors that limit or deny
fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or
civil rights compliance.
The City has developed four fair housing goals to overcome the two fair housing issues
and related contributing factors identified in the AFH analysis. These goals and the
respective contributing factors have been prioritized based on feedback from community
meetings, surveys, stakeholder interviews, staff, and data analysis. Identified metrics,
milestones and timeframes for achievement were chosen specifically to address disparities
in access to opportunity and disproportionate housing needs that were identified in the
analysis in an effort to preserve Temecula as an inclusive community with integrated living
patterns. The goals are listed below, from highest to lowest priority.
Goal 1: Amend Zoning Code to promote the development of affordable housing
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to
Opportunity
Contributing Factor 1A: Land use and zoning laws
Goal 2: Increase and preserve affordable units for renters and homeowners
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disproportionate Housing Needs; Disparities in Access to
Opportunity
Contributing Factor 2A: The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
Contributing Factor 2B: Location and type of affordable housing
Goal 3: Provide greater access to public facilities and improvements for persons with
disabilities
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 3A: Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other
infrastructure
Contributing Factor 3B: Inaccessible government facilities or services
Goal 4: Provide equal housing opportunities for protected classes
Fair Housing Issue(s): Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factor 4A: Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations
Contributing Factor 4B: Private discrimination
Based on the above goals and contributing factors, metrics, were identified to measure
progress over the next five years to address disparities in access to opportunity and
disproportionate housing needs while continuing to promote fair housing for its residents.
The fair housing issues identified in Temecula, in order of greatest priority, include: 1)
Disproportionate Housing Needs; and 2) Disparities in Access to Opportunity. The
contributing factors identified for each fair housing issue are ranked in priority order.
Identified action items and goals were chosen based on their ability to increase access to
opportunity and positively impact fair housing choice for members of protected classes.
Priority was given based on feedback from the community, surveys, stakeholder
42
interviews and consultations, staff, data analysis, as well as factors that will have the
greatest impact on fair housing choices.
Fair Housing Issue 1) Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing Factors in order of priority:
The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes (Addressed at Goal 2)
Land use and zoning laws (Addressed at Goal 1)
Based on data analysis, and community feedback, a lack of affordable housing units in a
range of sizes is the highest priority contributing factor in Temecula. Due to the lack of
public financial resources because of the dissolution of redevelopment, the City must
look to the private sector to construct affordable housing and provide necess ary
incentives to achieve the highest priority goal of increasing access to affordable housing.
Temecula is not alone in this problem – the region and the entire state of California is
approaching an affordable housing crisis.
In recognition of finite public financing available for affordable housing, the City places
a high priority on deploying its available resources and exploring alternative resources
during the planning period for this AFH. In 2016, the City issued a request for proposals
(RFP) to utilize $12.4 million in remaining Tax Allocation Bond proceeds for the
development of affordable housing. The City may entertain and accept more than one
proposal for more than one site. In addition to the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds, the
City owns sites that may have been considered as part of the City’s contribution to the
project.
In response to the RFP, the City received 20 proposals from 13 developers for eight sites
throughout the City. The City expects to hold interviews with potential developers by
July 2017; select developers by December 2017; enter into an exclusive negotiating
agreement with at least one developer by June 2018; and entitlements to be secured by
June 2019. At this time, the City cannot provide the specific number of units to be
constructed or rehabbed, but although outside this planning period, the City expects that
at least 100 affordable units will be constructed and/or rehabbed using the Tax Allocation
Bond proceeds. As part of the process, the City will continue to make specific efforts to
encourage the development of affordable housing that increases housing opportunities
for residents with special needs.
While the City cannot divulge details of the proposals due to the nature of property
negotiations and confidentiality, there is a wide range of needs proposed to be addressed
including housing for the homeless, veterans, seniors, and persons with special needs.
Most proposals include tax credits where at least 30% of the units will be set aside for
the very low income (below 30 percent). A maximum of 20% of the units will be
affordable between 60 – 80% AMI, and no rents may exceed 80% AMI, in conjunction
with the requirements of Senate Bill 341.
To ensure meaningful, inclusive access to housing in the community for low- and
moderate-income persons of all racial and ethnic backgrounds and special needs
populations, the City will modify its land use and zoning laws to adopt and implement
an Affordable Housing Overlay program that was included as a recommended program
in the City’s Housing Element, adopted by City Council in 2014. This new ordinance
will create the conditions necessary for increased private-sector affordable housing
production in a range of sizes for the general low- and moderate-income populations
43
where the greatest need is. The City will amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning
Code) to accommodate Temecula’s regional housing need for 2,007 affordable units for
lower income households, as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Analysis
(RHNA). The Housing Element program stipulated that the City will establish an AHO
on at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require:
Minimum densities of 20 units per acre.
50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses.
Multi-family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed
by right, without a conditional use permit.
Fair Housing Issue 2) Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Contributing Factors in order of priority:
Land use and zoning laws (Addressed at Goal 1)
Location and type of affordable housing (Addressed at Goal 2)
Inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure (Addressed
at Goal 3)
Inaccessible government facilities or services (Addressed at Goal 3)
Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations (Addressed at
Goal 4)
Private discrimination (Addressed at Goal 4)
To address land use and zoning laws to address disparities in access to opportunity,
please see the discussion above concerning the Affordable Housing Overlay.
To address the location and type of affordable housing, please refer to the discussion in
Goal 2. With respect to segregation, it is noteworthy that the City has no R/ECAPs and
that the City’s dissimilarity index score and mapping all indicate a highly integrated
community. The City wishes to emphasize that there is no history of segregation. With
that understanding, the City further evaluated mapping to identify areas that may be
susceptible to future designation as a R/ECAP. Through that analysis, it was noted that
Census Tract 432.66 and Census Tract 496.00 are approximately 38% Hispanic,
compared to other Census Tracts in the City. The City’s overall population of Hispanics
is 23%. Further, the analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three
adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that
are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index
scores of 50 or less), given that the Citywide scores ranged from 65.42 to 71.23.
None of the 20 proposed developments would be located in or near any of the five
Census Tracts cited in the paragraph above. The various potential affordable sites are
located throughout the City in Census Tracts 512.00, 432.22, 432.54, and 432.50. While
some sites are in the same Census Tracts as existing affordable housing, most potential
sites are not located directly adjacent to existing affordable housing sites. Development
of new affordable housing is unlikely to result in any new patterns of segregation, or
create any new areas of concentration. The City will continue its commitment on
affirmatively furthering fair housing and work with developers to prevent any patterns
of segregation.
To address disproportionate housing needs through the construction of units using the
$12.4 million in remaining affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds, the City
shall require that all (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes
44
constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative
outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic and Native
American households as well as households with disabilities All (100%) of marketing
plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community Development
Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable
developments shall be required to maintain records related to marketing and protected
classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based
conceptually on HUD’s form 935.2A, the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan –
Multi-Family Housing, where applicable or practical.
During the five-year planning period covered by this AFH, none of the City’s current
affordable housing units are at-risk of converting to market-rate housing. During future
planning periods, the City will include efforts to preserve those units at-risk of
conversion to market rate as affordable units through the Consolidated Plan. The City
conducts and an annual inspection and audit of each of the affordable housing
complexes in Temecula. During inspections, critical issues are addressed and resolved.
In the previous cycle of the City’s Consolidated Plan, the City worked with two
affordable housing complexes at risk of converting to market rate. Both complexes
successfully extended their term of affordability.
During this planning period, the City will continue to partner with Habitat for Humanity
for the administration of a Critical Home Repair program. This program focuses on low-
income home owners to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate kitchen
facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing.
The third and final phase of construction for the Madera Vista (previously known as
Summerhouse) will also be completed during this planning period. This phase includes
30 affordable units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low income and 8 units
are very low income. Entitlements are complete for this project.
Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex, will complete
substantial rehabilitation during this AFH cycle. In this project, 43 units are restricted
to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (It also includes one manager’s unit.)
Rancho California recently successfully extended the term of their affordability
covenant in the previous Consolidated Plan cycle, and the rehabilitation will further
preserve the stock of affordable housing.
In November 2015, the City adopted the Uptown Temecula Specific Plan. The area,
encompassing 580 acres, is located north of Rancho California Road, west of the I-15,
south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Street. Recognizing the demand for housing in
the area, the Specific Plan allows up to an additional 3,726 multi-family housing units
in the area, in a range of sizes, in a range of affordability levels.
The City is currently working with several developers that are proposing housing targets
towards special needs populations including seniors and residents with disabilities. One
proposed project currently in the entitlement phase, in the south side of the City, near
Pechanga Parkway, is proposing 245 multi-family units which will offer options for
families with special needs. Options include downstairs bedrooms; flex space, adjacent
handicap parking, and more. If approved, the City will process a General Plan
Amendment for this project, allowing increased density and expanding our existing
45
housing stock. The City will work with the developer on outreach to potential residents
with special needs.
The City is also processing a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the
proposed Altair project, adjacent to Old Town. If approved, the Altair Specific Plan
allows accessory dwelling units and micro units throughout the entire site. Because of
their size, accessory dwelling units and micro units are a more affordable option to many
segments of the community including seniors, veterans, students, and residents with
special needs. These options offer housing units in a range of sizes to the community.
Upon buildout, there will be between 870 and 1,750 total dwelling units, subject to
financing, the economy, and other market conditions.
Other action items the City will complete during the 2017-2021 AFH Cycle include:
Consider proposals for using, when feasible, City-owned or City-controlled
land for affordable housing projects. Several City sites, located in Census Tracts
512.00, 432.22, 432.54, and 432.50, were included in the Affordable Housing
RFP and it is expected at least one project will utilize this incentive.
Continue to support and promote the County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate
program as a source for new homebuyer assistance. The City Council approves
a resolution affirming the support for this County program every 1 – 2, at the
County’s request, years and will continue to do so during the planning cycle.
Support and promote the State of California Housing Finance Agency
(CalHFA) to provide assistance to new homebuyers.
In order to increase funding resources, the City will consider applying for State
HOME funds for affordable housing programs such as first time homebuyer,
housing rehabilitation or new construction
The City will continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the
Section 8 program through annual review of the PHA Plan and issuance of the
certification of consistency and to assure sufficient numbers of vouchers for
lower income residents in the City and the region. In 2015-16, there were 109
Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City of Temecula. Community outreach and
consultations suggest that demand for vouchers is quite high; however, demand
exceeds the supply of Section 8 units within the City. Temecula will continue
to work with the County of Riverside to educate property owners on the Section
8 program.
To address inaccessible sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, or other infrastructure as well
as inaccessible government facilities or services, the City will implement the metrics
discussed below that are a part of Goal 3.
To make it possible for residents to fully avail themselves of all public facilities,
services, and infrastructure in the City as a means of promoting access to all
opportunities afforded in the community, the City has recently identified improvements
that can be made to public improvements and facilities, such as the replacement of
sidewalks. Old Town and the adjacent area have over 500 affordable units. Old Town
is in a CDBG Eligible Census Tract, 432.15. There are several sections of sidewalk
needed for safe access to public facilities, parks, and a grocery store. The City funded
two sections of the construction of new sidewalks in Old Town in the 2012-2016
Consolidated Plan cycle.
46
The Ynez Road sidewalk improvements will install missing sections of sidewalk to
connect residents using the bus to access mainstream services offered at the Riverside
County Offices located at 41000 County Center Drive. Residents, including those with
disabilities, use this route to access services such as the mental health clinic, substance
abuse program, WIC program and County courts.
To help the City ensure that all such facilities posing barriers to residents are addressed,
the City will complete and adoption of an ADA Transition Plan. The ADA Plan is
expected to be adopted by December 31, 2018 and identify accessibility issues at public
facilities including The assessment will include 38 City parks, three trail systems, four
tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, four fire stations,
110 signalized intersections, 95 bus stops, and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps.
Approximately 587 locations will be analyzed. Both City Hall and the Old Town Police
Substation were constructed in 2010 and are ADA compliant. Once the ADA Transition
Plan is updated, those accessibility needs shall be prioritized for funding. Each
deficiency will be evaluated based on the level of inaccessibility, funding availability,
number of persons affected, and priorities established. The City typically budgets one
accessibility infrastructure project with CDBG funds per year. Other projects may be
undertaken as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
The City will include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated
Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City’s infrastructure and public facilities to
provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project
will be constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000,
based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle.
In the City’s proposed 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, $150,000 will be allocated
for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and
County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the
entire planning period. This segment will complete a critical connection between
regional bus lines and a regional job center (Promenade Mall) and County services.
In a developer-driven project, upgrades to Pala Park will be constructed to improve
accessibility, including 4 additional disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a
new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive, that
are designed to provide access to those with special needs. During this AFH cycle, the
City will also complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park,
utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure,
and two ADA compliant ramps. The park is located in a CDBG eligible Census Tract
(432.15) that serves many low income families.
The analysis in the AFH has demonstrated that there is an ongoing need to provide fair
housing education, outreach and enforcement, especially as it pertains to the special
needs community – particularly for persons with disabilities. At the local, state and
national level, discrimination on the basis of disability is the leading basis for fair
housing discrimination cases. According to consultation with the City’s fair housing
service provider, the lack of knowledge on fair housing issues amongst property owners
and landlords continues to be the primary reason for discrimination complaints against
persons with disabilities in Temecula and the region. This denies persons with
disabilities the right to avail themselves of housing opportunities in the City or the right
47
to remain housed in place when, for example, a landlord refuses a disability-related
modification.
To address the contributing factor of lack of resources for fair housing organizations,
the City will provide approximately 12% of public service funds from CDBG to a fair
housing service provider to provide outreach, education and assistance enforcing fair
housing laws – particularly those protecting the rights of disabled residents.
To further supplement resources for fair housing organizations and actively participate
in addressing private discrimination, the City will increase public awareness of
accessibility and fair housing requirements by inviting representatives of the building,
banking, real estate, and rental housing industries to one annual workshop hosted by the
City of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent
developers, 50 members of the local real estate community from the City’s Temecula
Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. Additionally,
the City will increase support for fair housing training and education by adding the most
current fair housing information on the City’s website. The City will also distribute and
replenish the supply of fair housing materials, including literature concerning
reasonable accommodation / modification rights and responsibilities at five City
facilities including the Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary Phillips
Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library, and the Community Recreation Center.
Furthermore, the City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host
three different panels of representatives from organizations such as the Fair Housin g
Council of Riverside County and the Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25
local homelessness and affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and
affordable housing issues, particularly those affecting residents with disabilities.
2. For each fair housing issue with significant contributing factors identified in Question
1, set one or more goals. Explain how each goal is designed to overcome the identified
contributing factor and related fair housing issue(s). For goals designed to overcome
more than one fair housing issue, explain how the goal will overcome each issue and
the related contributing factors. For each goal, identify metrics and milestones for
determining what fair housing results will be achieved, and indicate the timeframe
for achievement.
In the initial submission of the Assessment of Fair Housing on October 3, 2015, the City
listed nine contributing factors with corresponding goals. The subsequent resubmission of
the AFH on January 14, 2017 resulted in a consolidation of goals and contributing factors
that were identified in the analysis of the AFH. Below is a detailed analysis on the
consolidation of the City’s initial goals and contributing factors from subsequent
submissions.
Original Goal 1: Increase the affordable housing stock in the City.
o Change: Tied into Goal #2 in resubmission.
Original Contributing Factor: Location and type of affordable housing.
o Change: Removed. It was not identified as an original contributing factor in
the AFH analysis.
Original Milestone: Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay
o Change: Moved to Goal #1 – Amend zoning ordinance to promote the
development of affordable housing.
48
Original Milestone: Enter into an agreement with potential developers to allocate
$12.4 million in Tax Allocation Bond proceeds.
o Change: Updated verbiage to include more specific, measurable metrics.
Associated with Goal #2 – Increase and preserve affordable housing units
for renters and homeowners
Original Goal 2: Partner with local organizations for the provision of services to
address homelessness.
o Change: Per a recommendation from HUD, the City has chosen to focus on
goals associated with jurisdictional programs, as opposed to regional
programs. This allows the City to have more control and focus on the
outcomes. As such, the City can provide more specific metrics. The City
will continue to partner with local organizations for the provision so services
to address homelessness.
Original Contributing factor: High housing costs in region; distance from social
services; lack of homeless shelters in Southwestern Riverside County
o Change: Removed from matrix. This contributing factor was not identified
in the AFH analysis. Relevant metrics and milestones are included in the
discussion.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal #2 are related to partnerships and
regional organizations. Per HUD’s guidance, they remain in the analysis as
examples of efforts the City is currently participating in to affirmatively further fair
housing.
Original Goal 3: Increase homeownership opportunities in the City.
o Change: Removed. Contributing factor was not identified as a contributing
factor in the original AFH analysis. Repetitive of other contributing factors.
Original Contributing factor: High housing costs in the region; location and
availability of affordable new and existing homes.
o Change: Modified into new Contributing Factor 2A.
Original Metrics, Milestone, for Original Goal #3:
o Changes: Action items listed were regional programs that the City supports.
The City’s participation is discussed in the AFH analysis. Per HUD’s
recommendation, the City’s goals and milestones focus on City programs.
Original Goal 4: Increase accessibility to public facilities.
o Change: New Goal #3.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Adopt an ADA Transition Plan
o Change: Have been updated to reflect more specific and measurable metrics.
Reflected in new Goal #3.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Continue to increase public awareness and
educate representatives of the housing industry on ADA requirements by holding
workshops.
o Change: Metric more specifically defined in matrix below.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Goal 4: Continue to upgrade the City’s
infrastructure to make them more accessible for those with disabilities.
o Change: Improved action item to be more specific and measurable.
Original Goal 5: Support the Fair Housing Council on education on fair housing
laws.
49
o Change: Modified and included in new Goal #4.
Contributing Factor: Landlords and property managers have a lack of knowledge on
fair housing issues.
o Change: Removed because it was not identified as a contributing factor in
the original AFH analysis.
Original Goal #6: Preserve affordable rental housing.
o Change: Combined into new Goal #2.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to promote the
preservation of affordable housing projects at-risk of converting to market rate
housing.
o Change: Included in the discussion of Goal 2. However, no affordability
covenants are set to expire during this planning period, so no metrics could
be defined. Therefore, it was removed as a specific goal. The City will
continue to promote the preservation of affordable housing.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to support the County of
Riverside to administer the Section 8 program.
o Change: Per HUD’s technical assistance, the City focused on jurisdictional
programs for inclusion in metrics and milestones. This milestone is
discussed and elaborated upon in the discussion for Goal #2.
Original Metrics, Milestones for Original Goal 6: Continue to use, when feasible,
City-owned and City-controlled land for affordable housing projects.
o Change: Moved into the discussion of Goal 2. The City will still continue
this program; however, it depends heavily upon developer demand and
market forces.
Original Goal #7: Increase housing choices for those with special needs and
disabilities.
o Change: Modified and combined into new Goal #2.
Original Contributing Factor: Increased demand of affordable housing for seniors
and persons with disabilities.
o Change: Modified and combined into new Goal #2. It was not listed as a
specific contributing factor in the original AFH analysis.
Original Metrics and Milestone Goal 7: Continue to promote housing design
standards that improve accessibility for those with special needs.
o Change: Included in the discussion for Goal #2. The City will continue to
work with developers on this action item.
Original Goal #8: Increase access and usage of public transportation.
o Change: Removed. It was not tied to any contributing factor identified in
the AFH analysis.
Original Contributing Factor: Demand for public transportation.
o Change: Removed. It was not identified as a contributing factor in the AFH
analysis.
Original Metrics and Milestones for Goal 8
o Change: Removed. They did not tie to any contributing factor identified in
the AFH analysis.
Original Goal #9: Improve the environmental health of neighborhoods.
50
o Change: Removed. It was not tied to any contributing factor identified in
the AFH analysis.
Original Contributing Factor: Proximity of the I-15 freeway and major arterial
corridors.
o Change: Removed. It was not identified as a contributing factor identified
in the analysis.
Original Metrics and Milestones Goal 9
o Change: Removed. They did not tie to any contributing factor identified in
the AFH analysis.
Subsequent to the January 14, 2017 resubmission, HUD convened a technical assistance
conference call on February 2, 2017 to discuss the need for more well -defined metrics,
milestones and timeframes. On February 9, 2017, an excerpt of the Executive Summary
and the Goals Section was emailed to Arturo Cardenas, Equal Opportunity Specialist in
the L.A. Field Office.
Subsequently, HUD sent correspondence of withdrawal of the AFH on February 10, 2017,
and followed this correspondence with a Technical Assistance letter dated February 14,
2017, the City made further revisions to the four goals to more closely align the goals with
the HUD-defined fair housing issues and the contributing factors identified in the AFH.
After three rounds of technical assistance and guidance from HUD, the following matrix
represents the final goals designed to overcome the contributing factors to fair housing
issues identified in the preceding sections.
The City of Temecula wishes to express its sincere appreciation to HUD Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity staff in the Los Angeles local field office, the San Francisco regional
office and in Washington D.C. at HUD Headquarters for their efforts and contributions to
this AFH.
.
51
Goal Contributing Factors Fair Housing
Issues Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
1. Amend
Zoning Code
to promote
the
development
of affordable
housing
1A: Land use and zoning
laws
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
Disparities in
Access to
Opportunity
Adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO)
Program by Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning Code) to accommodate Temecula’s regional
housing need for 2,007 affordable units for lower
income households. The City will establish an AHO on
at least 100 acres. After the establishment of the AHO,
sites identified will require:
- minimum densities of 20 units per acre
- 50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing
exclusively residential uses
- multi-family uses at the densities established under
the AHO will be allowed by right, without a
conditional use permit
Affordable Housing Overlay expected adoption by
City Council by June 30, 2018. (CF 1A)
City of Temecula
Discussion: The analysis of disproportionate housing needs revealed a disproportionate housing burden for Hispanic and Native American ho useholds.
According to Table 9, 51.52 percent of the City’s households are experiencing housing problems. There is a disparity in this category because Hispanic
households (62.24 percent) and Native American households (80.90 percent) experience housing problems at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher than
all households. Only 47.37% of the White households in Temecula experience a housing problem. None of the racial or ethnic groups experienced a
disproportionate level of severe housing problems. HUD-defined housing problems include housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of
income for monthly housing costs including utilities), overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen and lack of plumbing. Based on consultation and other
data, the most prominent housing problem is cost burden. Additionally, consultation with the Inland Regional Center revealed a high need for affordable
housing for developmentally disabled adults as well as housing appropriate for families with autistic children.
The analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66 that
are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less), given that the Citywide scores ranged from 65.42
to 71.23.
52
The adoption of an Affordable Housing Overlay Ordinance is the City’s highest priority in the AFH because it is a critical first step toward meaningfully
addressing the factors that contribute to disproportionate housing burden and disparities in access to opportunity for protected classes including Hispanic
households, Native American households and households that include person(s) with disabilities. First, the AHO will create th e conditions for the
development of new affordable housing units in a range of sizes including micro units and efficiencies that may be beneficial to developme ntally disabled
adults. Second, the AHO will remove barriers to affordable housing development by allowing multi -family uses at higher densities by right without a
conditional use permit. This will promote the development of additional affordable units needed to reduce the number of cost -burdened Hispanic and
Native American households. Third, the AHO will establish this zone on at least 100 acres throughout the City to promote inclusive living patterns with
respect to the location of affordable housing outside of areas with relatively higher exposure to poverty. The AHO sets the stage for the accomplishment
of the metrics included in Goal 2.
In 2014, the City Council approved and the City implemented an updated Housing Element. The Housing Element included a progra m to amend the
Temecula Municipal Code with an Affordable Housing Overlay program (AHO), which will accommodate Temecula’s regional housing need for 2,007
affordable units for lower income households, as determined by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs
Analysis (RHNA). The City will establish an AHO on at least 100 acres. The ordinanc e will allow transitional and supportive housing by right in certain
areas, identify incentives for affordable and senior housing, and strengthen the City’s density bonus program. The strengthen ed density bonus program
will be calculated using the available maximum density of 30 units per acre under the AHO, rather than any allowable base density of the underlying
zone. Incentives also include planning application priority and fast tracking. After the establishment of the AHO, sites identified will require:
minimum densities of 20 units per acre
50% of need (1,003 units) will be on sites allowing exclusively residential uses
multi-family uses at the densities established under the AHO will be allowed by right, without a conditional use permit
The Affordable Housing Overlay is expected to be successfully adopted by City Council by June 30, 2018.
The City has a long history that demonstrates its support of affordable housing. As noted above, the City Council approved the Housing Element in 2014
that contained the Affordable Housing Overlay program. The City has not previously tried to adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay, and is opti mistic at
the AHO’s ability to provide incentives at developing affordable housing. Through the use of redevelopment funds, the Ci ty has assisted 600 affordable
housing units throughout the community. Madera Vista, previously known as Summerhouse, was publicly opposed by many members of the community.
Recognizing the need for affordable housing, the project was ultimately approved by the City Council, and is a very successful example of affordable
housing in the City. The public has embraced the development, and there have been no issues since its approval. Madera Vista will complete its third and
final phase of development during this Consolidated Plan cycle. The AHO is expected to be as successful as the City’s other numerous affordable housing
projects.
During the five-year planning period covered by this AFH, none of the City’s current affordable housing units are at -risk of converting to market-rate
housing. During future planning periods, the City will include efforts to preserve those units at -risk of conversion to market rate as affordable units
53
through the Consolidated Plan. The City conducts and an annual inspection and audi t of each of the affordable housing complexes in the City. During
inspections, critical issues are addressed and resolved. In the previous cycle of the City’s Consolidated Plan, the City worked with two affordable housing
complexes at risk of converting to market rate. Both complexes successfully extended their term of affordability.
The City is currently working with several developers that are proposing housing targets towards special needs populations in cluding residents with
disabilities. One proposed project currently in the entitlement phase, in the south side of the City, near Pechanga Parkway, in Census Tract 432.50, is
proposing 245 multi-family units which will offer options for families with special needs. Options include downstairs bedrooms; fle x space, adjacent
handicap parking, and more. If approved, the City will process a General Plan Amendment for this project, allowing increased density and expanding our
existing housing stock. The City will work with the developer on outreach to potential residents with special needs.
The City is also processing a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the proposed Altair project, adjacent to Old Town. If approved, the Altair
Specific Plan allows accessory dwelling units and micro units throughout the entire site. Because of their size, accessory dwelling units and micro units
are a more affordable option to many segments of the community including seniors, veterans, students, and residents with spec ial needs. These options
offer housing units in a range of sizes to the community. Upon buildout, there will be between 870 and 1,750 total dwelling units, subject to financing,
the economy, and other market conditions.
54
Goal Contributing
Factors
Fair Housing
Issues
Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
2. Increase
and
preserve
affordable
units for
renters
and home
owners
2A: The availability
of affordable units in
a range of sizes
2B: Location and
type of affordable
housing
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
Disparities in
Access to
Opportunity
Enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a
developer to allocate $12.4 million in remaining
affordable housing Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to
create or rehabilitate an estimated 100 affordable
housing units, subject to market forces. The selection
process includes priority consideration for proposals that
incorporate housing units for persons with disabilities.
Based on a preliminary review of the siting for these
proposals, none are located in the three Census Tracts
identified as having relatively high exposure to poverty.
Interviews with developers expected by July 2017;
Selection of developer to occur by December 2017;
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by June 2018;
Entitlements to be secured by June 2019. Construction to
begin by June 2020. Estimates are subject to financing,
property negotiations, market demand, and economic
forces. (CF 2A and CF 2B)
All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned
affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax
Allocation Bond proceeds will include affirmative
outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals
including Hispanic and Native American households as
well as households that include persons with disabilities.
Units advertised to contain specific accessibility features
shall be prioritized for occupancy by persons identifying
themselves as disabled. At least 50 units will benefit the
aforementioned protected classes identified as having
disproportionate housing needs. All (100%) of
City of Temecula
55
marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the
City of Temecula Community Development Department
prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%)
affordable developments shall be required to maintain
records related to marketing and protected classes and
provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will
be based conceptually on HUD’s form 935.2A, the
Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan – Multi-
Family Housing, where applicable or practical.
(Completion date subject to completion of affordable
housing construction and commencement of sale or
leasing. Expected June 2021) (CF 2A and CF 2B)
Require marketing materials for any new City of
Temecula-assisted affordable housing project to be made
available in Spanish. (July 1, 2017) (CF 2A)
Translate City Affordable Housing Brochure in Spanish
to promote meaningful access to affordable housing.
(July 1, 2017) (CF 2A)
Continue the partnership with Habitat for Humanity for
the administration of a Critical Home Repair program to
provide funding for at least 30 low income home owners
to make repairs addressing disabled access, inadequate
kitchen facilities, and/or inadequate plumbing.
(Complete by June 2022) (CF 2A)
Complete construction of Phase III of Madera Vista
(formerly Summerhouse), which includes 30 affordable
units. 14 units are moderate income, 7 units are low
income and 8 units are very low income. (Entitlements
are complete; Building permits to be issued by
September 2017; Construction to be completed by
September 2019) (CF 2A)
56
Complete substantial rehabilitation of Rancho California
Apartments, 55 unit affordable housing complex. 43
units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted
50% AMI. (One manager’s unit.) (Rehab has begun.
Expected completion date – March 2018.) (CF 2A)
Discussion: The analysis of disproportionate housing needs revealed a disproportionate housing burden for Hispanic and Native American ho useholds.
According to Table 9, 51.52 percent of the City’s households are experiencing housing problems. There is a disparity in this category because Hispanic
households (62.24 percent) and Native American households (80.90 percent) experience housing problems at a rate that is 10 percentage points higher
than all households. Only 47.37% of the White households in Temecula experience a housing problem. None of the racial or ethnic groups experienced
a disproportionate level of severe housing problems. HUD-defined housing problems include housing cost burden (defined as paying more than 30% of
income for monthly housing costs including utilities), overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen and lack of plumbing. Based on consultation and other
data, the most prominent housing problem is cost burden. Additionally, consultation with the Inland Regional Center revealed a high need for affordable
housing for developmentally disabled adults as well as housing appropriate for families with autistic children.
The analysis of disparities in access to opportunity revealed three adjoining Census Tracts in north Temecula, including 432.16, 432.20 and 432.66
that are characterized by higher than expected exposure to poverty (Low Poverty Index scores of 50 or less) given that the citywide scores ranged from
65.42 to 71.23.
The deployment of Tax Allocation Bond proceeds to develop 100 affordable housing units will address disproportionate housing needs by increasing
the number of affordable units in a range of sizes, which when combined with affirmative marketing efforts, will help to alle viate disproportionate
57
housing needs for Hispanic and Native American households. Preliminary evaluation of proposals received indicates that none of the proposed projects
are located within the three Census Tracts in north Temecula exhibiting higher than expected exposure to poverty as discussed above. As a result, this
metric will facilitate access to opportunity and promote economically balanced living patterns.
To improve access to publicly supportive and publicly subsidized housing, the City issued an RFP in February 2016 to allocate $12.4 million in
remaining Tax Allocation bond proceeds and possibly also utilize City-owned or City-controlled land for the development of affordable housing.
The RFP specified that interested developers were required to address one or more housing needs in the community: 1) Special Needs; 2) Veterans;
3) Seniors; 4) Housing First / Transitional / Supportive and/or 5) Other Needs. The City is currently evaluating 20 proposals , but has not made any
commitments of funds or land to a specific project. The City expects to hold interviews with potential developers by July 2017; select developers by
December 2017; enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with at least one developer by June 2018; and entitlements to be secured by June
2019. At this time, the City cannot provide the specific number of units to be constructed or rehabbed, but although outside this planning period, the
City expects that at least 100 affordable units will be constructed using the Tax Allocation Bond proceeds. Estimates are subject to financing, property
negotiations, market demand, and economic forces. As part of the process, the City will continue to make specific efforts to encourage the
development of affordable housing that increases housing opportunities for residents with disabilities.
While the City cannot divulge details of the proposals due to the nature of property negotiations and confidentiality, the proposals seek to addres s a
wide range of housing options including housing for persons with disabilities. Developers were required to identify a service provider that would
provide services to targeted groups. Most proposals include tax credits where at least 30% of the units will be set aside for the very low income
(below 30 percent). A maximum of 20% of the units will be affordable between 60 – 80% AMI, and no rents may exceed 80% AMI, in conjunction
with the requirements of Senate Bill 341.
All (100%) marketing plans for above mentioned affordable complexes constructed as a result of the Tax Allocation Bond procee ds will include
affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals including Hispanic households, Native American households and households
that include persons with disabilities. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula Community
Development Department prior to sale or leasing implementation. All (100%) affordable developments shall be required to maintain records related
to marketing and protected classes and provide annual reports to the City. Marketing plans will be based conceptua lly on HUD’s form 935.2A, the
Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan – Multi-Family Housing, where applicable or practical. Marketing plans will included, at a minimum,
information on targeted marketing activity, evaluation of marketing activities, fair housing, and staff training.
Although the City has no R/ECAPs, the City has noticed pockets of higher populations of certain races and ethnicities. It is noteworthy that none of
the 20 proposed developments would be located in or near Census Tract 432.66 and Census Tract 496.00, which are approximately 38% Hispanic,
compared to other Census Tracts in the City. The City’s overall Hispanic population is 23%. Several Census Tracts reflect inc reases of Hispanic
58
residency that are significantly higher than in other areas of the City. The City’s overall Hispanic population is increasing, while Whites/Non-Hispanic
is decreasing. Although these trends exist, the City wishes to emphasize that there is no history of segregation. The various potential affordable sites
are located throughout the City. Most potential sites are not located near existing affordable housing sites. Through this process, the City will continue
to promote an inclusive, integrated community.
To further address disproportionate housing needs and promote access to opportunity through the creation of affordable units in a range of sizes and
in locations that promote access to opportunity, the third and final phase of construction for the Madera Vista complex, formerly known as
Summerhouse, will be completed during this planning period. This phase includes 30 affordable units - 14 units will be moderate income, 7 units will
be low income, and 8 units will be very low income. Entitlements are complete for this project. According to the Riverside County draft PHA Plan, 7
of the units will include project-based voucher assistance. Additionally, Rancho California Apartments, a 55 unit affordable housing complex, will
complete substantial rehabilitation during this AFH cycle. In this project, 43 units are restricted to 60% AMI. 11 will be restricted 50% AMI. (It also
includes one manager’s unit.) Rancho California recently successfully extended the term of their affordability covenant in th e previous Consolidated
Plan cycle, and the rehabilitation will further preserve the stock of affordable housing.
Other City of Temecula Initiatives to Generally Promote Affordable Housing:
To address housing needs for homeless and those at-risk of homelessness in the region, the City continues to explore and evaluate partnership
opportunities with the Riverside County Continuum of Care (CoC) for the provision of services for the homeless in southwestern Riverside County.
The City continues to take a lead in the Regional Homeless Alliance, work with other local jurisdictions, the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department
and Homeless Outreach Team, and local nonprofits. The City understands the importance of collaboration with a wide array of o rganizations
throughout the community and County to address a regional issue.
The City negotiates with developers requesting zone changes to provide units to assure that those with special needs are met. A recent example was a
245-unit multi-family residential development on the south side of town near Temecula Parkway, where the developer will provide options for families
with special needs. While dependent on the private sector to propose multi-family projects, the City will continue to create housing opportunities for
persons with disability.
The City will explore other action items with regional and County organizations during the 2017-2021 AFH Cycle. Because these are not all City
programs, the City has limited control over the metrics and the outcomes of the programs. However, it is important to recogni ze the broader effort of
actions intended to affirmatively further fair housing. These actions include:
59
Consider proposals for using, when feasible, City-owned or City-controlled land for affordable housing projects. Several City sites were
included in the Affordable Housing RFP and it is expected at least one project will utilize this incentive.
Continue to support and promote the County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate program as a source for new homebuyer assistance. The City
Council approves a resolution affirming the support for this County program every 1 – 2 years, as the County requests, and will continue to
do so during the planning cycle.
Support and promote the State of California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to provide assistance to new homebuyers.
In order to increase funding resources, the City will consider applying for State HOME funds for affordable housing programs such as first
time homebuyer, housing rehabilitation or new construction. If the City is successful in securing funds for these programs, a ll (100%) marketing
plans will include affirmative outreach methods targeted to protected class individuals. All (100%) of marketing plans will be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to implementation to assure there is no discrimination or barriers to fair housing. All (100%) affordable complexes
will be required to keep metrics related to marketing and protected classes and provide data to the City. No protected classes will be
discriminated against. At least 50% of the applicants that will benefit will include protected classes such as seniors, female heads of households,
families with children, disabled, veterans, and ethnic groups. Marketing plans will be based off of HUD form 935.2A, the Affi rmative Fair
Housing Marketing Plan – Multi-Family Housing, where applicable. Marketing plans will included, at a minimum, information on targeted
marketing activity, evaluation of marketing activities, fair housing, and staff training.
The City will continue to support the County of Riverside to administer the Section 8 program through annual review of the PHA Plan and
issuance of the certification of consistency and to assure sufficient numbers of vouchers for lower income residents in the City and the region.
In 2015-16, there were 109 Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City of Temecula. Community outreach and consultations suggest that demand
for vouchers is quite high, and as a result, demand exceeds the supply of Section 8 units within the City. Temecula will continue to work with
the County of Riverside to educate property owners on the Section 8 program.
60
Goal Contributing Factors Fair Housing
Issues
Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
3. Provide
greater access
to public
facilities and
improvements
for persons
with
disabilities
3A: Inaccessible
sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, or other
infrastructure
A. 3B: Inaccessible
government facilities
or services
Disparities in
Access to
Opportunity
Adopt an ADA Transition Plan to evaluate public
facilities to ensure equal access for persons with
disabilities. The assessment will include 38 city
parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball
courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities,
four fire stations, 110 signalized intersections, 95
bus stops and 310 miles of roadways with ADA
ramps. (Adopt Plan by December 31, 2018) (CF 3A)
Include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the
2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to
upgrade the City’s infrastructure and public facilities
to provide accessibility for those with disabilities.
An average of one accessibility project will be
constructed each year with CDBG funds, with an
average allocation of $100,000, based on level
CDBG funding during the planning cycle. (Con Plan
adopted by May 15, 2017. Allocation adopted
annually by June 30.) (CF 3B)
In the 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, allocate
$150,000 for the construction of a new sidewalk on
Ynez Road that serves several bus lines and County
of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG
funding throughout the entire planning period. (Plan
adopted by May 15, 2017; Construction completed
by December 31, 2018) (CF3A and 3B)
Construct accessibility upgrades at Pala Park located
in Census Tract 432.50, including 4 additional
disabled parking spaces, truncated domes, and a new
City of Temecula
61
playground with approximately 7 play structures
designed to be all inclusive and provide access to
those with special needs. (Construction completed
by January 2019). (CF 3A)
Complete the construction of the new playground at
Sam Hicks Park located in Census Tract 512.00,
utilizing a total of $350,000 in CDBG funding for an
ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA
compliant ramps. (Construction completed by
December 31, 2017). (CF 3A)
Discussion: To promote meaningful access to opportunity for disabled residents in the community, the City of Temecula is committed to providing
greater access to public facilities and improvements as well as government facilities for persons with disabilities. According to Table 1, the largest
disabled population are those who are ambulatory (3.83%), followed by those with cognitive difficulty (3.54%), independent living difficulty (2.90%)
and those with hearing loss (2.67%). To make it possible for residents to fully avail themselves of all public facilities, services, and infrastructure in
the City as a means of promoting access to all opportunities afforded in the community, the City has recently identified improvements that can be
made to public improvements and facilities, such as the replacement of sidewalks. Old Town and the adjacent area have over 500 affordable units.
Old Town is in a CDBG Eligible Census Tract, 432.15. There are several sections of sidewalk needed for safe access to public facilities, parks, and
a grocery store. The City funded two sections of the construction of new sidewalks in Old Town in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan cycle.
The Ynez Road sidewalk improvements will install missing sections of sidewalk to connect residents using the bus t o access mainstream services
offered at the Riverside County Offices located at 41000 County Center Drive. Residents, including those with disabilities, u se this route to access
services such as the mental health clinic, substance abuse program, WIC program and county courts.
To help the City ensure that all such facilities posing barriers to residents are addressed, the City will complete and adopt ion of an ADA Transition
Plan. The ADA Plan is expected to be adopted by December 31, 2018 and identify accessibility issues at public facilities including The assessment
will include 38 City parks, three trail systems, four tennis/basketball courts, three swimming pools, 20 public facilities, f our fire stations, 110
signalized intersections, 95 bus stops, and 310 miles of roadways with ADA ramps. Approximately 587 locations will be analyzed. Both City Hall
and the Old Town Police Substation were constructed in 2010 and are ADA compliant. Once the ADA Transition Plan is updated, those accessibility
needs shall be prioritized for funding. Each deficiency will be evaluated based on the level of inaccessibility, funding availability, number of persons
affected, and priorities established. The City typically budgets one accessibility infrastructure project with CDBG f unds per year. Other projects may
be undertaken as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
62
The City will include a high priority Strategic Plan goal in the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan to use CDBG funds to upgrade the City’s infrastructure
and public facilities to provide accessibility for those with disabilities. An average of one accessibility project will be construct ed each year with
CDBG funds, with an average allocation of $100,000, based on level CDBG funding during the planning cycle.
In the City’s proposed 2017-18 CDBG Annual Action Plan, $150,000 will be allocated for the construction of a new sidewalk on Ynez Road that
serves several bus lines and County of Riverside social services, subject to level CDBG funding throughout the entire planning period. This segment
will complete a critical connection between regional bus lines and a regional job center (Promenade Mall) and County services .
In a developer-driven project, upgrades to Pala Park will be constructed to improve accessibility, i ncluding 4 additional disabled parking spaces,
truncated domes, and a new playground with approximately 7 play structures designed to be all inclusive, that are designed to provide access to those
with special needs. During this AFH cycle, the City will also complete the construction of the new playground at Sam Hicks Park, utilizing a total of
$350,000 in CDBG funding for an ADA accessible play structure, and two ADA compliant ramps. The park is located in a CDBG eli gible Census
Tract (432.15) that serves many low income families.
As it has done in the past, the City will continue to work with the community to establish priorities and needs for accessibility upgrades at City facilities.
63
Goal Contributing Factors Fair Housing
Issues Metrics, Milestones, and Timeframe for Achievement
Responsible
Program
Participant(s)
4. Provide
equal housing
opportunities
for protected
classes.
4A: Lack of resources for
fair housing agencies and
organizations (CF 4A)
A. 4B: Private
discrimination
Disparities in
Access to
Opportunity
Annually provide approximately 12% of public
service funds from CDBG to a fair housing service
provider to provide outreach, education and assistance
enforcing fair housing laws – particularly those
protecting the rights of disabled residents. (Annually
by June 30) (CF 4A)
Increase public awareness of accessibility and fair
housing requirements by inviting representatives of
the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing
industries to one annual workshop hosted by the City
of Temecula and fair housing providers. Invitations
will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50
members of the local real estate community from the
City’s Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13
affordable housing complexes in the City. (Annually
by June 30). (CF 4A and 4B)
Increase support for fair housing training and
education by adding the most current fair housing
information on the City’s website. (Annually by June
30) (CF 4A and 4B)
The City will distribute and replenish the supply of
fair housing materials, including literature concerning
reasonable accommodation / modification rights and
responsibilities at five City facilities including the
Temecula Community Center, City Hall, the Mary
Phillips Senior Center, Ronald H. Roberts Library,
and the Community Recreation Center. (Monthly, by
the 30th day of each month) (CF 4A and 4B)
City of Temecula
64
The City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless
Alliance, will host three different panels of
representatives from organizations such as the Fair
Housing Council of Riverside County and the
Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local
homelessness and affordable housing advocates on
fair housing issues and affordable housing issues,
particularly those affecting residents with disabilities.
(June 2022) (CF 4A and 4B)
Discussion: The fourth goal is to provide equal housing opportunities for disabled residents. At the local, state and national level, dis crimination on
the basis of disability is the leading basis for fair housing discrimination cases. According to consultation with the City’s fair housing service provider,
the lack of knowledge on fair housing issues amongst property owners and landlords continues to be the primary reason for discrimination complaints
against persons with disabilities in Temecula and the region. This denies persons with disabilities the right to avail themselves of housing opportunities
in the City or the right to remain housed in place when, for example, a landlord refuses a disability-related modification.
To address this denial of access to housing opportunities that affects Temecula residents with disabilities each year, the City will ensu re the provision
of a robust fair housing program each fiscal year that promotes outreach and education via multiple modes of communication. This effort will include
annual appropriations of funds to a nonprofit fair housing service provider with a specific scope of work to address the housing rights of residents with
disabilities. Further, the City will supplement the limited financi al and staffing resources of the nonprofit fair housing service provider by convening
representatives of promote awareness by convening an annual workshop to include the building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries for
the purpose of providing fair housing education. Invitations will be extended to 25 frequent developers, 50 members of the local real estate community
that graduated from the City’s Temecula Trekkers program, and all 13 affordable housing complexes in the City. The property m anagers of the 13
affordable complexes are some of the most likely housing providers to need information about their obligation to comply with fair housing laws.
Further, education will be supplemented through the availability of printed materials at five public facilities and on the City’s website.
The City’s third party fair housing provider, the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, conducts an annual conference on fair housing issues and
invites representatives of the government, building, banking, real estate, and rental housing industries. Over 150 people attend the annual Fair Housing
Conference.
During this Planning period, City, in conjunction with the Regional Homeless Alliance, will host three different panels of re presentatives from
organizations such as the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County and Riverside County Housing Authority to train 25 local homelessness and
65
affordable housing advocates on fair housing issues and affordable housing issues. Conducting workshops for those in the housing industry will
educate the appropriate stakeholders on fair housing regulations and accessibility requirements, and then reduce instances of fair housing violations.
Training this Regional Alliance will not only help overcome the contributing factor in Temecula, but in surrounding cities as well. y.
APPENDIX A
HUD-Provided Maps
Map Series Title
Map 1 Race and Ethnicity Trends (2010) ................................................................ 1
Map 2 Race and Ethnicity Trends (1990) ............................................................... 3
Map 3 National Origin (2010) ................................................................................. 5
Map 4 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) with R/ECAPs ..................................... 7
Map 5 Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity ......................................... 9
Map 6 Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity .......................................... 11
Map 7 Housing Burden and Race/Ethnicity .......................................................... 13
Map 8 Housing Burden and National Origin ......................................................... 15
Map 9 Demographics and School Proficiency
School Proficiency and Race/Ethnicity ......................................... 17
School Proficiency and National Origin ....................................... 19
School Proficiency and Family Status .......................................... 21
Map 10 Demographics and Job Proximity
Job Proximity and Race/Ethnicity ................................................. 23
Job Proximity and National Origin ............................................... 25
Job Proximity and Family Status .................................................. 27
Map 11 Demographics and Labor Market
Labor Market and Race/Ethnicity ................................................. 29
Labor Market and National Origin ................................................ 31
Labor Market and Family Status ................................................... 33
Map 12 Demographics and Transit Trips
Transit Trips and Race/Ethnicity................................................... 35
Transit Trips and National Origin ................................................. 37
Transit Trips and Family Status .................................................... 39
Map 13 Demographics and Low Transportation Cost
Low Transportation Cost and Race/Ethnicity ............................... 41
Low Transportation Cost and National Origin .............................. 42
Low Transportation Cost and Family Status ................................. 44
Map 14 Demographics and Poverty
Poverty and Race/Ethnicity ........................................................... 46
Poverty and National Origin ......................................................... 48
Poverty and Family Status ............................................................ 50
Map 15 Demographics and Environmental Health
Environmental Health and Race/Ethnicity .................................... 52
Environmental Health and National Origin ................................... 54
Environmental Health and Family Status ...................................... 56
Map 16 Disability by Type
Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disability ..................................... 58
Ambulatory, Self-Care and Independent Living Disability ........... 60
Map 17 Disability by Age Group ............................................................................ 62
HUD-Provided Maps
As described in the narrative, the City of Temecula is located in the corner of the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is the largest MSA in the
continental United States. It is so large that the Assessment of Fair Housing could not include the
entire region on the maps without losing all relevant data. The region is larger than ten of the smallest
U.S. states. Most of the population is located in the southwest corner and while Temecula appears
to be near these population centers because of the scale of the map, it is actually over 40 miles from
the City of Riverside and 70 miles from the Cities of San Bernardino and Ontario, the largest cities
in the region, and 75 miles away from the retirement desert towns and farming areas to the east.
Mountain ranges separate Temecula from population centers to the west in Orange County, as well
as the eastern portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
As required by HUD, the City has included a series of maps and tables that analyze demographic
trends, integration and segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, housing needs, disability
access, publicly supported housing, and fair housing needs. The following series of maps is organized
such that the first map shows the relationship between the City and the region, and subsequent maps
are organized so that a City data topical map will be presented first, followed by the regional map.
The maps are numbered to correspond with HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
AFFH data system. The map numbers correspond to the topic.
Appendix A 1
Map 1 – Race/Ethnicity Trends (2010)
Map 1 demonstrates geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. Each dot represents 75 persons. This map demonstrates that racial and ethnic groups
are spread evenly throughout the City of Temecula. There is no significant segregation within the City.
Appendix A 2
The regional map is provided to add context and point out the large size of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) accounted for in regional data comparisons supplied by
HUD. To better evaluate the data, the scale of the map has been reduced in the remaining regional maps. However, much of the detail is lost due to the scale. As indicated
in the narrative, because of its location and distance from the population centers further north, the characteristic s of the City data is not always comparable to the region as a
whole. Note that the City of Temecula is shown in dark red at the southwest corner of the region.
Appendix A 3
Map 2 – Race/Ethnicity Trends (1990)
Map 2 demonstrates geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 1990. In comparing the maps from 1990 and 2010, there are no significant concentrations of
segregation that have developed, despite tremendous growth that has occurred during the period.
Appendix A 4
Map 2 demonstrates the racial composition in the region in 1990 and it shows the tremendous growth of Hispanics in the population centers of the north. The City has also
shown a less dramatic growth rate than the region.
Appendix A 5
Map 3 – National Origin (2010)
Map 3 demonstrates population by national origin in Temecula, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are no significant concentrations of persons
based on national origin. Instead they are spread evenly throughout the City.
Appendix A 6
Map 3 demonstrates population by national origin throughout the region, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are significant concentrations of
persons of Mexican origin in the urban areas to the north.
Appendix A 7
Map 4 – Limited English Proficiency (LEP) with Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
Map 4 demonstrates where persons with limited English proficiency live, based on ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). There are no significant concentrations of
persons with limited English proficiency within the City. They are spread evenly throughout the community.
Appendix A 8
Map 4 demonstrates where those with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) lived throughout the region in 2010. They were concentrated in the population centers to the north.
The City has some limited English proficiency residents, but they are not concentrated in one section of the City.
Appendix A 9
Map 5 – Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity
Map 5 demonstrates where subsidized housing is located throughout the City, based on the 2010 Census. Subsidized housing is primarily located near major employment
centers and transportation systems.
Appendix A 10
Map 5 shows the locations of publicly supportive housing throughout the region. The City has some publicly supported housing units, mostly located in the western central
portion of the City. The City also has a number of developments assisted by redevelopment funds. These can be found in Appendix J.
Appendix A 11
Map 6 – Housing Choice Vouchers and Race/Ethnicity
Map 6 demonstrates that there are no racially and ethnically concentrated areas with Housing Choice Vouchers in the City. There are no RE/CAPs in the City.
Appendix A 12
Map 6 shows that there are few concentrations of housing choice vouchers in the region, mostly in the northern part of the region. Temecula has some housing choice
vouchers located in the western central portions of the City.
Appendix A 13
Map 7 shows geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates where households are experiencing one or more housing burdens. The
darker the shading, the greater the prevalence of homes experiencing cost burdens. Cost burden means that rent plus utility costs exceed 30% of the resident’s monthly
income. The area with the greatest burden is located in the Temecula Elementary School neighborhood where there is a high concentration of market-rate apartments. This
would indicate the need for additional affordable rental housing. The older established single-family neighborhoods in the City have the least cost burden.
Appendix A 14
Map 7 shows areas with housing burden, something that Temecula shares with most of the region and all of Southern California. The darker the shading, the greater the
percentage of households experiencing housing cost burdens.
Appendix A 15
Map 8 shows geographic patterns of national origin concentrations in 2010. The shading indicates where households are experiencing one or more housing burdens. The
darker shading represents a greater prevalence of housing units with cost burdens. Cost burden means that rent plus utility costs exceed 30% of the resident’s monthly
income. While the greatest concentrations of households with housing costs burdens are located in two areas of the City, there is not a concentration in those areas of persons
based on national origin.
Appendix A 16
Map 8 shows housing cost burden by national origin. The City does not have any concentrations of immigrants ; they are spread throughout the City. The regions to the
north and east do have concentrations and many immigrants are experiencing higher than average cost burdens in the region. The housing burdens are felt equally by all
racial and ethnic groups in Temecula.
Appendix A 17
There are three versions for Map 9 for school proficiency. This first map shows geographic patterns school proficiency with an overlay of racial and ethnic concentrations
in 2010. The shading indicates the performance of 4th graders on State exams in 2012. The darker the shadowing, the higher the performance. The area with the lowest
school proficiency is in an area with a large number of apartments. The area with the lowest school proficiency in the north west is sparsely populated and is comprised of
mostly industrial uses. There is no significant concentration of racial/ethnic groups in the low performing tracts.
Appendix A 18
This version of Map 9 is difficult to analyze the detail because of the breadth of the region; however, the following map with national origin provides more detailed data in
comparing school proficiency in Temecula.
Appendix A 19
This version of Map 9 shows geographic patterns school proficiency with an overlay of national origin concentrations in Temecula in 2010. The shading indicates the
performance of 4th graders on State exams in 2012. The darker colors indicate higher performance on exams. There is no significant concentration of a particular group in
the lower performing schools.
Appendix A 20
This version of Map 9 for National Origin data demonstrates that school proficiency is much higher in the City than in most of the region. As indicated in the narrative, all
racial and ethnic groups benefit from the good schools in the City.
Appendix A 21
This version of Map 9 displays where households with children are located within the City. The shading indicates the performance of 4th graders on State exams in 2012.
The darker shading represents higher performance. While there are families living in the low proficiency areas, there is not a high concentration of families living there.
The City’s scores on standardized tests are substantially better than the region as a whole and almost all schools perform better than the national average.
Appendix A 22
Because of the scale of Map 9, regional details are difficult to analyze without referring to the previous map. Coupled with other maps and tables in the Assessment of Fair
Housing, families in Temecula have access to higher proficiency schools than much of the region.
Appendix A 23
There are two versions for Map 10 for job proximity. The map above demonstrates a geographic overlay of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010, coupled with an index
for the distance residents have between home and work. In this case, the darker shading represents better access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
There are no patterns of racial/ethnic concentrations with respect to job proximity in Temecula. The disadvantaged areas have the greatest proximity to jobs. The rest of the
community has variable patterns in access, with the corridors along I-15, west of I-15, and commercial arteries along Temecula Parkway having the greatest proximity to
jobs. The lower density residential areas have the least proximity to jobs, which may indicate a higher concentration of commuters.
Appendix A 24
The scale of the map above displays the enormous land area of the Riverside-San Bernardino MSA, while also demonstrating an overlay of racial and ethnic groups over a
measurement of job proximity. There is wide variation in this factor throughout the region. The darker shading represents access to closer job opportunities. Generally the
City’s diverse neighborhood scores are representative of the region. More detail can be found in the following map.
Appendix A 25
This version of Map 10 shows geographic patterns based on the top 5 national origin concentrations in Temecula in 2010 and provides an index for physical distances
between home and work. In this case, the darker shading represents better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. There are no
concentrations based on national origin in Temecula. Access is equal for all groups.
Appendix A 26
This regional version of Map 10 shows that much greater job proximity within the population centers to the north where there are extensive industrial complexes, and in the
desert communities in the east, where many residents are retired or working in agriculture.
Appendix A 27
This version of Map 10 displays the geographic patterns based an overlay of families with children in 2010 with an indicator of the physical distances between home and
work for households with children. In the case the darker shading represents better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Families are
scattered throughout the City and not necessarily concentrated in areas with close proximity to jobs.
Appendix A 28
This version of Map 10 shows the relationship of families with job proximity in the region. Because of the scale of the map, patterns are difficult to identify, however
Temecula does have a high concentration of households with children.
Appendix A 29
There are three versions for Map 11 for labor market. The map above shows geographic patterns of racial and ethnic concentrations in 2010 and provides an index on
unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. The darker shading
represents greater labor engagement. Higher income areas have the greatest job readiness in the City. The lowest labor market index is in the southern portion of the City
near the Pechanga Resort and Casino. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula, University of Redlands,
Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. There is no significant concentration
of racial/ethnic groups in the City, based on labor market readiness.
Appendix A 30
Map 11 shows that much of the region is lacking in labor engagement. Although some classes are available locally, the lack of community college in Temecula in 2010 is
probably part of the reason for this deficiency. However, since 2010, several campuses have opened in Temecula including Cal State San Marcos at Temecula , University
of Redlands, Concordia University, and Mount San Jacinto. More recent data would likely show an improvement in job readiness of the labor market. Other areas have
notably higher ratings such in the vicinity of UC Riverside, Cal State San Bernardino and Redlands College in the north and in Orange County to the west.
Appendix A 31
This version shows geographic patterns based on national origin in 2010 and measures unemployment rate, labor -force participation rate, and percent of the population ages
25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. The darker the shading represents greater labor market engagement. All groups have relatively equal labor
engagement opportunities.
Appendix A 32
This version of Map 11 shows the low labor force readiness throughout the region in 2010. The Temecula area has better scores than the region, but lags behind Orange
County to the west. It is important to consider the number of local college campuses that have added Temecula locations in the past several years . It is important to note that
a mountain range separates Orange County from Temecula.
Appendix A 33
This version shows geographic patterns based households with families in 2010 and provides and index regarding unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and
percent of the population ages 25 and above with at least a bachelor’s degree, by neighborhood. The darker the shading represents greater labor market engagement. Families
are spread throughout the City, although there is a concentration of families in areas with greater labor market engagement. The area with the lowest labor market index had
the least concentration of families.
Appendix A 34
This version of Map 11 shows familial status in relationship with the labor market in the region. The map clearly demonstrates the familial centric area of the Temecula
Valley. More detailed data for Temecula can be found in the previous versions of Map 11.
Appendix A 35
There are three versions to Map 12, which provides and index on the number of transit trips a neighborhood uses public transportation, with an overlay of the top five race
and ethnicity groups in the City. The darker the shading, the greater the transportation access at the neighborhood level. There is one area in the north that has a low use of
public transportation. This is Census Tract 432.17, which includes the Meadowview neighborhood. It is not an eligible CDBG area, because its median income is too high.
(See map of CDBG-eligible areas in Appendix G.) It is also an area, as shown in Map 11, with a higher than average market engagement. This would indicate that there is
not a great of a need for public transportation in that particular area. Racial/ethnicity is not a factor since they are spread evenly throughout the City.
Appendix A 36
Map 12 shows that access to public transportation is a challenge to the scattered population centers in this large region. Compare this map with the following version of the
same map.
Appendix A 37
This version of Map 12 provides an index on the number of transit trips in a particular neighborhood, with an overlay of residents by national origi n. The darker shading
represents a greater public transportation usage at the neighborhood level. There is one area known as the Meadowview neighborhood in the northern portion of the City
with a low transportation index; however, there are few immigrants in that particular census tract. There are no concentrations of groups that have significantly lower access
to public transportation than other groups.
Appendix A 38
This regional version of Map 12 demonstrates the challenges of providing public transportation. Temecula’s access to public transportation is above average in the region;
however, it is still a local challenge that can be improved upon.
Appendix A 39
This version of Map 12, demonstrates how often families with children in a particular census tract use public transportation. The darker shading indicates greater usage at
the neighborhood level. In the lightly shaded census tract in the northern portion of the City, there are fewer families that reside in that area.
Appendix A 40
This version of Map 12 provided by HUD shows regional that there are high concentrations of families with children in the regional population centers.
Appendix A 41
There are three versions to Map 13, which provides an index on the cost of transportation by census tract. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the
neighborhood level. The lower income census tracts have lower transportation costs due to usage of public transportation. All races and ethnicities are equally affected by
the cost of transportation.
Appendix A 42
This version of Map 13 measures cost of transportation by neighborhood by national origin. The darker shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood
level. The lower income census tracts have lower transportation costs due to usage of public transportation. Racial and ethnic groups are spread evenly throughout the City,
but the map above shows that most have lower than average costs for transportation.
Appendix A 43
This version of Map 13 shows more clearly that transportation costs are lower along freeway arteries in the north ern portion of the region and in Temecula. However, it is
still a major challenge to provide low cost transportation in the entire region.
Appendix A 44
This version of Map 13 provides an index for the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood by families with children. The darker
shading represents lower cost of transportation at the neighborhood level. Families are spread throughout the City, but areas with the highest cost for transportation tend to
have fewer families.
Appendix A 45
This version of Map 13 demonstrates the households with families and low transportation cost for the entire region. The famil ies with children tend to be clustered around
the regional population centers. While Temecula fares better than many other communities in the region for transportation costs, public transportation is a challenge for the
entire region.
Appendix A 46
There are three versions of Map 14, which provides an index regarding exposure to poverty by census tract, with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The darker shading
represents less exposure to poverty. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006-
2010). The north central part of the City has the greatest exposure to poverty. Many commercial shopping centers are located in this census tract, along with a mix of
affordable housing units, and market-rate apartments. This census tract also contains Temecula Elementary, the City’s only Title I School. When compared to data in Table
12 in the Assessment, Temecula fares better than the national average for exposure to poverty with all race and ethnicities.
Appendix A 47
The regional Map 14 provides a low poverty index with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The exposure to poverty varies widely throughout the region, as to be expected
with a large area.
Appendix A 48
This version of Map 14 measures exposure to poverty by census tract by national origin. The darker shading represents less exposure to poverty. The factor is based on the
number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by HUD (2006-2010). While persons from other nations live in the area with
the highest exposure to poverty, populations based on national origin are spread evenly throughout the City. This census tract also contains Temecula Elementary, the City’s
only Title I School. When compared to data in Table 12 in the Assessment, Temecula fares better than the natio nal average for exposure to poverty with all race and
ethnicities.
Appendix A 49
This version of Map 14 demonstrates that the region has large variations in exposure to poverty, as seen in the checkboard pattern. It is greater in the northern portions of
the region and the agricultural areas to the east than in Temecula.
Appendix A 50
This version of Map 14 provides an index on the exposure to poverty by for families with children, broken down by census tract. The darker the shading represents less
exposure to poverty at the neighborhood level. The factor is based on the number of persons in poverty in a census block group in 2010 based on an ACS data provided by
HUD (2006-2010). There is not a concentration of families in the census tracts with the greatest exposure to poverty in the City.
Appendix A 51
The regional version of Map 14 demonstrations high variation rates in exposure to poverty for families with children throughout the region. As demonstrated by the
previous map, there is less variation in exposure to poverty in Temecula than the region as a whole.
Appendix A 52
There are three versions of Map 15, which provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological
toxins by census tract, with an overlay of race and ethnicity. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the
greatest exposure to environmental health concerns are located along the freeway. Temecula’s exposure to environmental health issues is lower than the region’s average.
Appendix A 53
Regional Map 15 demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not
fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region.
Appendix A 54
This version of Map 15 provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract,
with an overlay of households by the top five national origins. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality and toxicity issues at the neighborhood level. The
areas with the highest exposure are closest to the freeway.
Appendix A 55
Regional Map 15, with an overlay of top five national origins, demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population centers in Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region.
Appendix A 56
This version of Map 15 provides an index on environmental health, based on EPA estimates of air quality, carcinogenic, respiratory, and neurological toxins by census tract,
with an overlay of households with families. The darker shading represents less exposure to air quality and toxicity issues at the neighborhood level. The areas with the
highest exposure are closest to the freeway.
Appendix A 57
This regional version of Regional Map 15, with an overlay of households with children, demonstrates that Temecula has better environmental health than other population
centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, however does not fare as well as the less populous and less dense areas of the region.
Appendix A 58
Map 16 – Disability by Type – Hearing, Vision and Cognitive Disability
There are two versions of Map 16. This version depicts a dot density distribution by disability type (hearing, vision, cognit ion). Persons with disabilities are evenly
distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012).
Appendix A 59
Map 16 shows the locations where persons with hearing, vision and cognitive disabilities live throughout the region. The map demonstrates that they are concentrated in the
northern urban areas of Riverside County, Hemet, and in the desert communities.
Appendix A 60
Map 16 – Disability by Type – Ambulatory, Self-Care and Independent Living Disability
This version of Map 16 depicts a dot density distribution by disability type (ambulatory, self-care, independent living). Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed
throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS data (2008-2012).
Appendix A 61
Map 16 shows where persons with ambulatory, self-care and independent living disabilities are located throughout the region. While the City has some residents with
disabilities, the greatest concentrations are in the north, closer to County services.
Appendix A 62
Map 17 – Disability by Age Group
Map 17 shows the location of people with disabilities by age. Persons with disabilities are evenly distributed throughout the City. Data was supplied by HUD based on ACS
data (2008-2012).
Appendix A 63
Map 17 shows the ages of those with disabilities from a regional perspective. As common for other persons with disabilities, these persons have located near where County
services can be easily accessed.
APPENDIX B
HUD-Provided Tables
APPENDIX B
HUD-Provided Tables
Table Series Title
Table 1 Demographics (2010) ................................................................................... 1
Table 2 Demographic Trends (1990-2010) .............................................................. 2
Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990-2010) ......................................... 3
Table 4 R/ECAPs Demographics .............................................................................. 4
Table 5 Publicly Supported Housing Units by Program Category ............................ 5
Table 6 Publicly Supported Housing Residents by Race/Ethnicity ........................... 6
Table 7 R/ECAP and Non-R/ECAP Demographics by Publicly Supported Housing
Program Category ........................................................................................ 7
Table 8 Demographics of Publicly Supported Housing Development by Program
Category ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 9 Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs ......... 9
Table 10 Demographics of Households with Severe Housing Cost Burden ............. 10
Table 11 Publicly Supported Housing by Program Category: Units by Number of
Bedrooms and Number of Children ........................................................... 11
Table 12 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity .................................................. 12
Table 13 Disability by Type...................................................................................... 13
Table 14 Disability by Age Group ............................................................................ 14
Table 15 Disability by Publicly Supported Housing Program Category ................... 15
Appendix B 1
Table 1 provides a comparison in the demographic data for the City with the region including total population, the number
and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity, national origin (10 most populous), Limited English Proficiency populations
(LEP) (10 most populous), disability by type, sex, age range (under 18, 18-64, 65+), and households with children. The
City is diverse in its racial/ethnic composition, national origin, LEP, and persons with disabilities. However, the region as
a whole is even more diverse than the City. The region is the largest region in the United States and is home to many
immigrant households. Demographic data is based on sample questions from the 2010 Census and may not reflect official
data released by the Census Bureau.
Appendix B 2
Table 2 shows demographic trends from 1990 through 2010. Tabular demographic trend data for the City and region,
including the number and percentage of persons by race/ethnicity, total national origin (foreign born), total LEP, sex, age
range (under 18, 18-64, 65+), and households with children. The City has experienced tremendous growth in the last twenty
years. While all racial and ethnic groups except Native Americans have increased numerically, Hispanics and Asians have
far exceeded other racial and ethnic groups proportionately. Whites are continuing to increase , but at a slower rate. This is
true for the region as a whole. This is also reflected in the percentage of persons from other nations. However, those with
limited English proficiency have not increased as dramatically. The number families with children, in proportion to the
general population, (and correspondingly those under the age of 18) have decreased in the last ten years for both the City
and region.
Appendix B 3
Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity – Tabular race/ethnicity dissimilarity index for the City and the region. Dissimilarity
index values between 0 and 39 generally indicate high integration (low segregation), values between 40 and 54 generally
indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation. Despite its
tremendous growth rate, the City continues to have low dissimilarity trends meaning that there is high integration for all
populations. On the other hand, the region is experiencing moderate segregation of population groups.
Appendix B 4
Table 4 provides tabular data for the percentage of racial/ethnic groups, families with children, and national origin groups
(10 most populous) for the City and region who reside in R/ECAPs (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty).
Note: The City does not have an R/ECAPS. As seen in many of the maps in this Assessment of Fair Housing, the region
contains several R/ECAP areas, with the closest located approximately thirty miles away in Hemet.
Appendix B 5
Table 5 provides tabular data for total units by four categories of publicly supported housing in the Jurisdiction (Public
Housing, Project-Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program) for the City. The chart
below does not include affordable housing projects funding with former redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing
of redevelopment assisted units.
Appendix B 6
Table 6 provides tabular race/ethnicity data for four categories of publicly supported housing (Public Housing, Project-
Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, Tenant-Based Section 8 Vouchers (HCV)) in the City, compared to the population as
a whole, and to persons earning 30% annual median income (AMI), in the City. Except for Asians, all racial/ethnic groups
have similar participation rates in publicly supported housing. Hispanics and Blacks have a greater proportion of
participation than Whites for project-based vouchers and Blacks have a greater proportion than the other groups for tenant-
based vouchers. However, the programs do not show any patterns of segregation. The chart below does not include units
assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of those units.
Appendix B 7
Table 7 provides tabular data on publicly supported housing units and R/ECAPs for the City. It is important to note that
the City does not have any R/ECAPS (racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty). The chart below shows that
HCV units mostly include elderly and households with disabilities, some which are families with children present. The
chart below does not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of those units.
Appendix B 8
Table 8 provides development level demographics by Public Housing, Project-Based Section 8, and Other Multifamily1 for
the City. This corresponds to the information presented in Table 6 for Project- Based Section 8 units. It should be noted
that these totals do not reflect the units assisted with City redevelopment funds. Refer to Appendix J lists for redevelopment
units.
Appendix B 9
Table 9 provides tabular data of total households in the City and region households experiencing one or more housing
burdens by race/ethnicity and family size. For this table, the City’s percentages mirror the region and the nation on avera ge,
for nearly all categories for households experiencing disproportionate housing needs. Whites have the lowest percentage of
problems at 47% with Hispanics having the highest for the major groups at 62%. The Native American percentage may be
high, because of Pechanga tribal land that is adjacent to City limits. The same conclusion holds true for those households
with severe housing problems. They again reflect the region as a whole.
Appendix B 10
Table 10 provides tabular data of the total number of households in the City and region experiencing severe housing burdens
by race/ethnicity. The City’s percentages reflect the region but the difference is not statistically significant among
races/ethnicities and household types and sizes.
Appendix B 11
Table 11 provides tabular data on the number of bedrooms for units of 4 categories of publicly supported housing (Public
Housing, Project-Based Section 8, Other Multifamily, HCV) for the City. The chart below does not include units assisted
with City redevelopment funds. The smaller units for HCV reflect that most of the units house seniors and persons with
disabilities. See Appendix J for a listing of redevelopment assisted units.
Appendix B 12
Table 12 provides tabular data of opportunity indices for school proficiency, jobs proximity, labor-market engagement,
transit trips, low transportation costs, low poverty, and environmental health for the City and region by race/ethnicity and
among households below the Federal poverty line. In the following table, the higher scores reflect better standards for the
City residents compared to the nation. In all of these indices, there is no significant difference among races and ethnicitie s
in the City.
In comparison to the national average (50%), the poverty and school proficiency indices are substantially higher, meaning
the City has less poverty and better performing schools. This is especially true when compared to the region, which has
scores substantially lower than the City. The labor market index is average compared to the nation, but much higher than
the region. The transit and transportation indices are below the average, partly due to California’s dependency on the
automobile. Temecula’s indices reflect the regional indices. Auto-dependency is also reflected with the average scores in
the Jobs Proximity Index. There is little difference between the region and the City in its transit and jobs proximity scores.
The same is true with the environmental health index, which is slightly below the national average and slightly above the
regional average.
Appendix B 13
Table 13 provides tabular data of persons with vision, hearing, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living
disabilities for the City and region. Persons may have more than one disability represented in the following table. The
percentages for the City are less in all categories compared to the region. This could reflect that more services are available
in the County Seats of both counties compared to the Temecula Valley. This sentiment has been echoed in community
meetings and consultations.
Appendix B 14
Table 14 provides data of persons with disabilities by age range (5-17, 18-64, and 65+) for the City and region. The table
reflects the greatest numbers of those with disabilities are adults between ages 18 and 64 followed by the elderly. To draw
a conclusion of need, this data is skewed due to the age span of categories. Proportionately, the City has fewer persons
with disabilities, except for children. This sentiment was also echoed in the community meetings.
Appendix B 15
Table 15 provides tabular data on disability and publicly supported housing for the City and region. The chart below does
not include units assisted with City redevelopment funds. See Appendix J for a listing of affordable housing projects funded
by redevelopment.
APPENDIX C
City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing
Resident Surveys
APPENDIX D
City of Temecula Assessment of Fair Housing
Stakeholder Survey
El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula está preparando el Plan Consolidado 2017-2021 y una
Evaluación de Vivienda Justa tal y como lo requiere el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo
Urbano de los Estados Unidos (HUD, por sus siglas en inglés). Esta Encuesta de Residentes
proporcionará aportaciones por parte de los residentes de la comunidad con respecto a la vivienda
justa, vivienda asequible, desarrollo comunitario, desarrollo económico y otras necesidades de los
residentes de la ciudad. El Plan Consolidado le permite al Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula
utilizar los fondos de Subsidios Globales para el Desarrollo Comunitario (CDBG) para mejorar la
calidad de vida de sus residentes.
Esta encuesta debe tomar alrededor de 5-7 minutos para completarla. Sus respuestas serán
confidenciales y únicamente utilizadas junto con todas las respuestas. El resultado de la encuesta
será incorporado al reporte del Plan Consolidad y Evaluación de Vivienda Justa del Ayuntamiento.
Las respuestas a las preguntas de esta encuesta son un componente esencial para el proceso de
planificación de Temecula. Si necesita asistencia o tiene preguntas con respecto a la encuesta, por
favor comuníquese con Dean Huseby, Consultante de CDBG, al correo
electrónico: dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com
¡Gracias por participar en esta
encuesta!
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
1. ¿Actualmente usted vive en la Ciudad de Temecula?*
Sí
No
1
Satisfacción de la
Vivienda
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
Extremadamente
Insatisfecho Insatisfecho Satisfecho
Extremadamente
Satisfecho
No aplica, no vivo
en Temecula
Si seleccionó extremadamente insatisfecho o insatisfecho, enumere hasta 3 razones por las cuales usted
no está satisfecho con su casa o apartamento:
2. En general, ¿qué tan satisfecho o insatisfecho está usted con su casa o
apartamento? Seleccione uno, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica
“Extremadamente Insatisfecho” y 4 indica “Extremadamente Satisfecho”?
*
2
3. Si usted pudiera cambiar algo acerca de su situación actual de vivienda. ¿cuál
sería?
*
Yo no cambiaría nada acerca de mi situación actual de vivienda.
Yo actualmente rento, pero me gustaría comprar/ser dueño de mi casa.
Yo viviría en una parte diferente de Temecula.
Yo soy dueño de una casa, y me gustaría venderla.
Me gustaría vivir en otra comunidad diferente en vez de Temecula.
Otro (por favor especifique)
3
Insatisfacción de la
Vivienda
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
1.
2.
3.
4. Si está insatisfecho, enumere por lo menos 3 razones por las cuales usted está
insatisfecho con su casa o apartamento:
4
Satisfacción de la
Vivienda
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
5. ¿Actualmente usted renta o es propietario?*
Rento
Propietario
Otro (por favor especifique)
5
Preguntas a Propietarios de
Casa
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
6. ¿Actualmente usted debe más dinero por la casa en comparación a su valor actual?*
Sí
No
No sé
No estoy preocupado en lo
absolute Algo preocupado Preocupado Extremadamente Preocupado
7. ¿Qué tan preocupado está usted con la posibilidad de que le suceda una ejecución
de préstamo hipotecario? Seleccione uno, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica “No
estoy preocupado en absoluto” y 4 indica “Extremadamente Preocupado”?
*
6
Preguntas a
Arrendatarios
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
Extremadamente Difícil Difícil Fácil Extremadamente Fácil
8. ¿Qué tal fácil o difícil fue para usted encontrar una unidad de arrendamiento que
estuviera a su alcance financiero en Temecula, en la escala del 1 al 4, donde 1 indica
“Extremadamente Difícil” y 9 “Extremadamente Fácil”?
*
7
9. Si usted quiere comprar una casa en Temecula, ¿por qué no lo ha hecho?
(Seleccione todos los que apliquen).
*
No tengo suficiente dinero para el enganche.
No puedo sostener un préstamo hipotecario.
No puedo sostener el costo de mantenimiento asociado con la propiedad de vivienda.
Tengo mal crédito.
No puedo encontrar la casa que quiero comprar.
Planteo mudarme a otra ciudad.
No aplica; no deseo comprar una casa.
Otro (por favor especifique)
8
Considere las necesidades en Temecula. Seleccione tres necesidades principales dentro de cada
categoría de actividades admisibles.
Necesidades de Vivienda y Desarrollo
Comunitario
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
10. Instalaciones Comunitaria (puede seleccionar hasta 3)*
Centros para Personas de la
3ra. Edad
Centros para Jóvenes
Guarderías Infantiles
Parques e Instalaciones de
Recreación
Instalaciones para el Cuidado
de la Salud
Centros Comunitarios
Estaciones de Bomberos y
Equipo
Bibliotecas
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
11. Infraestructura (puede seleccionar hasta 3)*
Mejoras de Drenaje
Mejoras de
Agua/Alcantarillados
Mejoras de Calles/Callejones
Alumbrado Público
Mejoras de Banquetas
Mejoras según la Ley de
Americanos Discapacitados
(ADA) (banquetas, rampas,
espacios accesibles de
estacionamiento, etc.)
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
9
12. Necesidades Especiales (puede seleccionar hasta tres)*
Centros/Servicios para
Discapacitados
Mejoras de Accesibilidad
Servicios para Violencia
Doméstica
Servicios para Abuso de
Drogas
Albergues para Personas sin
Hogar/Servicios
Centros para Tratamiento de
HV/AIDS & Servicios
Centros para Niños
Desamparados/Abusados y
Servicios
Servicios para la
Autosuficiencia de la Familia
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
13. Servicios Comunitarios (puede seleccionar hasta tres)*
Actividades para Personas de
la 3ra. Edad
Actividades para Jóvenes
Servicios de Guarderías
Infantiles
Servicios de Transportación
Programas Contra el Crimen
Servicios para la Salud
Servicios para la Salud Mental
Servicios de Asesoría Legal
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
14. Servicios para Vecindarios (puede seleccionar hasta tres)*
Plantación de Árboles
Limpieza de Basura y
Escombros
Limpieza de Grafito
Imposición de Códigos de
Orden Público
Instalaciones para
Estacionamientos
Limpieza de Lotes Baldíos y
Edificios Abandonados
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
15. Negocios y Empleos (puede seleccionar hasta tres)*
Asistencia para el Inicio de un
Negocio
Préstamos para Empresas
Pequeñas
Creación/Retención de
Empleos
Capacitación de Empleos
Mejoras de Fachadas
Asesoramiento Empresarial
Rehabilitación
Comercial/Industrial
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
10
16. Vivienda (puede seleccionar hasta tres)*
Mejoras de Accesibilidad
(rampas, levantamientos de
sillas de ruedas, barras de
sostenimiento, barandales,
timbres de puertas visuales y
alarmas de humo/monóxido de
carbon)
Mejoras/Rehabilitación de
Viviendas Ocupadas por sus
Propietarios
Mejoras/Rehabilitación de
Viviendas de Arrendamiento
Asistencia para Comprar Casa
Vivienda de Arrendamiento
Asequible
Viviendas para Discapacitados
Viviendas para Personas de la
3ra. Edad
Viviendas para Familias
Grandes (más de 5 personas)
Servicios para Vivienda Justa
Eliminación y Prueba de
Pintura con Base de Plomo
Mejoras de Eficiencia
Energética
Vivienda Primordialmente para
Jóvenes Acogidos
Temporalmente
Vivienda para la Unificación de
Familias
No hay necesidad bajo esta
categoría
11
La vivienda justa es una condición en la cual los individuos de niveles de ingresos similares en el
mismo mercado de vivienda tienen variedades de elección disponibles para ellos
independientemente de raza, color, ascendencia, origen de nacionalidad, religión, sexo,
discapacidad, estado civil, estado familiar, o cualquier otro factor arbitrario.
Como parte del proceso de planificación, el Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Temecula debe analizar
los factores asociados con la elección de vivienda y discriminación. Por favor responda a las
siguientes preguntas:
Elección de Vivienda
Justa
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
17. ¿Cree usted que exista discriminación de vivienda en su vecindario?*
Sí
No
18. ¿Alguna vez usted ha experimentado discriminación para obtener o mantener
vivienda?
*
Sí
No
12
Si usted siente que pudo haber sido discriminado, comuníquese con la oficina del Concejo de
Vivienda Justa del Municipio de Riverside al (951) 371-6518. Los servicios proporcionados por el
Concejo de Vivienda Justa del Municipio de Riverside son gratuitos y están disponibles para todos
los residents.
Discriminación de
Vivienda
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
19. ¿Quién cree que lo ha discriminado?*
Propietario/Administrador de la Propiedad
Agente de Bienes Raíces
Prestamista Hipotecario
Asegurador Hipotecario
Otro (por favor especifique)
13
20. ¿En qué se basa a que usted pudo haber sido discriminado?*
Raza
Color
Origen de Nacionalidad
Género
Edad
Religión
Estado Familiar (padre soltero/madre soltera, divorciado(a))
Discapacidad
Otro (por favor especifique)
21. ¿Si usted cree que ha experimentado discriminación?, ¿lo denunció?
Sí
No
14
Discriminación de
Vivienda
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
22. ¿Por qué usted decidió no denunciar la discriminación de vivienda?
No sé a dónde puedo denunciarlo
Demasiados problemas
Miedo a represalias
No creo que vaya a crear alguna diferencia
Otro (por favor especifique)
15
Empleo
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
23. ¿Actualmente está empleado el individuo quien típicamente sirve como la fuente
principal de ingresos de su hogar?
Sí, tiene empleo
No, desempleado y actualmente buscando empleo
No, desempleado y no está buscando empleo
Jubilado
16
Información
Demográfica
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
24. Únicamente para el propósito de clasificación, ¿cuál categoría describe el total del
ingreso anual de su hogar?
Menos de $10,000
$10,000 a $25,000
$25,001 a $35,000
$35,001 a $50,000
$50,001 a $75,000
$75,001 a $100,000
$100,001 a $125,000
Más de $125,000
25. ¿Cuál es su origen étnico?
Hispano
No Soy Hispano
17
26. ¿Cuál es su raza? (marque todos los que apliquen)
Indio Americano/Nativo Alaskeño
Asiático
Negro/Afroamericano
Isleño del Pacífico
Blanco
Multi-Racial
Otro (por favor especifique)
27. ¿Tiene niños menores de 18 años viviendo en su casa?
Sí
No
28. Incluyéndose usted, ¿cuántas personas viven en su hogar?
1 persona
2 personas
3 personas
4 personas
5 personas
6 personas
7 personas
8 o más personas
18
Necesidades Especiales
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
29. ¿Algún miembro de su hogar tiene alguna discapacidad mental o física?
Sí, discapacidad mental
Sí, discapacidad física
Sí, ambas discapacidades física y mental
No
19
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
Otro (por favor especifique)
30. ¿Actualmente su casa satisface las necesidades del miembro(s) discapacitado(s)
de su hogar?
Sí
No
(por favor describa que es lo que necesita para proporcionar las necesidades al/los miembro(s)
discapacitado(os) de su hogar en la siguiente sección para comentarios.
20
Área de
Residencia
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
31. Por favor indique el código postal o el área de Temecula en la cual usted vive:*
21
¡Le agradecemos su participación en esta encuesta! Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca de esta
encuesta, la evaluación de vivienda justa o del Plan Consolidad, por favor comuníquese con Dean
Huseby al correo electrónico: dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com
Gracias
Encuesta para Vivienda Justa y Plan Consolidado del Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad
de Temecula
22
The City of Temecula is preparing the 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan and an Assessment of Fair
Housing as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This
Resident Survey will be provide input from the community regarding fair housing, affordable
housing, community development, economic development and other needs of its residents. The
Consolidated Plan allows Temecula to utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
to enhance the quality of life of its residents.
This survey should take about 5-7 minutes to complete. Your responses will be confidential and
only used together with all of the responses. The survey result will be incorporated in the City’s
Consolidated Plan and Assessment of Fair Housing report.
Your responses to these questions are an essential component of Temecula’s planning process.
Should you need assistance or have questions regarding the survey, please contact Dean Huseby,
CDBG Consultant at dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com.
Thank you for taking part in this
survey!
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
1. Do you currently live in the City of Temecula?*
Yes
No
1
Housing Satisfaction
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
1. Extremely Dissatisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Extremely Satisfied
N/A - I do not live in
Temecula
If extremely dissatisfied or dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are not satisfied with your home or
apartment:
2. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your home or apartment, on a
scale from 1-4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Dissatisfied" and 4 indicates "Extremely
Satisfied"?
*
2
3. If you could change one thing about your current living situation, what would it be?*
I wouldn't change anything about my current living situation.
I currently rent, but would like to buy/own my home.
I would live in a different part of Temecula.
I own a home, and would like to sell.
I would like to live in a different community other than Temecula.
Other (please specify)
3
Housing Dissatisfaction
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
1.
2.
3.
4. If dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are dissatisfied with your home or apartment:
4
Housing Satisfaction
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
5. Do you currently rent or own your home?*
Rent
Own
Other (please specify)
5
Homeowner
Questions
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
6. Do you currently owe more money on your home than it is worth?*
Yes
No
I don't know
1. Not at all Concerned 2. Somewhat Concerned 3. Concerned 4. Extremely Concerned
7. How concerned are you about your home going into foreclosure on a scale from "1"
to "4," where 1 indicates "Not at all concerned " and 4 indicates "Extremely
Concerned?"
*
6
Renter
Questions
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
1. Extremely Difficult 2. Difficult 3. Easy 4. Extremely Easy
8. How difficult or easy was it for you to find a rental unit you could afford in Temecula
on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates "Extremely Difficult" and 9 indicates
"Extremely Easy"?
*
9. If you want to buy a home in Temecula, why haven't you? (Select all that apply.)*
I do not have enough money for a down payment.
I cannot afford a mortgage.
I cannot afford the maintenance costs associated with homeownership.
I have poor credit.
I cannot find a home I want to buy.
I plan to move to another city.
Not applicable; I do not want to buy a home.
Other (please specify)
7
Consider the needs in Temecula. Select the top three needs within each category of eligible
activities. Do not choose more than three per category.
Housing and Community Development
Needs
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
10. Community Facilities (Choose up to three)*
Senior Centers
Youth Centers
Child Care Centers
Park & Recreational Facilities
Health Care Facilities
Community Centers
Fire Stations & Equipment
Libraries
No need in this category
11. Infrastructure (Choose up to three)*
Drainage Improvement
Water/Sewer Improvement
Street/Alley Improvement
Street Lighting
Sidewalk Improvements
ADA Improvements (sidewalk
ramps, accessible parking
spaces, etc.)
No need in this category
8
12. Special Needs (Choose up to three)*
Centers/Services for Disabled
Accessibility Improvements
Domestic Violence Services
Substance Abuse Services
Homeless Shelters/Services
HIV/AIDS Centers & Services
Neglected/Abused Children
Center and Services
Family Self-Sufficiency
Services
No need in this category
13. Community Services (Choose up to three)*
Senior Activities
Youth Activities
Child Care Services
Transportation Services
Anti-Crime Programs
Health Services
Mental Health Services
Legal Services
No need in this category
14. Neighborhood Services (Choose up to three)*
Tree Planting
Trash & Debris Removal
Graffiti Removal
Code Enforcement
Parking Facilities
Cleanup of Abandoned Lots
and Buildings
No need in this category
15. Businesses and Jobs (Choose up to three)*
Start-up Business Assistance
Small Business Loans
Job Creation/Retention
Employment Training
Facade Improvements
Business Mentoring
Commercial/Industrial
Rehabilitation
No need in this category
9
16. Housing (Choose up to three)*
Accessibility Improvements
(ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab
bars, handrails, visual door
bells and smoke/carbon
monoxide alarms)
Owner-Occupied Housing
Improvements / Rehabilitation
Rental Housing Improvements
/ Rehabilitation
Homeownership Purchase
Assistance
Affordable Rental Housing
Housing for Disabled
Senior Housing
Housing for Large Families (5+
people)
Fair Housing Services
Lead-Based Paint Testing and
Abatement
Energy Efficiency
Improvements
Housing for Former Foster
Youth
Housing for Family Unification
No need in this category
10
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing
market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national
origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
As part of the planning process, the City of Temecula must analyze the factors associated with
housing choice and discrimination. Please respond to the following questions:
Fair Housing
Choice
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
17. Do you believe housing discrimination exists in your neighborhood?*
Yes
No
18. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing?*
Yes
No
11
If you feel you may have been discriminated against, please contact the Fair Housing Council
of Riverside County at (951) 371-6518. The services provided by the Fair Housing Council of
Riverside County are free of charge and are available to all residents.
Housing Discrimination
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
19. Who do you believe discriminated against you?*
Landlord/Property Manager
Real Estate Agent
Mortgage Lender
Mortgage Insurer
Other (please specify)
12
20. On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against?*
Race
Color
National Origin
Gender
Age
Religion
Familial Status (ex. single-parent)
Disability
Other (please specify)
21. If you believe you have experienced housing discrimination, did you report it?
Yes
No
13
Housing Discrimination
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
22. Why did you decide not to report the housing discrimination?
Don't know where to report
Too much trouble
Afraid of retailiation
Don't believe it makes any difference
Other (please specify)
14
Employment
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
23. Is the individual who typically serves as the primary source of income for your
household currently employed?
Yes, employed
No, unemployed and currently seeking employment
No, unemployed and not seeking employment
Retired
15
Demographic
Information
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
24. Just for classification purposes, which category best describes your total annual
household income?
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $25,000
$25,001 to $35,000
$35,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
$75,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $125,000
More than $125,000
25. What is your ethnicity?
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
16
26. What is your race? (Mark all that apply)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black / African American
Pacific Islander
White
Multi-Racial
Other (please specify)
27. Are there children living in your home that are younger than 18 years of age?
Yes
No
28. Including yourself, how many people live in your household?
1 people
2 people
3 people
4 people
5 people
6 people
7 people
8 or more people
17
Special Needs
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
29. Do any members of your household have a mental or physical disability?
Yes, mental disability
Yes, physical disability
Yes, both mental and physical disability
No
18
Special Needs
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
Other (please specify)
30. Does your current home meet the needs of the disabled members of your
household?
Yes
No
(Please describe what is needed to meet the needs of the disabled household member(s) in the
comment box below)
19
Area of
Residence
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
31. Please list the zip code or area of Temecula you live in:*
20
Thank you for participating in this survey! If you have any questions about the survey, the
Assessment of Fair Housing or the Consolidated Plan, please contact Dean Huseby at
dhuseby@mdg-ldm.com.
Thank
You
City of Temecula Fair Housing and Consolidated Plan Survey
21
Appendix E 1
APPENDIX E
City of Temecula Stakeholder Consultation List
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency Type
Acacia Park Apartments Affordable Housing
Affirmed Housing Affordable Housing
AMCAL Multi-Housing Affordable Housing
Assistance League of Temecula Valley Youth
Atria Senior Living Senior
Autism Society Inland Empire Health
Better Days ARF Seniors
Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County Youth Services
Bridge Housing Affordable Housing
Building Industry Association Housing
California Apartment Association Inland Empire Rental Property
California State University San Marcos, Temecula Education
Cameron Historical Building Affordable Housing
Canine Support Teams Persons with Disabilities
Catholic Charities Social Services
Circle of Care Ministries Food Bank
City of Murrieta Adjacent City
City of Temecula Various departments
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Affordable Housing
Community Access Center Disabled
Community Mission of Hope Homeless provider
Comprehensive Autism Center Health Services
County of Riverside Department of Social Services Social Services
County of Riverside Economic Development Agency Local Government
County of Riverside Health Department Health Services
Appendix E 2
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency Type
Riverside University Health System – Behavioral Health,
Homeless Housing Opportunities, Partnerships & Education
Program
Mental Health
Court Appointed Special Advocate of Riverside County Youth Services
Creekside Senior Apartments Senior Housing
Desert AIDS AIDS Service Provider
Economic Development of Southwest California Economic Development
Fair Housing Counsel of Riverside County, Inc. Fair Housing
Foothill AIDS AIDS
Fountain Glen at Temecula Senior Housing
Front Street Plaza Affordable Housing
Go Banana Special Needs
GRID Alternatives Affordable Housing
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley Affordable Housing
Heritage Mobile Home Estates Affordable Housing
Hitzke Consulting Affordable Housing
Hospice of the Valleys Healthcare
Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Public Housing Authority
Hugs Foster Family Agency Developmental disabilities
Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula Faith Based
Inland Regional Center Developmental disabilities
Jamboree Housing Affordable Housing
Jesus Love Church Faith based
John Stewart Company Affordable Housing
Ken Follis Realtor, developer
League of Women Voters Non profit
Legacy Ridge Developmental disabilities
Love of Christ Fellowship Church Faith based
Madera Vista Apartments Affordable Housing
Appendix E 3
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency Type
Margarita Summit Apartments Affordable Housing
Michelle's Place Healthcare
Mission Village Apartments Affordable Housing
Morning Ridge Apartments Affordable Housing
Mt San Jacinto College Education
NAACP Protected Class
Nu-Way International Christian Ministries Faith based
Oak Tree Apartments Affordable Housing
Our Nicholas Foundation Autism
Palomar Heritage Affordable Housing
Pechanga Casino and Resort Employer
Path of Life Ministries Homeless provider
Portola Terrace Apartments Affordable Housing
Project Touch Homeless provider
Rancho California Apartments Affordable housing
Rancho Community Church Faith based
Rancho Creek Apartments Affordable Housing
Rancho en Espanol Faith based
Rancho West Apartments Affordable Housing
Renee Jennex Small Family Health care
Riverbank Village Apartments Affordable Housing
Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center Domestic Violence
Riverside City and County Continuum of Care Homeless provider
Riverside County Office on Aging Senior Services
Riverside County Veterans Services Veterans
Riverside County Sheriff's Department Crime protection
Riverside Transit Agency Transportation
Rochelle Sherman Small Family Affordable Housing
Appendix E 4
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency Type
SAFE Alternatives for Everyone Domestic Violence
Safety Research Associates, Inc. Special Needs and Senior Housing
Senior Care Referral Specialists Senior Services
Senior Citizens Service Center Food Bank Food Bank
Single Mothers in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) Youth Services
Solari Enterprises Affordable Property Management
Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors Housing
St. Catherine’s Catholic Church Faith based
State Council on Developmental Disabilities Developmental Disabilities
TEAM Evangelical Assistance Ministries Food Bank
Temecula City Planning Commission City Commission
Temecula City Community Services Commission City Commission
Temecula City Public Safety Commission City Commission
Temecula Convention and Visitors Bureau Business Community
Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission Homeless Services Provider
Temecula Reflection Townhouses Affordable Housing
Temecula Homeless Coalition Homeless provider
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Business Community
Temecula Valley Historical Society Non Profit Organization
Temecula Valley Hospital Health Services
Temecula Valley Therapy Disabled
Temecula Valley Unified School District Education
Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association Employer
The Center for Life Change Drug Treatment
U.S. Vets Initiative Veterans
VA Loma Linda Healthcare Veterans
Vintage View Apartments Affordable housing
Voice of Children Youth Services
Appendix E 5
Stakeholder Consultation List
Agency Type
Warehouse at Creekside Apartments Affordable Housing
Wells Fargo Business Community
Western Riverside Council of Governments Regional Government
Note: For some agencies, there are multiple stakeholders, but the agency is only listed once.
APPENDIX F
City of Temecula
General Plan Land Use Element Map
APPENDIX G
City of Temecula Map of Eligible CDBG Areas
Appendix H 1
APPENDIX H
Public Transportation Maps
Proximity to Major Employers
Appendix H 2
Public Transportation Maps
Proximity to Public Facilities
Appendix H 3
Public Transportation Maps
Proximity to Publicly Assisted Housing
Appendix I 1
APPENDIX I
List of Public Service Agencies Served
by the CDBG Program and General Fund
2015-2016
Public Service Program Amount
Funded Source
All From the Heart - Wheels For Warriors $ 5,000 General Fund
Assistance League of Temecula Valley (ALTV) - Building and
Grounds Improvements and Maintenance $ 5,000 General Fund
Assistance League of Temecula Valley (ALTV) – Operation
School Bell Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Birth Choice of Temecula – Pregnancy resource materials/services
– Update material $ 5,000 General Fund
Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County – Before and After
School Care for Kids Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
California VFW Motorcycle Club Empire – Food boxes for
veterans /families in Temecula –Food boxes and emergency funds $ 1,500 General Fund
Community Mission of Hope – Inclement Weather Shelter
Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Fair Housing Council of Riverside County – Fair Housing
Program $ 10,000 CDBG Funds
GRID Alternatives – Solar Affordable Housing Program $ 12,000 CDBG Funds
God’s Fan Club dba Project T.O.U.C.H. – Shared and Homeless
Prevention Program – basic necessities for homeless $ 500 General Fund
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley - A Brush with Kindness -
offset home improvement costs to seniors, disabled and low-
income homeowners
$ 1,500 General Fund
Habitat for Humanity Inland Valley – Critical Home Maintenance
and Repair Program $ 26,223 CDBG Funds
Hospice of the Valleys - Senior Assistance Program -end of life
services $ 5,000 General Fund
Just Add One – Job Training Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Michelle's Place Breast Cancer Resource Center - Breast Health
Assistance $ 5,000 General Fund
Our Nicholas Foundation - Peace of Mind (safety kits for autistic
families) $ 5,000 General Fund
Thessalonika Family Services dba Rancho Damacitas –
Independent Living Program for 14-18 year olds on Rancho
Damacitas Campus
$ 1,000 General Fund
Appendix I 2
Rose Again Foundation – The Kids of Summer $ 2,000 General Fund
Rotary Club of Temecula Foundation - Holiday Food Baskets $ 5,000 General Fund
SAFE Alternatives for Everyone – SAFE Domestic Violence
Services $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Senior Citizens Service Center of the Temecula Rancho Area, Inc.
- Food Distribution $ 5,000 General Fund
Senior Citizens Service Center – Emergency Food Assistance
Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) –
SMURF Assistance Program $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Special Olympics Temecula Valley – Training Programs $ 2,500 General Fund
T.E.A.M. Evangelical Assistance Ministries – Food Distribution $ 5,000 General Fund
T.E.A.M. Evangelical Assistance Ministries – Temecula
Community Food Pantry $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
VNW Circle of Care – Emergency Food/Temporary Shelter
Assistance to Needy People $ 7,892 CDBG Funds
Waves Project Inc. – Waves Project $ 5,000 General Fund
Total $ 178,251
Appendix J 1
APPENDIX J
List of RDA Funded Affordable Housing Projects
INCOME LEVEL UNITS
RDA-FUNDED
DEVELOPMENTS Address Property Owner Ext.
Low
Very
low Low Mod.
Total
Assisted
Units
Rancho West 42200 Main
Street
Coachella Valley
Housing Coalition 2 43 105 0 150
Mission Village 28493 Pujol
St. Affirmed Housing 0 16 60 0 76
Rancho Creek 28464 Felix
Valdez Ken Follis 0 8 22 0 30
Riverbank (Senior) 28500 Pujol
St.
Corporation for
Better Housing 0 13 53 0 66
Cameron Historical
Building (Dalton II)
41925 Fifth
St.
Cameron
Properties 0 0 0 24 24
Palomar Building (Dalton
III)
41955 Fifth
St.
Palomar Heritage
Building 0 0 12 10 22
Temecula Reflections
(Temecula Lane)
31111 Black
Maple Dr. Jamboree Housing 0 11 0 0 11
Warehouse at Creekside 42081 3rd St. Warehouse at
Creekside 0 0 20 12 32
Madera Vista
(Summerhouse)
44155
Margarita
Road
BRIDGE Housing 38 70 0 2 110
Portola Terrace 28673 Pujol
Street AMCAL 0 5 39 0 44
Front Street Plaza
28693 Old
Town Front
Street
Front Street Plaza
Partners 0 0 8 15 23
Cottages of Old Town Varies Owner Occupied 0 0 0 17 17
Habitat for Humanity Varies Owner Occupied 0 5 2 0 7
Total 40 171 321 80 612
Note: Projects funded prior to the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency.
Appendix K 1
APPENDIX K
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
Home Loan Applications by Type of Financing
Type of Loan Number of
Loans
Share of
Loans
Number
approved
Approval
Rate
Home Purchase
Conventional 1,702 50.0% 1,301 76.4%
FHA - Insured 692 20.3% 542 78.3%
VA - Guaranteed 1,005 29.5% 795 79.1%
FSA/RHS Guarantee 5 0.1% 4 80.0%
Total 3,404 100.0% 2,642 77.6%
Refinancing
Conventional 3,013 67.4% 1,827 60.6%
FHA - Insured 296 6.6% 180 60.8%
VA - Guaranteed 1,161 26.0% 754 64.9%
FSA/RHS Guarantee 3 0.1% 0 0.0%
Total 4,473 100.0% 2,761 61.7%
Source: 2014 HMDA data
Appendix K 2
Home Loan Approval Rates by Race / Ethnicity
Type of Loan by Race /
Ethnicity
Loan
Applications
Loans
Approved
Percent
Approved
Home Purchase
Hispanic 413 319 77.2%
White 1,807 1,398 77.4%
Asian 199 137 68.8%
African American 126 94 74.6%
All others 45 34 75.6%
Decline or N/A 814 660 81.1%
Total 3,404 2,642 77.6%
Home Refinance
Hispanic 564 320 56.7%
White 2,970 1,600 53.9%
Asian 294 174 59.2%
African American 181 100 55.2%
All others 112 49 43.8%
Decline or N/A 704 518 73.5%
Total 4,649 2,761 59.4%
Source: 2014 HMDA data
Appendix L 1
APPENDIX L
Fair Housing Council Data
Appendix M 1
Appendix M
Survey Results
Stakeholders Survey Responses
1. Do you believe that housing discrimination exists in Temecula?
Response: 78% did not know or did not believe that it existed.
Comments:
I have no experience in this, but I do believe that it is difficult for landlords to provide at-
risk families the same consideration as more stable and less risky families.
In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an
assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County.
Disabled individuals with legitimate Service Dogs have difficulty with HOAs and
landlords.
Only against low to moderate income people - and it's not so much discrimination but just
a lack of available workforce housing to accommodate them. I deal with hundreds or
Realtors on a daily basis and I do not believe there is any other form of discrimination
going on here.
People with disabilities do not have access to live in this community because of lack of
group homes. They have to go to riverside or San Bernardino
I don't know if there is discrimination but I do see there is limited accessibility for those
with disabilities or limited incomes.
But I do think we have a homeless problem that is not being addressed as well as it could
be.
Possibly...some residents in HOAs do not want group home, residential facilities, housing
programs in their communities.
I personally have not witnessed housing discrimination nor been given examples.
In a sense yes, due to the lack of affordable housing
2. Are you aware of discrimination in obtaining or maintaining housing?
Response: 83% did not know or did not believe that there was discrimination.
Comments:
Towards low-income families In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an
assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County.
CST has written letters on several occasions to landlords and HOAs in support of clients
that were harassed or denied housing based on "No Pet Policies". Service Dogs are NOT
pets and ADA law protecting Service Dogs supersede these rules.
Appendix M 2
Again, we are seeing an increase in the number of homeless families seeking assistance
because rents are climbing faster than their income so they can no longer maintain their
existing household. Similarly, while not discriminatory in the usual sense of the word,
lower income folks simply cannot obtain a home as a result of increased prices and
artificially low conforming loan limits imposed by FHA, Fannie & Freddie. It's not
discrimination, they're simply being priced out of the housing market.
Study should be ongoing for this issue. There are pockets of aging housing stock that is
now or will soon be in need of considerable rehab. Home insurance costs and/or rehab
construction costs are rising and may be out of the financial reach for younger home buyers
or elderly home owners.
3. If you believe that there is housing discrimination, who do you believe is
discriminating?
Response: 33% thought that it would be or is landlords/property managers, 11%
real estate agents; 11% mortgage lenders; 4% mortgage insurers and 18% others.
Fifty-six percent did not know.
Comments:
City in general, Temecula is not affordable for low-income families
In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an
assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County.
Other: neighbors will complain to Landlord/Management about violation of the "No Pet
Policy". Ignorance and abuse of ADA laws are the basic problem.
Nobody, to my knowledge, is discriminating in Temecula - it's strictly an economic reality.
Some simply can't afford to purchase or even rent a home in our market. That's in a market
where the median price last month was $460,000. It's even worse in coastal areas and San
Francisco, with a median price of $1.6 million. I truly do not believe there is any form of
racial or other discrimination present in our market other than economic factors.
Other: Home Owners Associations
It's a multi-tiered cycle which may encompass industry practices and financial institutions.
However, my personal feeling is local housing discrimination is mostly a nimby issue.
4. On what basis, is discrimination occurring?
Response: 29% thought that discrimination was occurring against the disabled.
Between 10-15% thought that discrimination was occurring based on race, color,
national origin and familial status. 3% thought that it might be based on religion.
54% did not know.
Comments:
Other: Lack of Income (although not covered under fair housing law)
Appendix M 3
In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is an
assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County.
Other: Income. No other. If you can't afford a house, you can't buy one.
Opening up group homes, residential facilities or housing programs within communities is
generally undesirable to the general population regardless of race, age, gender, religion,
etc... Some people have misconceptions of the negatives of having affordable housing
programs in their community
Extremely limited housing options for low or no income residents
Discrimination can be for any perceived bias, the most often cited is a lowering of property
value.
5. What factors have or might become contributing factors for housing
discrimination in the future in the City?
Response:
Community opposition 40.6%
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures 53.1%
Lack of community revitalization strategies 25.0%
Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods 15.6%
Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including
services or amenities 28.1%
Lack of regional cooperation 12.5%
Land use and zoning laws 18.8%
Lending discrimination 12.5%
Location and type of affordable housing 65.6%
Occupancy codes and restrictions 15.6%
Private discrimination 37.5%
Comments:
Most of City of Temecula's affordable housing is located in the Old Town area.
In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is
an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County.
Ignorance of ADA law and abuse/fraud are the primary reasons our clients face housing
(and other) problems.
NIMBY opposition to multi-family and mixed-use housing; residents displaced due to
housing crisis and have not recovered; end of community redevelopment funds which had
provided land and assistance for Habitat and other low-income opportunities in the past;
land use and zoning laws combined with regulatory hurdles and compliance fees slowing
private development.
Universal design must be kept in mind for senior housing. By not offering this type of
housing, it does show discrimination against the senior population.
Appendix M 4
People are concerned about having low income developments near their home. Engaging
with reputable developers could enhance neighborhoods and lessen community concerns.
6. How frequently do you believe discrimination is occurring?
Response:
Rampant within the housing industry 5.4%
Often in some aspects of the housing market 13.5%
Occasionally 10.8%
Never 8.1%
Don’t know 64.9%
Comments:
In 2014, Fair Housing completed a study for the County of Riverside so my response is
an assumption based on what I know exists in other cities within Riverside County.
Again in our local market I do not believe we are experiencing discrimination in the
standard sense of lenders red-lining, agents steering or other tactics. It's simply an issue
of availability and affordability.
Housing industry has not kept up with the changes families are facing. Generations of
families are now living in substandard housing. Careful thought needs to go into creating
housing for seniors, singles, families, and generations of families needing to live
together.
No knowledge of direct discrimination but indirectly through a lack of low and no
income housing opportunities
The outcome of this survey and the resulting report should shed more precise
information on this question.
Appendix M 5
Resident Survey Results
1. When asked what are the three greatest housing needs, this was the response:
Answer Options Response Percent
Accessibility Improvements (ramps, wheelchair lifts, grab bars,
handrails, visual door bells and smoke/carbon monoxide alarms) 15.2%
Owner-Occupied Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation 30.3%
Rental Housing Improvements / Rehabilitation 3.0%
Homeownership Purchase Assistance 36.4%
Affordable Rental Housing 21.2%
Housing for Disabled 9.1%
Senior Housing 27.3%
Housing for Large Families (5+ people) 12.1%
Fair Housing Services 12.1%
Lead-Based Paint Testing and Abatement 3.0%
Energy Efficiency Improvements 21.2%
Housing for Former Foster Youth 6.1%
Housing for Family Unification 3.0%
No need in this category 15.2%
2. When asked what are the three greatest community service needs, this was the
response:
Answer Options Response Percent
Senior Activities 18.2%
Youth Activities 27.3%
Child Care Services 9.1%
Transportation Services 30.3%
Anti-Crime Programs 33.3%
Health Services 18.2%
Mental Health Services 24.2%
Legal Services 3.0%
No need in this category 24.2%
Appendix M 6
3. When asked what are the three greatest special needs, this was the response:
Answer Options Response
Percent
Centers/Services for Disabled 21.2%
Accessibility Improvements 6.1%
Domestic Violence Services 9.1%
Substance Abuse Services 21.2%
Homeless Shelters/Services 45.5%
HIV/AIDS Centers & Services 9.1%
Neglected/Abused Children Center and Services 12.1%
Family Self-Sufficiency Services 21.2%
No need in this category 30.3%
4. When asked whether discrimination exists in their neighborhood, this was the
response?
82% no
18% yes
5. Have you ever experienced discrimination in obtaining or maintaining your
housing?
87% no
13% yes
6. Who do you believe discriminated against you and why?
Half (50%) said that they had been discriminated against by landlords/property
managers and the rest by realtors and lenders.
Note: They cited discrimination because of race, national origin, gender, religion
and disability. Almost all did not report it because they did not know where to go or
that it was too much trouble.
Appendix N
Eagle Soar Program
Appendix O
Public Hearing Notices
Appendix P
Summary of Public Comments at
Public Hearings and Community Meetings
Public Hearing
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
No comments.
Workshop
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4 p.m.
Infrastructure:
Lack of sidewalks makes it difficult for those with disabilities
Some streets are not lit well
Old Town Sidewalks are a problem
Community Facilities:
Need more community centers and aquatic centers. Community centers are book solid a
year in advance.
There is a lack of meeting space for groups.
Need more space for active adults
There is only one dedicated senior center
Margarita corridor is the neediest section of town for community facilities where there is a
concentration of apartments
Eagle Soar Playground great improvement to the Margarita area but over impacted. Serves
at-risk youth and the disabled.
Transportation:
Lack of transportation for the seniors and the disabled.
Limited Riverside Transportation Agency’s bus services
Funding cuts at senior center caused the City to not provide the same level of services.
Mental health issues at the high schools and older young adults not addressed adequately
Special Needs:
There are incredible needs of the homeless
Mental health needs are the centerpiece of a lot of problems (homeless, persons with
disabilities)
Need more veterans outreach as well as for active military.
There is a lot of veteran support in Temecula
Caregivers need mental health services as well
Services tend to end at age 21 – no mental services, no availability of jobs, limited work
programs
Lack of housing solutions for those with special needs. Stress on family as well.
Similar patterns with the caregivers of the elderly.
Support groups for caregivers needed.
Support groups need to be professional and meet regularly
Disabled population is going to increase
Central location needed to get information on special needs and homelessness
Affordable Housing:
Shortage of affordable senior housing and affordable assisted living facilities
Those with disabilities are going to be on fixed incomes. Can’t live independently.
Housing is the foundation of the community.
Business and Jobs:
Need more parking in Old Town
Job training needed
Neighborhood Needs:
Some non-HOA residential areas are in desperate need of code enforcement
Education:
Believes that schools with higher percentage of lower socio-economic classes have lower
resources
Temecula Valley Unified School District struggles with special needs education
Special needs are only partially funded by the federal government.
The City has not done well with post-secondary transition such as meaningful employment
and college.
Fair Housing:
Those with special needs and have English as a second language are at a greater
disadvantage
Sellers are now only talking to buyers with all-cash offers. Not discriminatory but could
lead to that.
Workshop
Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Infrastructure:
Lack of sidewalks in Old Town (Pujol and First)
Other sidewalks are deteriorating
Considerable challenges where infrastructure is old
Community Facilities:
Need places for teenagers to gather
Partner with the schools to open up libraries to public
At-risk youth is a critical issue that the City faces
Need health care centers for kids and those addicted to drugs
Need health care centers for baby boomers
Community Services
Need more senior services
Increased mental health need for young people
Partner more with the County for resources
Anti-crime programs
Need to clean up creek beds
Affordable Housing:
Lack of homeless shelter
Like to see more non-residential historic preservation
The average age in the community is increasing and maintenance of their homes is a need
Some seniors cannot afford to maintain their homes
CDBG funds can be used to connect volunteer groups
Need for affordable housing is going to continue to increase
Homeowners assistance programs need for repairs
Down payment assistance programs needed.
Business and Jobs
Temecula needs business start-up assistance and small business loans
Need to match skills and jobs
Workshop
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
Infrastructure:
Via Montezuma bridge is need to connect Diaz and Jefferson
Community facilities:
Teen Center needed
Mobile library
Childcare needed
Community services:
Need more local emergent mental health facilities
Mental health is a problem among high school teens. Services only available in Riverside
and San Diego - over an hour away
More neighborhood watch programs
Greater partnering among service organizations
Police and fire need mental health services
Anti-crime programs in lower income areas to reduce the effect of AB 109 and be more
proactive than reactive.
Special needs:
Accessible improvements is the biggest challenge for residents with special needs
Need more handicapped accessible doors
Affordable housing:
Need more homeless shelters in this region
More solutions needed on how to house the homeless
Consider efficiency units, tiny houses
Workforce housing is limited.
More programs and housing needed for single parents
Neighborhood Services
Temecula Elementary is a Title 1 School
Fair Housing:
FHA limits for Temecula are too low.
Need more housing for disabled adults transitioning out of the school district – no housing
available to them.
Families are flocking to Temecula because of their effective special needs services
Currently there are about 1,000 individual with special needs that are between childhood
and adulthood.
Public Hearing
Tuesday, September 29, 2016
No comments.
Appendix Q
City Resolution
This page intentionally left blank.
2021-01 Addendum to the
City of Temecula General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element
Update
January 2022
Prepared for:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92589
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
180 E. Main Street, Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1-0
1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 1-0
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 1-0
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE..................................................................................................................... 1-2
2 ADDENDUM FINDING ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT REVISIONS/ADDITIONS ........................................................................ 3-3
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 4-11
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4.6 ENERGY .................................................................................................................................................. 4-20
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................................. 4-22
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4-26
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................................ 4-28
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 4-32
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 4-37
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 4-41
4.13 NOISE ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-42
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................................................ 4-45
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 4-47
4.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................ 4-50
4.17 TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................................................... 4-52
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 4-57
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 4-59
4.20 WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................................................ 4-63
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................................... 4-66
Tables and Figures
TABLE 1: TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN EXPECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ......................................................... 3-3
TABLE 2: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RHNA ................................................................................................................... 3-5
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF RHNA CANDIDATE SITES REALISTIC CAPACITY AND RHNA .......................................................... 3-7
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP ......................................................................................................................... 3-11
FIGURE 2: GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA .................................................................................................................. 3-12
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Introduction 1-0
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The Temecula Housing Element was first adopted in 1993 and was updated in 2003 as part of a
Comprehensive General Plan Update. Adoption of the Housing Element and a Negative Declaration
preceded adoption of the Comprehensive General Plan Update. On April 12, 2005, the City Council
adopted the Temecula General Plan, referencing the Housing Element, and certified the Temecula
General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041).
The Housing Element was updated again in 2010 for the 4th cycle. Most recently, in 2013, the City
Council adopted the City of Temecula General Plan Housing Element (2014-2021 Housing Element)
and Negative Declaration for the 5th Cycle. Additionally, since adoption of the General Plan Update,
the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment, Altair Specific Plan, and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan
have been adopted. Environmental review was completed for each of these specific projects; refer
to Section 1.4, Incorporation by Reference.
The City now proposes the current 2021-2029 Housing Element for the 6th cycle and Public Safety
Element Update (referenced herein as “Modified Project” or “Project”). The Modified Project
involves minor changes/additions to the Housing Element in compliance with State Housing
Element Law Government Code Sections 65580-65590.1 and minor changes/additions to the Public
Safety Element to meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302(g).
Following preliminary review of the proposed Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element
Update, the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed Project is subject
to CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000-21177). This Addendum to the FEIR has
been prepared by the City to demonstrate that the proposed Housing Element Update and Public
Safety Element Update do not meet the conditions warranting preparation of a Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR, as the potential environmental impacts associated with the Housing Element
Update and Public Safety Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental
impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, as described further.
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze any potential differences between the impacts
identified in the FEIR and those that would be associated with the proposed Project. Pursuant to
provisions of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the Lead Agency charged with the
responsibility of deciding whether to approve the Project. As part of its decision-making process,
the City is required to review and consider whether the proposed Project would create new
significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those
disclosed in the General Plan FEIR.
Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the Project created new
significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in the FEIR used to
approve the Temecula General Plan. To use an Addendum as the appropriate CEQA document for
the proposed Project, the City must find that major revisions to the FEIR are not necessary and
that none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of additional CEQA documentation has occurred.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Introduction 1-1
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, prior to approving further discretionary action and
depending upon the situation, the lead agency must generally either: (1) prepare a Subsequent
EIR; (2) prepare a Supplemental EIR; (3) prepare a Subsequent Negative Declaration; (4) prepare
an Addendum to the EIR or Negative Declaration; or (5) prepare no further documentation (see
State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162 – 15164). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states:
When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR
shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous
EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any
of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline
to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains when an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate.
Per this section, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously certified EIR,
but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent
EIR (as described above) have occurred, then the lead agency is directed to prepare an Addendum
to the certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164). Further, the Addendum should include a
“brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162,”
and that “explanation must be supported by substantial evidence” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Introduction 1-2
[e]). The Addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the
certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15164 [c]).
1.3 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Temecula General Plan
The City Council comprehensively adopted the Update to the City of Temecula General Plan on
April 12, 2005. The General Plan is a comprehensive legal document that identifies a community
vision for the future and establishes a framework to guide future decisions regarding development,
resource management, public safety, public services, and the overall quality of the community.
The General Plan contains goals, policies, and programs to guide land use and development, and
is organized to include the following mandatory “elements” in accordance with California
Government Code Section 65302: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space/Conservation,
Public Safety, and Noise. In addition to the required elements, the Temecula General Plan includes
the following optional elements: Growth Management/Public Facilities, Air Quality, Community
Design, and Economic Development. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Public Safety
Element Update are the subject of this Addendum.
Temecula General Plan Final EIR
The City Council certified the General Plan FEIR on April 12, 2005. The General Plan FEIR provides
a program-level analysis of the general environmental impacts resulting from the development of
land uses and implementation of policies established within the Temecula General Plan update.
The General Plan FEIR’s analysis is based on the change between development under existing
conditions (at the time of document preparation) and those projected for likely development in
accordance with the General Plan by theoretical expected development capacity. Based on General
Plan FEIR Table 3-1, the General Plan FEIR assumed and analyzed the environmental impacts
resulting from the following 1: approximately 25,005 additional dwelling units and approximately
36.2 million additional square feet of non-residential land uses. The General Plan FEIR concluded
that full implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts or less
than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas
analyzed except for Section 5.3 Air Quality (Violate any air quality standard or contributes
substantially to an existing air quality violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
in any criteria pollutant; and Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations)
and Section 5.13, Transportation (Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F [peak hour ICU
greater than 0.90] and Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F [peak hour V/C greater than
1.00]), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR
The Harveston General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – Planning
Area 12 (Project) proposed changing the existing General Plan land use designation from Service
Commercial (SC) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) and a SPA that would include a residential
overlay to the Specific Plan on an 87.54-acre portion of Planning Area 12. The remaining Harveston
1 These numbers represent the expected net change by land use category from existing 2002 (baseline) to expected
development capacity, as calculated in the Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Introduction 1-3
Specific Plan Area was developed. The residential overlay designation would overlay the existing
SC designation for the site within the existing Specific Plan. The GPA from SC to SPI would maintain
the Specific Plan’s consistency with the existing General Plan Land Use Element but would provide
flexibility for the Specific Plan, including the proposed residential overlay, to function as the General
Plan land use designation. The residential overlay would allow the future development of a
maximum of 1,000 residential units. The Harveston Specific Plan Amendment FEIR assumed 1,000
small lot detached single family homes would be developed. The Harveston Specific Plan
Amendment FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than significant
impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures for all
issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality Impact 3.1-2: The project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, which was determined to be significant
and unavoidable.
Altair Specific Plan Final EIR
The Altair Specific Plan is primarily a residential mixed-use development with supporting civic uses
and open space. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups
and household sizes. Altair proposed a type of form-based code using building types clustered in
villages as the organizing principle. These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood
“villages” which, in turn, are overlaid with one of three proposed residential zones (Residential
Zone [SP-R], Mixed-Use/Residential [SP-MR], or Mixed-Use [SP-M]), in combination with an active
open space zone (SP-AO). The non-residential uses include an elementary school and a civic use
area (“South Parcel”) which are covered by the Educational (SP-E) zone and Institutional (SP-I)
zone, respectively, and natural open space (SP-NO). Based on the proposed residential zone and
associated densities and intensities by village area, Altair Specific Plan would allow for up to 1,750
dwelling units.
The Altair Specific Plan FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in less than
significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures
for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Operational activities occurring
after the buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to
any existing or projected air quality violation; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment; Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-1:
Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area would
potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in
ambient noise levels; Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-2: Construction activities in the project area
may expose their respective onsite and/or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration levels that exceed
applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance; Traffic and
Transportation Impact TRA-7: Development of the Specific Plan would cause the level of service
at the existing I-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #25) to degrade from
an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours; and
Traffic and Transportation Impact TRA-11: Development of the Specific Plan would cause the
General Plan Build Out (2035) level of service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road
(Intersection #5) to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour, and would
cause the average delay to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance, which
were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Introduction 1-4
Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final EIR
The Uptown Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts – Uptown Center District (UC); Upton
Hotel/Tourism District (UHT); Uptown Sports/Transit District (US); Uptown Arts District (UA);
Creekside Village District (CV); and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR-OS)
and two overlay zones – Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zones (CV-CO) and Wilder Hills
Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO). East district defines the allowable building types, frontage
types, land uses, building placement, parking placement, and building heights within the specific
plan area. The Uptown Specific Plan would allow for 3,726 dwelling units and 1.9 million square
feet of commercial uses for a total of 5.5 million square feet of total development potential on
approximately 560 acres. The new development is assumed to replace all existing development
(approximately 3.8 million square feet) in the specific plan area.
The Uptown Temecula Specific Plan FEIR concluded that Project implementation would result in
less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation
measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Air Quality – Violation of Air Quality Standards
(Construction and Operation) and Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality; Cultural Resources – Direct
Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) and Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic);
and Noise and Vibration (Construction), which were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
Temecula Municipal Code
The City of Temecula Municipal Code consists of the City’s regulatory and penal ordinances, and
certain administrative ordinances. The City of Temecula Development Code (Development Code)
is codified into Title 17, Zoning. The purpose of the Development Code is to: implement the goals,
and policies and programs of the Temecula General Plan, and to manage future growth and change
in accordance with that plan; promote health, safety, welfare and general prosperity with the aim
of preserving a wholesome, serviceable and attractive community in accordance with the General
Plan for the City; attain the physical, social and economic advantages resulting from
comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning; encourage, classify, designate,
regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of buildings,
structures and land; limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures
hereafter designed, erected or altered; regulate and determine the setbacks and other open
spaces; regulate and limit the density of population; and facilitate adequate provisions for
community facilities, such as transportation, water, sewage, and parks.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Addendum Finding 2-1
2 ADDENDUM FINDING
Pursuant to CEQA and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the FEIR
for the General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No.
2003061041), including the impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also
reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
an Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed
updates to the General Plan Housing Element and Public Safety Element do not result in any new
or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None
of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required.
On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted the Addendum in connection with the adoption of
the draft Housing Element and Public Safety Element. After adoption of the draft Housing Element,
the City received comments from the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). The draft Housing Element was amended in response to HCD’s comments.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, as revised in response to HCD’s comments, does not
create any new program or policy that would permit residential development where it is not
otherwise permitted. As such, it was determined that the revisions to the 2021-2029 Housing
Element Update do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously
analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated, and that it is still appropriate for the City to rely on the
Addendum. It was further determined that a supplemental or subsequent EIR do not need to be
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-1
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
3.1 B ACKGROUND 3.1.1 H OUSING E LEMENTS AND R EGIONAL H OUSING N EEDS A LLOCATION
The Housing Element is a State-mandated element of the General Plan. The City of Temecula must
update its Housing Element every eight years. Updates to the Housing Element must meet the
requirements of California Government Code Sections 65580-65589. The purposes of the Housing
Element are to identify the community's housing needs; to state the community's goals and
objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs;
and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated
goals and objectives.
State law requires that the City accommodate its “fair share” of regional housing needs, which are
assigned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for all jurisdictions in the
SCAG region. SCAG established the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) to assign
each city and the unincorporated county in the region its fair share of the regional housing need
based on a number of factors established by State law (Government Code Section 65584) and
regional housing burdens and needs. The objectives of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) are:
• Increase housing supply and the mix of housing types;
• Promote infill, equity, and environment;
• Ensure jobs housing balance and fit;
• Promote regional income equity; and
• Affirmatively further fair housing.
Beyond the income-based housing needs established by the RHNA, the Housing Element must also
address special needs groups; such as seniors, persons with disabilities including developmental
disabilities, single female parents, large families, farm workers, and homeless persons. 3.1.2 S AFETY E LEMENTS
The Safety Element is a State-mandated element of the General Plan. Updates to the Safety
Element will meet the requirements of California Government Code Section 65302(g) (Section
65302) as updated by Senate Bills 1241, 379, 99, and 1035 and will incorporate policies from the
Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (pursuant to SB 379). The Public Safety Element addresses
potential and existing hazards in the City, which are outlined in the following categories:
Seismically Induced Hazards; Slope Instability; Geologic Hazards; Flood Hazards; Fire Hazards;
Evacuation Routes; Criminal Activities; Hazardous Materials; Nuclear Hazards; and Climate
Adaptation. Updates to the Public Safety Element are largely focused on the topics of Fire Hazards,
Evacuation Routes, and Climate Adaption.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Nestled in Temecula Valley in southwestern Riverside County, just north of the San Diego County
line, sits the City of Temecula, which was incorporated in 1989. Having grown from a modest initial
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-2
incorporated population of 27,099, the City of Temecula is currently home to approximately
112,000 residents in an area of roughly 30 square miles. The City is bounded by the City of Murrieta
to the north, unincorporated areas within the County of Riverside to the east, west, and south,
and unincorporated areas within the County of San Diego to the south. Regional access to the City
is provided by Interstate 15, a north/south freeway that connects the Inland Empire region of
Riverside and San Bernardino counties to San Diego County, and State Route 79, a primarily
east/west highway (although it runs concurrent with I-15 through the City of Temecula) that links
Interstate 10 with Interstate 15, and links Temecula to communities further east in unincorporated
Riverside and San Diego counties.
The General Plan identifies the most prevalent land uses in Temecula as residential, consisting of
approximately 51 percent of the Planning Area; Public/Institutional and Open Space consisting of
approximately 37 percent of the Planning Area; Commercial and Office consisting of approximately
6 percent of the Planning Area; and Industrial Park approximately 5% of the Planning Area. The
Land Use Element identifies the distribution, location, and intensity of all land use types throughout
the City. To fully reflect the range of physical attributes that are important for Temecula’s success,
the Element also contains goals and policies to guide community form and design, and the
provision of community facilities and urban services. The Land Use Element is primarily
implemented by the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which specifies districts and performance standards
for various types of land uses described in the General Plan. Each General Plan land use designation
has a corresponding zone or zones that implement and regulate the intent of the land use. The
zone districts specify the permitted uses for each category and applicable development standards.
The General Plan identifies the expected development capacity associated with the distribution of
planned land uses specified in the Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-3 of the Land Use Element).
Table 1, Temecula General Plan Expected Residential Development Capacity, summarizes the
expected development capacity for residential uses within Temecula based on reasonable density
assumptions for the City and SOI.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-3
Table 1: Temecula General Plan Expected Residential Development Capacity
3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
The project analyzed in this Addendum involves the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public
Safety Element Update. The proposed amendment would not modify the City of Temecula General
Plan Land Use Map, land use designations, or intensities/densities identified within the General
Plan Land Use Element. No changes to the maximum development potential approved for the
General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan FEIR and subsequent General Plan Amendments
would occur with the proposed amendment. 3.3.1 H OUSING E LEMENT
In compliance with State Housing Element Law requirements, the City of Temecula has prepared
the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project) to:
• Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs to preserve, improve
and develop housing
• Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of
the community
• Identify adequate sites that are zoned and available within the 8-year housing cycle to
meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs at all income levels
• Affirmatively further fair housing
• Be certified (approved) by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) as complying with State law
• Be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan
Residential Land Use Designation Density Range Existing Acreage
Expected
Development Capacity
(Dwelling Units)
Hillside 0 – 0.1 du/ac 1,023 102
Rural 0.1 – 0.2 du/ac 2,528 506
Very Low 0.2 – 0.4 du/ac 2,962 1,021
Low 0.5 – 2.9 du/ac 593 889
Low Medium 3.0 – 6.9 du/ac 7,593 34,504
Medium 7.0 – 12.9 du/ac 759 7,591
High 13.0 – 20.0 du/ac 432 7,143
Vineyards/Agriculture 0 – 0.2 du/ac 2,219 222
Mixed Use Overlay Varies 210 1,760
Total 53,7371
Source: City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element, Table LU-3.
1. City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Table LU-3 lists the total
expected development capacity (in dwelling units) at 53,737 units. However, the total based on the sum of
the capacity of each land use designation is actually 53,738 units.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-4
Housing Element Organization
The proposed Housing Element Update covers the October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2029
planning period and is comprised of the following components:
Part 1: Housing Plan
Part 1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City’s “Housing Plan”, which includes the goals,
policies, and programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. The City’s overall
strategy for addressing its housing needs has been defined according to the six goals:
1. Providing adequate housing sites;
2. Assisting in development of affordable and special needs housing;
3. Removing constraints to housing production;
4. Conserving and improving existing housing stock;
5. Affirmatively furthering fair housing; and
6. Promoting public participation.
The Housing Plan includes only minor modifications to the City’s current Housing Element Goals
and Policies. The Housing Plan includes a number of new programs to address State housing law
including future required updates to the Temecula Municipal Code, new programs to support
affirmatively furthering fair housing, and tracking and reporting requirements for Housing Sites.
Part 2: Background Report
Part 2 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the “Background Report” which identifies the nature
and extent of Temecula’s housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing
resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation
opportunities. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents
information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. The Background Report
comprehensively updates the background context and conditions identified in the City’s current
Housing Element.
Appendix A: Housing Sites Inventory
The Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential
development to meet the City’s regional housing need by income level. The California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requires that the Housing Sites Inventory be
prepared using a State-approved format, included as Appendix A. No land use changes are
proposed to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); future residential
development is expected to occur in those areas already identified for residential uses including
land within approved Specific Plans. All sites identified in the City’s Housing Sites Inventory are
currently identified for new development consistent with the potential development capacities
identified in Appendix A.
Appendix B: Glossary
The Housing Element includes, as Appendix B, a glossary of key terms and phrases.
Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary
As part of the Housing Element Update the process, the City hosted numerous opportunities for
the community and key stakeholders to provide feedback on existing housing conditions, housing
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-5
priorities, priority areas for new residential growth, and topics related to fair housing. Public
engagement was facilitated in both English and Spanish to further engage the Temecula
community. Public participation played an important role in the refinement of the City’s housing
goals and policies and in the development of new housing programs, as included in Part 1: Housing
Plan. The public’s input also helped to validate and expand upon the contextual information
included in Part 2: Background Report. The City’s efforts to engage the community in a meaningful
and comprehensive way are summarized in Appendix C.
Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing
In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides
the foundation and context for the City’s Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as
included in Part 2 of the Housing Element.
Capacity to Meet Regional Housing Needs
As determined by SCAG, the City of Temecula’s fair share allocation (RHNA) is 4,193 new housing
units during this planning cycle. This includes: 1,359 units affordable to extremely/very low income
households; 801 units affordable to low income households; 778 units affordable to moderate
income households; and 1,255 units affordable to above moderate income households. State
Income Limits which are used to determine affordability levels are set annually by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development.
Progress Towards the RHNA
RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Jurisdictions may count toward the RHNA housing units that have been developed, are under
construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30, 2021. Since this time, 27
housing units have been developed, are under construction, or have received their building permits
in Temecula. Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but not yet built or
under construction; 132 units, all affordable to lower-income households, have been
approved/entitled and are expected to be developed within the planning period. With these units
taken into account, has a remaining RHNA of 4,034 units (1,327 extremely low/very low income
units, 702 low income units, 757 moderate income units, and 1,249 above-moderate income units.
Table 2: Progress Towards the RHNA
Status Extremely
Low/Very Low
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
TOTAL
RHNA Allocation 1,359 801 778 1,255 4,193
Constructed, Under
Construction/Permi
ts Issued (Since
6/30/2021)
0 0 21 6 27
Units
Approved/Entitled
32 99 0 0 132
Remaining
Allocation
1,327 702 757 1,249 4,034
Source: City of Temecula, 2021, Southern California Association of Governments, 2021
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-6
Residential Sites Inventory to Accommodate Remaining RHNA
The City has sufficient land appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout the community to
accommodate its remaining RHNA (4,034 units) for the 2021-2029 planning period. The City of
Temecula’s 6th Cycle residential sites fall into four categories:
1) Accessory dwelling units. ADUs are allowed on any lot that is zoned for single-family or
multifamily dwelling residential use, including lots that are zoned for such use within a
SPA. In 2020 the City updated its ADU ordinance to encourage the production of ADUs
throughout the community, and in 2020, 18 ADUs were approved. The City continues
to promote ADUs as a way to expand the City’s housing stock and anticipates
production to continue at or above 2020 levels for the duration of the planning period.
The City has assumed production of ADUs at a rate of 18 units per year for the 8 year
planning period, resulting in an assumed production of 144 ADUs from 2021-2029.
2) Residentially zoned vacant land exclusive of Specific Plan areas. As part of this Housing
Element update, the City conducted a parcel-by-parcel analysis of vacant residential
sites for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data obtained from the City’s
geographic information system (GIS). The inventory of vacant residential land between
0.50 acres and 10 acres in size (exclusive of those in specific plan areas) in Temecula
totals 643 acres. These vacant properties have the potential to yield 3,430 units,
assuming each parcel is developed at 75% of its maximum capacity. All affordability
levels are accommodated at vacant residential parcels outside of Specific Plan areas.
3) Vacant Residential Sites within Specific Plans. The City conducted a records search and
visual survey using aerial photos and site visits to estimate the remaining residential
development capacity by number and type of housing within the approved specific
plans. The City has 15 approved Specific Plan; nine have vacant land with residential
development capacity remaining. Five of the nine Specific Plans with remaining
residential capacity (Old Town, Wolf Creek, Harveston, Uptown, and Altair) allow for
development at densities of at least 30 du/ac, which is appropriate to accommodate a
portion of the City’s lower income RHNA. The inventory of vacant residential land
greater than 0.50 acres in size within approved Specific Plans in Temecula totals 784
acres. It should be noted that some of these sites are larger than 10 acres. The City
has a long history of successfully subdividing large parcels into smaller developments
resulting in the production of housing units at all income levels.
In Temecula, Specific Plan areas have historically developed to at least 95% of their
total entitlement. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites to accommodate
its RHNA, the City has assumed that Specific Plan areas will develop at 85% of their
capacity. Given that Specific Plans inherently include programs to develop sites
effectively and efficiently at the densities and intensities identified within the Plan, and
given the City’s history of successful Specific Plan development at levels consistent with
nearly the maximum allowable development levels, this is a reasonable expectation for
the City’s remaining vacant land in Specific Plan areas. Based on this methodology,
vacant residential sites in Specific Plans have the potential to yield 5,773 units.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-7
Table 3: Comparison of RHNA Candidate Sites Realistic Capacity and RHNA
Status Extremely
Low/Very Low
Low Moderate Above
Moderate
TOTAL
Remaining 6th
Cycle RHNA
1,327 702 757 1,249 4,034
ADUs 34 50 50 11 144
Vacant Residential
Land (exclusive of
SPAs)
807 660 1,600 363 3,430
Vacant Residential
Land in Specific
Plans
624 624 2,787 1,724 5,773
Total +137 (surplus) +632 (surplus) +3,680 (surplus) +849 (surplus) +5,313 (surplus)
Note: The realistic capacity analysis of vacant land outside of Specific Plan areas assumes that only 75% of the
maximum capacity would be realized and for vacant land inside of Specific Plan areas assumes that only 85% of the
maximum capacity would be realized. If the sites develop closer to their full capacity, which has been realized as
part of past projects, the City’s surplus of units at all income levels would be significantly higher.
Summary of Housing Element Modifications
As previously noted, State law requires that the Housing Element be reviewed and updated not
less than every eight years, in order to remain relevant and useful, and reflect a community’s
changing housing needs. The proposed Housing Element Update involves minor changes/additions
to the Housing Element and environmental conditions under which it would be implemented. The
following summarizes the modifications to the Housing Element, as compared to the 2013-2021
Housing Element:
Goals, Policies, and Programs (Part 1: Housing Plan)
The City made minor modifications to the Goals and Policies included in the Housing Element to
reflect the City’s current housing needs and State mandates.
The Housing Plan revises existing goals and policies to better reflect state law regarding the
provision of special needs housing, removing governmental and nongovernmental constraints, and
affirmatively furthering fair housing. Revised goals and policies include:
• Goal 2: Assist in Development of Affordable and Special Needs Housing
• Goal 3: Remove Constraints to Housing Production
• Goal 4: Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock
• Goal 5: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
• Policy 1.2: Variety of Housing Options
• Policy 5.2: Support for Fair Housing Efforts
• Policy 5.5: Prohibition of Discrimination
• Policy 5.6: Equitable Spatial Distribution of Affordable Housing
The Housing Plan includes new policy direction, consistent with state law, related to maintaining
adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA at all income levels for the duration of the
planning period, the reuse of sites identified in prior Housing Elements, and reducing impacts
associated with nongovernmental constraints. New policies include:
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-8
• Policy 1.9: Maintain Adequate Capacity
• Policy 1.10: By-Right Approval for Qualified Sites Identified in Past Inventories
• Policy 3.4: Monitor State Regulations
• Policy 3.5: Evaluate Non-Governmental Constraints
• Policy 5.8: Support Fair Housing Providers
• Policy 5.9: Reasonable Accommodation Requests
The Housing Plan includes numerous revisions to existing programs to better reflect the
community’s housing needs. Revised programs include:
• Program 1: Land Use Policy and Development Capacity
• Program 6: Density Bonus Ordinance
• Program 11: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency
• Program 12: Development Fees
• Program 22: Equal Housing Opportunity
The Housing Plan includes new programs consistent with state law and the goals and policies
included in the City’s Housing Element. New programs include:
• Program 2: Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period
• Program 3: Public Property Conversion to Housing Program
• Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units
• Program 5: Accessory Dwelling Units
• Program 9: Special Needs Housing Construction
• Program 16: Zoning Code Amendments – Housing Constraints
• Program 24: Economic Displacement Risk Analysis
All other Goals, Policies and Programs are reflective of the City’s current Housing Element with
limited or no modifications to reflect current conditions.
Background Information (Part 2: Background Report)
The Background Report of the Housing Element has been comprehensively updated to include
current information. This section of the Housing Element includes: Introduction, Accomplishments
Under 5th Cycle Housing Element, Housing Needs Assessment, Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Analysis, Constraints, Housing Resources, Other Requirements, and References.
Appendix A: Housings Sites Inventory
The City has updated its Housing Sites Inventory to demonstrate capacity to accommodate its
2021-2029 RHNA. The Housing Sites Inventory includes a list of sites appropriate to accommodate
the RHNA at the appropriate densities and income levels and includes sites identified in the Current
Housing Element and other sites designated for residential development consistent with the City’s
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plans. No land use changes are proposed as part of
the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Appendix B: Glossary
The City has updated the Glossary section of its Housing Element and included new terms and
references as appropriate.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-9
Appendix C: Public Engagement Summary
The public engagement program conducted as part of the Housing Element Update project is
summarized in Appendix C.
Appendix D: 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing
In 2017 the City of Temecula prepared an Assessment of Fair Housing. This Assessment provides
the foundation and context for the City’s Assessment of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as
included in Part 2 of the Housing Element. 3.3.2 S AFETY E LEMENT
In compliance with State Law, the City of Temecula has prepared an update to its Safety Element
to further address fire hazards, emergency preparedness, and climate adaptation. Natural and
human-caused events have the ability to impact productivity by causing substantial damage to
life, property, and economic prosperity. The Safety Element addresses these potential issues with
goals, policies, and actions to continue to serve and protect Temecula and its residents.
Safety Element Organization
The Safety Element includes an Introduction to the Element, the Element’s goals and policies, and
Implementation Programs.
Summary of Safety Element Modifications
Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs were referenced,
including the County of Riverside Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJLHMP), the
City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County Climate Action
Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include current information
regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and
major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA (as
Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new discussion related to
emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives to address this topic.
Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County’s CAP are also included by
reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of evacuation routes serving
residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in a separate background
report available on the City’s website and the results of the analysis, which found that while
residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards, several residential
areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure residents with
limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during emergencies.
No goals, policies or programs from the current Safety Element were eliminated as part of this
update. The following modifications or additions were made:
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Description of the Proposed Project 3-10
Natural Hazards
• Policy 1.8: Future development in SRAs or VHFHSZs
• Policy 1.9: Reduce risk of wildfire hazards
Emergency Preparedness and Hazard Mitigation
• Goal 4 (Modification): Effective response of emergency services
• Policy 4.5 (Modification): Location of new essential facilities
• Policy 4.7: Coordination with agencies on evacuation routes
• Goal 5: Resilient sustainable community
• Policy 5.1: Climate resiliency and adaptation
• Policy 5.2: Monitor climate change-related effects
Implementation
• PS-1 Natural Hazards Risk Reduction (Modification)
• PS-8 Promote Fire Prevention (Modification)
• PS-14 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Modification)
Pala Rd Butt
er
field Stage Rd M a c h o R dDeer Hollow W y
D e P o r t o l a R dMar
gari
ta RdY
n
e
z
R
d
R a nc h o C a l i f ornia RdW inchester Rd Solan a Wy M a rg a r i t a R d
Ma
rgarita RdL a S erena W y Winchester RdDi
a
z
Rd
Y
n
ez
RdLiberty RdLee Ln
Leon RdElliot RdBriggs RdPourroy Rd Vino Wy
R a n c h o C a l i f o r n i a R d
Calle Contento P a u b a R d
M a d e r a D e P l a y a Dr Calle Conte
n
t
o Vista De l M o n te Rd
Willo w s A v e Prom
o
ntory Pky
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Y
n
e
z R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
Auld Rd
De Portola Rd
Buck Rd
Keller Rd
W inchester RdButterfield Stage RdBenton Rd
N ic o la s R d
Ma
d
is
o
n
A
v
e
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
Av
e
Wh itew ood RdMenifee RdS a n tiago Rd
Thompson Rd
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
A
v
e Pourroy RdVia TornadoA
d
a
ms
A
v
e
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
Jean Nicholas Rd
Via BarrancaMeadowlark LnHunter Rd Judith StC herry StMaddalena RdVail Ranch
P
k
ySky Canyon DrBaxter Rd
Allen Rd
Via EduardoMc Colery RdS
p
arta L
n
Skyview Rd
Bonaire W yPat Rd
Borel RdLeon RdPourroy RdKeller Rd
Sky Canyon DrBriggs RdBaxter Rd
Catt Rd
Ha
n
c
o
c
k
A
ve
Meadows Pky R a n cho Vista Rd
R a n c h o C a lifor ni a R d
P a u b a R d
D el R e y R dVia N o rt eV ia Nort
e
Devon St Specili Rd
Los A la m os RdCalle De AmorL o s Alam o s R dWa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e Alta M u r r ie ta DrWhit
e
wood Rd
A v e n i da Del Oro
S yca m o r e Mesa Rd Via Vaquero Rd Via Santa RosaØØ#"
}}ÿ
ÛÛÛ
ØØ#"
}}ÿ
}}ÿ
Lake
Skinner
County of
Riverside
City of Murrieta
Lom a L in d a Rd R e d h a wk P k y M onte Verde R d
A n z a R d
La S erena Wy BerendaRdØØ#"
City of Murrieta
Sphere of Influence
Pechanga
Entertainment
Center
ØØ#"
}|ÿ79
Rainbow Canyon RdMeadows
Pky
Linda
Ro s e a R d
CITY OF TEMECULA2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report
Legend
Temecula City Boundary
Planning Area
Sphere of Influence Boundary
012
Miles
0 5,000 10,000
Feet
Figure 1
Regional Location Map
3-2
Sources: Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates
µ
Rainbow Canyon Rd}|ÿ79
Pechanga
Entertainment
Center
City of Murrieta
Sphere of Influence
ØØ#"BerendaR dL a Serena Wy
Lom a L in d a R d
City of
Murrieta
County of
Riverside
Lake
Skinner
ØØ#"
ÛÛÛ
}}ÿ
ØØ#"
White
w
o
odRdAltaM u rr ie ta D rWas
hin
gto
n
A
v
e Calle De AmorSpecili Rd
DelR e y R d
P a u b a R d
R a n c h o C alifo rn ia R d
R a n ch o VistaRd
MeadowsPkyBaxter Rd
BriggsRdSkyCanyonDrPourroyRdLeonRdBorel Rd
Pat Rd
BonaireW ySp
arta
L
n McColeryRdWolfValleyRdAllen Rd MaddalenaRdCherryStJudithStHunter Rd
D
o
u
glass
A
v
e PourroyRdJa
ck
s
o
n
A
v
e
Thompson RdMenifeeRd
Je
ffe
rs
o
n
A
v
eMa
dis
o
n
A
v
e
N ic o la sR d
Benton Rd
ButterfieldStageRdWinchesterRdLindaRo
s
e
aR d
Vista Del
G uavaStKeller Rd
Buck Rd
De Portola Rd
Auld Rd
Ynez
Rd
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
C
a
l
l
eContento
M a d e r a D e P l a y a D r
P a u b a R d
CalleContentoR a n c h o C a lif o r n i a R d
VinoWyPourroy RdBriggs RdElliot RdLeon RdLee Ln
Liberty RdY
n
e
z
R
dDi
a
z
R
d La S e r enaWyMa
r
garitaRdM argarita R d
Yn
e
z
R
d
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
aRdDeerHollowWyButterf
i
el
dStage
R
dP
e
changaParkwayJean Nicholas Rd
Promo
nt
ory Pky
RdMonte
Anza
Rd
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
P
k
y
Via Norte
Via Barranca R
a
n
c
h
o
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
dLosAlamosRd
Via Santa RosaVia Vaquero RdA v e n id a Del Oro
Willows
Ave
N i c o l a s R d
ViaN orte
Winchester Rd
Ra nc ho C a l i f o r n i a RdSantia
g
o
R
d
De Po r to la R d
V
a
l
l
e
j
o
A
v
e
R edhaw k PkyVailRanchPky Anza
R
d
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Source: Temecula and Riverside County GIS, 2001
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
Temecula City Boundary
Planning Area
Sphere of Influence Boundary
Figure 2
General Plan Planning Area
Legend
µFeet
Miles
0 5,000 10,000
0 1 2
2021-01 Addendum to the City of Temecula General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-1
4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The scope of the City’s review of the proposed Project is limited by provisions set forth in CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects
associated with the proposed Project to the General Plan Project as set forth in the General Plan
FEIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not
known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time
the General Plan FEIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the
changes proposed by the Project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial
increase in a previously identified significant impact.
The section is patterned after the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and provides a summary
of impacts associated with the proposed actions, as described in the General Plan FEIR, and
includes an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed 2021-2029 Housing
Element Update and Public Safety Element Update. This comparative analysis provides the City
with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in
circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan FEIR was certified would require
additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-2
4.1 AESTHETICS
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• The natural features of the Temecula Planning Area provide a scenic setting for the
community. The goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are intended
to conserve open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection
of natural resources and features. The Land Use Element contains Rural Preservation Areas
to preserve the rural nature of specific areas, including viticulture within the Planning Area.
The Community Design Element preserves the natural and historical aspects of the
community's rural character and viewsheds through goals and policies.
To preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private
development projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of
scenic resources, such as the hillsides, scenic roads, or significant open space areas. During
the review of individual projects, the Community Development Department may require
site redesign or place height limits on projects that have the potential to block views. New
projects will also be reviewed to ensure that the proposed landscaping and tree planting
will not obstruct views of significant natural resources. Implementation of the identified
policies through this review process will ensure that impact will be less than significant on
a project-by-project basis.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-3
• Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new housing units and commercial,
industrial, and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. In
addition, new development in previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas,
particularly within the sphere of influence, has the potential to create new lighting impacts
associated with the introduction of vehicle headlights and nighttime lighting. New
structures could create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials.
Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact to
surrounding uses could be significant. New development pursuant to the General Plan may
increase the amount of light and glare within the Planning Area with a potential to influence
light levels affecting the Palomar Observatory. The General Plan includes policies that
continue the City’s participation in Palomar Observatory’s dark sky conservation
requirements. Additionally, Mitigation Measure A-1 would ensure that new development
projects comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance, reducing potential light and
glare impacts to less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
There are no designated State scenic highways within the General Plan Planning Area (Planning
Area); therefore, as concluded in the General Plan FEIR, impacts would be less than significant.
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element
Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the City.
However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA
would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to
existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan
FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed
for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to aesthetic resources
and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. Further, the Public Safety Element would not
result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan policies or
programs specific to visual resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and
programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies protecting aesthetic and
visual resources. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential
impacts to scenic vista resources and to reduce impacts associated with light and glare as a result
of new development. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure A-1 requires new development
projects to comply with the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance to reduce potential impacts to
aesthetic resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new aesthetic
impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts to aesthetics as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
A-1 The City will ensure that new development projects comply with the City Light Pollution
Control Ordinance when building plans are submitted for permits and when projects are field-
inspected (General Plan Implementation Program OS-31).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-4
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
d. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Future development within the Planning Area pursuant to the land use policies of the
updated General Plan may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
and Farmland of State and Local Importance to non-agricultural use. Implementation of
the General Plan would potentially result in conversion of four acres of areas currently
identified as Vineyard/Agriculture (0.01 percent of the land currently in agricultural use) to
non-agricultural use. Mitigation Measure AG-1 would preserve agricultural lands through
land use controls and preservation contracts for prime agriculture land, reducing potential
impacts to less than significant.
• Implementation of the Temecula General Plan would not result in significant impacts related
to conflict with agricultural zoning and there are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning
Area. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR concluded no impacts would result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. Potential development
of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the
adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses. Further, the
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-5
Public Safety Element would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or
modify any General Plan policies or programs specific to agricultural resources.
Subsequent to adoption of the General Plan FEIR, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines resulted in
the addition of forestry resources as a topical area to be addressed within CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G. There are no forest lands located within the General Plan study area. Additionally, the
General Plan area is not designated or zoned as forest land. No impacts related to this
environmental topic were anticipated as a result of implementation of the General Plan, and no
mitigation measures were required.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new agricultural
or forestry resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance
with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there
would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to agriculture and forestry resources
as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
AG-1 The City will preserve agricultural lands by:
• Developing effective zoning regulations or other land use mechanisms that control the
expansion of intensive non-agricultural development onto productive or potentially
productive agricultural lands.
• Recognizing existing agriculture preserve contracts and promoting additional preservation
contracts for prime agriculture land.
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-28)
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-6
4.3 A IR QUALITY
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Construction-related air quality impacts will occur periodically throughout implementation
of the General Plan as individual development projects are constructed. While individual
development projects will be required to employ construction approaches that minimize
pollutant emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, tuning of equipment and limiting truck
traffic to non-peak hours), on a cumulative basis over the next 20 years, the General Plan
FEIR concluded pollutant emissions associated with construction activity will be significant,
and mitigation is required.
• Development consistent with proposed General Plan land use policies will generate
additional emissions from both stationary sources and vehicle trips. For all pollutant
categories except PM10, long-term pollutant emissions in year 2025 are projected to
decrease relative to 2002. Levels of PM10 have exceeded State standards regularly in the
past and are expected to continue exceeding these standards in the future. Therefore, the
General Plan FEIR determined long-term air quality impacts resulting from adoption and
implementation of the proposed General Plan will be significant, and mitigation measures
are required.
• Intersections within the Planning Area projected to experience the worst level of service
(LOS) conditions, in combination with proximity to sensitive receptors were selected for CO
hot spot analysis. The analysis shows that while all study intersections will experience some
level of CO concentration, ranging from 0.1 ppm to 1.5 ppm during the 1-hour period, no
intersections are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for 1-hour standard. Therefore,
implementation of the General Plan will not result in a significant impact with regard to CO
hot spots.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-7
• The Air Quality Element of the General Plan addresses compliance with the current Air
Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Quality Element is designed
to ensure City land use decisions work to implement and comply with federal, State, and
local regulations pertaining to air quality. The General Plan FEIR determined no conflict
with the regional air quality plan will result, and no adverse impact will occur.
• Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the General Plan will be predominantly
residential and commercial uses consisting of retail stores, offices and business parks. Each
new development will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's guidelines regarding odor control. Compliance with these existing regulations will
ensure that impact will be less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use plan and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula
General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce
impacts to air quality as a result of new development and would be required to implement General
Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures to reduce potential impacts to air quality due to construction-related
emissions and operational activities by reviewing future development proposals for potential
regional and local air quality impacts per CEQA and, if identified, require mitigation to reduce the
impact to a level less than significant, where feasible; continue to update the Building Code and to
enforce the City Trip Reduction Ordinance; partner with private industry to incorporate high-
efficiency design and renewable energy features in commercial, business park, and industrial
developments; and implement the AQMP. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-6 also ensures
sensitive receptors are located away from air pollution sources and requires buffering of sensitive
receptors from air pollution sources reduce potential impacts to air quality.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use
plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the
General Plan FEIR.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new air quality
impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts to air quality as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1 The City will support regional transit initiatives and promote development of high-speed
rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los Angeles; actively participate in efforts to
protect and improve air quality in the region; and attend meetings with the County of Riverside,
WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and other agencies as required to support these objectives and fulfill
Temecula’s requirements and obligations under the AQMP and Sub- Regional Air Quality
Implementation Program (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-1).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-8
AQ-2 The City will continue to involve the general public, environmental groups, the business
community, and special interest groups in the formulation and implementation of air quality
programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and continue to promote public education as
a method of employer compliance with the City Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-2).
AQ-3 The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element, including
development of mixed-use projects where designated and feasible (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-3).
AQ-4 The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and promote
development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job opportunity sites,
and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-4).
AQ-5 The City will continue to implement a site development permit process and use the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed development projects. The
City shall require individual development projects to comply with the following measures to
minimize short-term, construction-related PM10 and NOx emissions, and to minimize off-site
impacts:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
• Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on
any public roadway.
• Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
• Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for more
than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
• Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion.
• Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained
in peak working order.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Wash or sweep away access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or cumulatively,
only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the
impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU-4 and AQ-5).
AQ-6 The City will ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution
sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources through the use of
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-9
landscaping, open space, and other separation techniques (General Plan Implementation Program
AQ-6).
AQ-7 The City will incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and development
standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use of mass transit, and
reduce dependence on the automobile (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-7).
AQ-8 The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and
work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the
City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans
(TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program
AQ-8).
AQ-9 The City will require employee rideshare and transit incentives for large employers,
consistent with the requirements of the City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance, and continue to encourage
voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-9).
AQ-10 The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction
Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course of the event, and encourage
special event operators to advertise and offer discount parking incentives to carpooling patrons,
with two or more persons per vehicle, for on-site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-10).
AQ-11 The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
reduction, consistent with SCAG’s Growth Management Plan recommended standards for the
Western Riverside County sub-region, and enforce requirements and options within the Trip
Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-11).
AQ-12 The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles and consider the
adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling stations at or near major
employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities, and mixed-use developments (General
Plan Implementation Program AQ-12).
AQ-13 The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative to single-occupancy
vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails and bikeways specified in the Multi-Use Trails
and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update the Master Plan as needed to meet resident
needs and City objectives (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-13).
AQ-14 The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for Park and Ride facilities
adjacent to key commuting routes within the City, and to prioritize development of such facilities
in corridors served by more than one mode of planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or
high-speed rail) (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-14).
AQ-15 The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in residential,
commercial, light industrial and mixed-use development projects. Examples may include (but are
not limited to) the following.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-10
• Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil fueled
consumption for heating and cooling.
• Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and specific
high-efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-15).
AQ-16 The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on-street parking, improving signal
timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other transportation systems
management measures (General Plan Implementation Program C-3).
AQ-17 The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities, and encourage
preferred parking for ride-sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation
Program C-18).
AQ-18 The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to orient trucks to
truck routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to reduce congestion and
diesel emissions (General Plan Implementation Program C-19).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-11
4.4 B IOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Development pursuant to implementation of the General Plan will result in adverse
significant impacts if such development results in the modification or removal of regional
sensitive habitats within the Planning Area, including: Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub; Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water,
Reservoir, Pond; Coast Live Oak Woodland, and; Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-12
Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be significant if the habitat is
determined to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support
federally or State listed, endangered or threatened species. The General Plan FEIR includes
mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
• The Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical habitat for the California
gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly, as determined by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Critical habitat is primarily located in the northern portion of the
Planning Area in French Valley where low-medium residential development is proposed.
Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will result in significant impacts to
designated critical habitat. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts
to less than significant.
• The Planning Area encompasses four Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas and core linkages. Portions of MSHCP
conservation areas will incur permanent, indirect impacts from development-associated
increases in the amount of fragmented habitat, artificial nighttime illumination, and human
intrusion into natural habitats. In addition, impacts to chaparral will be significant if the
habitat is located within a MSHCP conservation, core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley
or Temecula Valley). The General Plan provides for development in these areas; at a Plan
level, impact may be significant and mitigation measures would be required to reduce
impacts to less than significant.
• Development associated with implementation of the General Plan will result in permanent
indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the Planning Area where
development encroaches into habitat or directly affects specific species. Impacts to
federally and State-listed, rare, endangered and threatened species will be significant and
adverse. Mitigation measures are required to reduce adverse impacts to a less than
significant level. Impacts to lower sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined
that the proposed future development will substantially reduce the species’ population
stability or conflict with the MSCHP conditions of coverage. Mitigation measures are
required to provide further environmental review of individual future development projects.
Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than
significant.
• All new development will comply with City policies and ordinances protecting biological
resources, including tree preservation policies. The updated General Plan provides policies
and implementation programs that fully support adopted habitat conservation plans. The
General Plan FEIR concluded no impact will result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to
reduce potential impacts to biological resources and General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures B-1
through B-11 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. More specifically, General
Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 contain provisions to conserve and
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-13
protect sensitive and unique habitat, and require biological assessment in sensitive and regulated
habitat areas; Mitigation Measure B-6 promotes regional cooperation on conservation, watershed
management, and water resource management planning efforts; Mitigation Measure B-7 requires
developers to retain coast live oak woodland and to postpone construction activities until the end
of the fledgling season if active raptor nests are found; Mitigation Measures B-8, B-9, and B-10
requires developers to avoid and/or minimize adverse impacts to biological resources consistent
with the MSHCP; and Mitigation Measure B-11 requires work corridor surveys to identify active
nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds. Future housing
development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with
policies and programs aimed to reduce impacts to biological resources and implement mitigation
measures, as appropriate. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not
modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered, or
at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Housing Element and
Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan
policies protecting biological resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new biological
resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts to biological resources as a result of the
proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
B-1 The City shall require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive
habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSCHP conservation areas and core linkages as
defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine
the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below
significance (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 9).
B-2 The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water
courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, with first
priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-10).
B-3 The City shall require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in
conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may
include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape
maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of
corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, rehabilitation of
biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and
construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and
designated critical habitats (General Plan Implementation Program OS-11).
B-4 The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource
significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-14
or gift; dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other
local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal
grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan Implementation Program OS-12).
B-5 The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations,
corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally
sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-13).
B-6 The City shall continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning,
watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-14).
B-7 The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland, including oaks
within new development areas, and shall require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to
construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed,
postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City
shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management
Guidelines:
• Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone (e.g.,
encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line of an oak tree
• Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root zone
• Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will be avoided
• Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone
• Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root zone for an
extended period of time will be avoided
• Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation and siltation
control
• Dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to pose a health or safety
hazard
• Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation
• Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees and woodland
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-32).
B-8 The City will require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub,
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the
MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-
site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas,
and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the
biological function of the site (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33).
B-9 The City shall require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub,
Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible.
Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be
required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that
re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-15
the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required
to achieve “no net loss” of wetland functions and values (General Plan Implementation Program
OS-34).
B-10 The City shall review development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for
consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall require
compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines:
• Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall
incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and
quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse
way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid
discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP
conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins,
chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might
degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP
conservation areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural
detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall
occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
• Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use
chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may
adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to
ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP
conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be
implemented.
• Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation area to protect
species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be
incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP
conservation area do not increase.
• Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall
incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP
conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines
related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP
conservation area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise
standards.
• Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the
MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the
use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent
to the conservation area.
• Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate
barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public
access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area.
Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage
and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-16
• Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site
development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-35).
B-11 The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the
potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal
timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the
removal of active nests of MBTA covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-17
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Development pursuant to the General Plan will occur mostly on vacant sites within the
Planning Area that do not contain existing structures, as well as within currently urbanized
Mixed-Use Overlay Areas and Village Centers identified in the Land Use Element. The
General Plan strives to preserve existing historic resources through the maintenance of a
historic properties inventory, assistance to property owners in seeking State and/or federal
registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets, and acquisition and
preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town
Specific Plan when possible. The General Plan also calls for an integrated approach to
historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and
organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to
establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as
roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Nevertheless, Small urban infill development
or redevelopment projects that are not subject to discretionary review by the City may also
occur that could involve the removal or alteration of existing structures with historical value
or significance elsewhere within City limits. The General Plan FEIR determined that
implementation of mitigation measures would minimize impacts to historic resources from
adoption and implementation of the General Plan.
• Portions of the Planning Area contain known archaeological and paleontological resources
Implementation of the General Plan is expected to result in new development in vacant
areas where no structures currently exist, as well as infill development within focus areas
located throughout the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan Open
Space/Conservation Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage potential
archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development
through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes, as well as maintain
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-18
an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in
the Planning Area. However, unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be
unearthed during excavation and grading activities for specific projects. Mitigation
measures are required, which would reduce potential impacts to previously undiscovered
archaeological and paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to
reduce potential impacts to historic and archeological resources and human remains. Further,
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires appropriate surveying and documentation of
findings prior to ground-disturbing activities; effective mitigation where development may affect
archaeological or paleontological resources; monitoring by a qualified archeologist or
paleontologist where the probable presence of resources is identified; implementation of measures
for preservation or salvage of resources; and reporting to the City to avoid or minimize impacts to
archaeological or paleontological resources. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-2 calls on
the City to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the
University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological
sensitivity of sites proposed for development. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-3 calls on
the City to continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area and
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure CR-4 seeks to increase protections for historically significant
sites. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed
for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources
and implement mitigation measures, as appropriate. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety
Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not
previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR.
The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact
on existing General Plan policies protecting cultural resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new cultural
resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts to cultural resources as a result of the proposed
Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to:
a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation
of findings is provided prior to project approval.
b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or
paleontological resources.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-19
c. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in
areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is
identified.
d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and
paleontological sites discovered during construction activities.
e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of
mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS-
26).
CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center
of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological
sensitivity of sites proposed for development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37).
CR-3 The City shall continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area
to protect historically significant buildings, sites, roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and
to encourage their re-use, where appropriate. Preservation of other historic resources will also be
considered (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27).
CR-4 The City will encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic
Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State
Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary (General
Plan Implementation Program OS-27).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-20
4.6 ENERGY
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
X
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been
revised to include a discreet category for Energy impacts. The topic of energy is addressed in the
General Plan FEIR’s Utilities and Service Systems section.
• Southern California Edison (SCE) will construct additional electricity facilities as necessary
to meet increased demand. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the
General Plan will be required to assess project impacts during the environmental review
process to ensure that SCE has sufficient electricity supplies to meet demand. Additionally,
new developments will be required to comply with the current energy performance
standards of the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code
(Title 24).
The Gas Company will work with the community as new developments are proposed to
construct additional natural gas infrastructure as necessary to meet demand. Individual
development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to assess
project impacts during the environmental review process to ensure that the Gas Company
has sufficient natural gas supplies to meet demand.
Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact of
new development to energy services. The General Plan emphasizes the efficient
development and use of modern technologies that can minimize energy demand and
consumption. To ensure that future energy supplies are available to support additional
development pursuant to the General Plan, mitigation measures are required. With
implementation of mitigation, the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts on energy supplies
will be less than significant.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-21
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to
reduce potential impacts to energy resources. In addition, the Housing Element includes Program
11: Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency, which calls on the City to review the General Plan
to determine if updates are needed to support and encourage energy efficiency in existing and
new housing. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be
reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts to energy
resources. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing
land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously considered or at a greater
intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation
Measures USS-6 through USS-9 ensure regional coordination with energy facilities, compliance
with California State Energy Regulation requirements, and encourage the conservation of energy
resources. The Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have
an impact on existing General Plan policies addressing energy resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new energy
resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts to energy resources as a result of the proposed
Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
USS-6 The City shall coordinate with Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas
Company, and other responsible companies to provide for the continued maintenance,
development, and expansion of electricity and natural gas systems (General Plan Implementation
Program GM-11).
USS-7 The City shall participate in the formation of regional siting plans and policies for energy
facilities (General Plan Implementation Program OS-15).
USS-8 The City shall implement land use and building controls that require new development to
comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-17).
USS-9 The City shall 1) enforce all current residential and commercial California Energy
Commission energy conservation standards, 2) encourage public institutions to use high-efficiency
heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and passive solar systems to reduce
energy use; and 3) adopt project-related energy conservation guidelines that are incorporated
within the development approval process to promote and require conservation strategies as
development occurs (General Plan Implementation Program OS-18).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-22
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-23
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Temecula is located in a seismically active area. Projects developed pursuant to General
Plan land use policies will expose additional people and structures to groundshaking
hazards associated with earthquakes. Any groundshaking that will occur will be similar
throughout the City and is not considered an unusual or unique risk. Per City and State
building codes, all new development will be required to incorporate appropriate design and
construction measures to guard against groundshaking hazards. All projects and structures
will be constructed in compliance with existing seismic safety regulations of the California
Uniform Building Code, which requires the use of site-specific engineering and construction
standards identified for each class of seismic hazard. The General Plan Public Safety
Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate
adverse impacts of ground surface rupture at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic
design standards and building construction codes for new development, and to monitor the
potential for seismic events. The General Plan FEIR determined impacts will be less than
significant with implementation of these policies and mitigation measures.
• Seismic activity along regional faults create the potential for groundshaking impacts within
the Planning Area. Portions of the Planning Area are underlain with weak, semi-consolidated
bedrock and loose, unconsolidated and often saturated alluvial sediments. These soil types
have the potential to liquefy or collapse in the event of a major groundshaking event. The
fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially expansive. The weak soil,
combined with steep slopes and saturated drainage channels, make areas of Temecula
susceptible to landslides and mudflows. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes
goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate potential adverse
impacts of liquefaction and landslides at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic
design standards and building construction codes for new development, to work with
property owners to remediate hazardous buildings, and to establish development
management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. The City
requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new development
is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern. Liquefaction assessment
studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to liquefaction. According to the
General Plan FEIR, compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and
implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact will
be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued standard
permit review and building practices.
During the construction phase of development projects consistent with General Plan
policies, grading could temporarily expose soil surfaces to erosion through stormwater
runoff and wind. Long-term soil loss could also occur from the increased peak flows and
total runoff produced by paved or landscaped surfaces in the Planning Area. Uncontrolled
flows could result in scouring or down-cutting of stream channels in sections where runoff
velocities and volumes are high. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals,
policies, and programs that direct the City to establish development management
techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. Development activities may
lead to increased erosion or loss of top soil and the General Plan FEIR includes mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to a level below significance.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-24
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element
Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning
Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s
RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes
to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan
FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts
associated with geology and soils. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula
General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce
potential impacts associated with geology and soils, including preparation of site-specific
geotechnical analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal Code. The Public Safety
Element Update would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not
previously considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR.
The proposed Public Safety Element would continue to provide policies specific to reducing potential
risks associated with geologic hazards within the City. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation
Measures GS-1 and GS-2 ensure the City would continue to monitor fault information and
categorize according to risk. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure GS-3 requires hillside
development standards and the use of property soil management and grading techniques in
accordance with geotechnical engineering standards. The Housing Element and Public Safety
Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing General Plan policies
regarding geology and soils.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element includes current information regarding fire
hazard planning and emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in
hazard areas. Proposed policies would continue to promote development consistent with the
adopted land use policy that considers natural and human-induced hazards and the overall safety
of Temecula’s residents.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new impacts
to geology and soils beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with
the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would
be no new significant or significantly different impacts to geology and soils as a result of the
proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
GS-1 The City shall work with the County of Riverside and California Geological Survey to monitor
and compile information on faults located within the Planning Area (General Plan Implementation
Program PS-4).
GS-2 The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability Matrix for Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zones and County Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will categorize land uses according to risk and
develop restrictions for these uses within the Zones (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-25
GS-3 The City shall: 1) prepare and adopt hillside development standards for site development
and drainage that work to control runoff for erosion control and water quality purposes; 2)
implement a Hillside Grading Ordinance; 3) require the use of proper soil management techniques
to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and other soil-related problems; and 4) implement a grading
ordinance to ensure that grading associated with new development projects is conducted in
accordance with appropriate geotechnical engineering standards (General Plan Implementation
Programs OS-21, PS-5 and PS-16).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-26
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
The Final EIR does not include a stand-alone Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis section.
Analysis of Modified Project
In March 2010, the Natural Resources Agency revised Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to
include a checklist item relating to a project’s impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In
particular, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines now includes a checklist item that provides:
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The City certified the General Plan Final EIR in 2005, several years before the above checklist item
was added to the State CEQA Guidelines. California courts have held that where a new guideline
or threshold is adopted after the certification of an EIR, an Addendum to the EIR need not include
additional environmental analysis relating to that guideline or threshold where the potential
environmental impact at issue in the new guideline or threshold was known or could have been
known at the time the EIR was certified. (See Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose
(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 806 [even though State CEQA Guidelines were amended on March
18, 2010 to address greenhouse gas emissions, lead agency’s 2010 Addendum to a 1997 EIR did
not require analysis of greenhouse gas emissions because “information about the potential
environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions was known or could have been know at the
time the 1997 EIR and the 2003 SEIR for the [project] were certified”]; Concerned Dublin Citizens
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-27
v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1319-1320 [“the adoption of guidelines for
analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information if the
underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was
certified”]; see also Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San
Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 532.). Because potential impacts relating to Greenhouse Gas
Emissions were known or could have been known when the General Plan FEIR was certified in
2005, California law does not require these impacts to be analyzed in this Addendum.
It is noted that the Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage
housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and
underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use
plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development
than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with
the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with policies and programs aimed
to reduce GHG emission impacts as a result of new development and construction-related
emissions and operational activities. More specifically: the City’s Trip Reduction Program Ordinance
allows the City to receive revenues from vehicle registration fees and mandates the provision Trip
Reduction Plans for certain employers; the General Plan Air Quality Element, Program AQ-12
promotes alternative fuel vehicles and Programs AQ-7, AQ-9, AQ-11, AQ-13, and AQ-14 promote
multi-modal transportation and carpooling to reduce VMT; and the General Plan Circulation
Element Programs C-12, C-15, C-16, and C-18 promote multi-modal transportation to reduce VMT.
These measures, in addition to compliance with the AQMP, would contribution to the reduction of
GHG emissions. Further the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify
the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously
considered in the General Plan FEIR.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-28
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• In accordance with City, State, and federal requirements, any new development that
involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the
property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and
regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at such locations until a “no further
action” or similar determination is issued by the City’s Fire Department, Department of
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-29
Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible
agency. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a level of safety to current
standards, and the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant.
New development could result in the increased use, transport, and disposal volumes of
hazardous materials within the Planning Area. However, the current regulatory
environment provides a high level of protection from the hazardous materials manufactured
within, transported to and stored in industrial and educational facilities within the Planning
Area. The City will continue to enforce disclosure laws that require all users, producers and
transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they
store, use or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, county, State and federal
agencies in the event of a violation. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a less
than significant impact.
• The General Plan FEIR did not identify any sites in Temecula included on the Department
of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List) and
impacts were determined to be less than significant.
• Temecula has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to ensure the effective management
of City personnel and resources in responding to emergency situations stemming from
natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense emergencies. The plan
includes a responsibility matrix that delineates specific responsibilities to City departments
or personnel in the event of an emergency. The plan also includes a comprehensive hazard
analysis that addresses the following potential hazards: earthquake, hazardous materials
incident, flooding, dam failure, major fire/wildfire, nuclear incident, and transportation
incident. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan includes the goal of "an effective
response of emergency services following a disaster" (Goal 4, Public Safety Element).
Implementation of the General Plan policies, along with the continued implementation of
the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact with
regard to emergency preparedness.
• The General Plan proposes new development within the French Valley Airport area of
influence through creation of the Airport Overlay Ordinance. By establishing an overlay
area, the City will be able to more strictly control development in the French Valley Airport
area of influence. All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must
be approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; must be consistent
with the French Valley Airport County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare; must ensure continued orderly use of the
Airport; and must prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Compliance with
the existing ALUCP, which is supported by numerous policies within the proposed General
Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact.
• Undeveloped areas, such as in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the
Planning Area, have greater fire danger due to expansive areas of vegetation to fuel a fire.
Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how limited, will expose additional
people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The City’s Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance
requires every property owner to remove all hazardous or flammable vegetation on the
property constituting a fire hazard that may endanger or damage neighboring property. In
addition, the Temecula Fire Department and the County of Riverside Fire Department
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-30
sponsor outreach and awareness programs to educate residents about fire dangers and
whey they can do to protect themselves and their homes. The General Plan Public Safety
Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to reduce the
potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas
where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the
urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought-resistant,
fire-retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion;
and to work with the City Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. The General
Plan FEIR concluded that stringent application of these policies will reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element
Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning
Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s
RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes
to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan
FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts due
to hazards or hazardous materials. Additionally, the City’s Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance and
regional cooperation with the County of Riverside Fire Department reduce potential impacts due
to wildland fires.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use
plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the
General Plan FEIR. Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs
were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County
Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include
current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard
Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new
discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives
to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County’s CAP
are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of
evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in
a separate background report available on the City’s website and the results of the analysis, which
found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards,
several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure
residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during
emergencies.
No goals, policies or programs from the current Public Safety Element were eliminated as part of
this update. Modifications or additions related to natural hazards were made to Polices 1.8 and 1.9
to further support the goal to minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-31
structural or wildland fire hazards. More specifically, Policy 1.8 supports programs and plans
consistent with state law and related to new development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) and Policy 1.9 directs the City to reduce the risk
of wildfire hazards by working with partners and other agencies on projects and programs like
community fire breaks; Policy 4.5 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public
facilities outside of the VHFHSZ; Policy 4.7 requires the City to coordinate with local, state and
federal agency to evaluate and plan for emergency scenarios; Goal 5 states that the City will be a
resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risk resulting from things like climate
change will be minimized; Policy 5.1 requires coordination with outside agencies on climate
resiliency and adaption strategies; and Policy 5.2 requires the City to monitor climate change-
related effects and respond appropriately at the local level.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new hazards
and hazardous materials impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following
compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan
Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials as a result of the proposed Project.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-32
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
X
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
• result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
• substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
• create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
• impede or redirect flood flows?
X
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
X
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-33
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• All new development will be required to comply with existing water quality standards and
waste discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego region. The General Plan FEIR concluded water quality impacts will be less than
significant.
• To avoid groundwater depletion, a conjunctive use program has been negotiated among
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and
Western Municipal Water District to recharge the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin
and other groundwater basins serving the City. A conjunctive use program was developed
to manage the basin, which refers to the planned use of groundwater in conjunction with
surface and/or imported water to optimize total water resources and improve water supply
reliability. This program allows imported water to be injected into the basin to ensure
maintenance of a minimum level of groundwater within the basin and adequate supplies of
available water without depleting the wells. The water master determines the safe annual
yield based on annual audits of the groundwater basin, including how much water was
withdrawn from and recharged to the aquifer. Water service providers must purchase
imported water or utilize recycled water supplies based on the water master’s yearly
determination. Compliance with these existing agreements will ensure a less than
significant impact on groundwater resources. To further ensure that groundwater supplies
will not be impacted by future development pursuant to implementation of the General
Plan, the General Plan FEIR recommends mitigation measures, that although not required,
would have the City work with RCWD and EMWD to investigate additional measures to
maintain supply and prevent groundwater depletion.
To maintain the maximum level of water available for use and to ensure the quality of its
potable water supply, RCWD protects its groundwater sources from two primary sources of
contamination: septic tanks and underground storage tanks. Mitigation measures have
been included in the General Plan FEIR that require all proposed development projects
using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to
provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations that
will ensure no impact to potable water production wells.
• Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will affect drainage
systems throughout the Planning Area. Increased runoff volumes and speeds may create
nuisance flooding in areas lacking adequate drainage facilities. To ensure that adequate
flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development
projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control
District. New development projects are required to provide on-site drainage and to pay
area drainage fees. Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within
the local storm drain system. Temecula is a member of the District’s Storm Water Clean
Water Protection Program and therefore requires all development project applicants to
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate water quality impacts
during storm events that occur during construction. In addition, all development proposals
must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, including Best Management Practices
(BMPs), outlining how the project will minimize water quality impacts during project
operation. Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-34
impact on surface water. The General Plan FEIR also recommends mitigation measures,
although not required, to maintain adequate stormwater drainage.
• Each new development will be required to comply with stormwater regulations set forth by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, including NPDES regulations.
According to the General Plan FEIR, compliance with existing regulations on a project-
by-project basis will reduce potential impact to a less than significant level.
• Temecula contains several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These areas,
corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become flooded when major
rainstorms cause streams to overflow. Therefore, specific building standards apply to flood
prone areas, including anchoring, building with flood resistant materials, providing
adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structure to or above the base flood elevation.
The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood
insurance available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. The City
also reviews development plans for projects within the floodplain to ensure compliance with
City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. No development of any kind will be
allowed in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. The General Plan FEIR
determined implementation of these measures will reduce the risk from flooding to a less
than significant level.
Portions of Temecula are subject to flood inundation from dam failure. The City maintains
a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan as part of the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan and
coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans
reflect the level of development within the community. In addition, the General Plan Public
Safety Element includes a policy to "provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities
and limit development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas"
(Policy 1.6, Public Safety Element). Therefore, the General Plan FEIR determined impacts
will be less than significant.
• The Planning Area is not subject to tsunamis due to its inland location and seiches have
not historically occurred within the Planning Area; impacts are determined to be less than
significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element
Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning
Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s
RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes
to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan
FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed
for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with
hydrology and drainage, including preparation of site-specific analysis and required compliance
with the Temecula Municipal Code. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element
would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density
than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies
and programs to reduce potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, General
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-35
Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures HW-1 through HW-7 outline strategies to increase water supply,
decrease pollutants, and increase groundwater quality to reduce potential impacts.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new hydrology
and water quality impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance
with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there
would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to hydrology and water as a
result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
HW-1 The City will work with the water districts to promote water conservation and ultimately
reduce the demand for peak-hour water supply wastewater capacity, review the adopted Uniform
Building Code, and require water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. Such
measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of plumbing fixtures that reduce water use,
low-flow toilets, drip irrigation systems, and xeriscape landscaping that maximizes the use of
drought-tolerant plant species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4).
HW-2 The City shall review individual development projects to ensure that adequate stormwater
detention facilities are provided to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the project,
and where needed, incorporate detention of stormwater runoff at the point of origin (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-6).
HW-3 The City will require drought-tolerant landscaping in new development and where feasible,
will require incorporation of reclaimed water systems within landscape irrigation plans (General
Plan Implementation Program OS-7).
HW-4 The City will implement, where appropriate, Water Resource Management Guidelines
drafted by the subcommittee comprised of Eastern Municipal Water District and local jurisdictions
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-8).
HW-5 The City shall prohibit the use of underground storage tanks and conventional septic
tanks/subsurface disposal systems in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13).
HW-6 The City shall require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface
disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the
project site and siting recommendations in accordance with the EPA’s Design Manual for On-site
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems that will ensure no impact to potable water
production wells in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
wellhead protection area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13).
HW-7 Proposed developments shall incorporate measures, including measures required by the
City pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to ensure
that the quantity and quality of runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of
water quality standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff
from developed and paved areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of
toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements. This can be
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-36
accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or
mechanical trapping or treatment devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective
operations of runoff control systems (General Plan Implementation Program OS-5).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-37
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? X
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• The majority of undeveloped land in the Planning Area is located north of Temecula in the
sphere of influence and no physical division would result from development pursuant to the
General Plan; no impact will occur.
• Implementation of the General Plan may conflict with other land use plans and policies that
apply within the Planning Area. The updated Southwest Area Plan envisions substantial
amounts of new development surrounding Temecula. The City’s General Plan Land Use
Policy Map incorporates the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) recommended uses for
unincorporated areas, and no direct conflicts result. However, development in
unincorporated areas pursuant to the SWAP, particularly within the French Valley area, will
result in significant impacts on traffic, air quality, and resources that are beyond the City’s
ability to control. Without annexation, projects would continue to be approved by the
County, and may not adequately reduce impacts to the City’s roadway infrastructure and
natural resources to the extent that they would if under the City’s jurisdiction, fully subject
to policies and implementation programs within the General Plan. Thus, the City has
developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area, and has designated this area as a
Future Growth Area. This part of the land use plan is substantially similar to the County
General Plan in this area. The General Plan FEIR includes mitigation that describes
annexation requirements for surrounding areas.
The General Plan may conflict with provisions of the City Development Code and Riverside
County Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard to land use designation/zoning
consistency. Mitigation measures are included in the General Plan FEIR that require the
City to review and update the Development Code to be consistent with the updated General
Plan. Also, whenever the City annexes lands rezoning will occur to achieve General
Plan/zoning consistency. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts can be reduced to a less
than significant level with these actions.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-38
The ALUCP for French Valley Airport establishes an area of influence surrounding the
Airport. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document’s
Compatibility Criteria for Land Use Actions section delineates the criteria for assessing
whether a land use plan, ordinance, or development proposal is to be judged compatible
with a nearby airport. Accordingly, the General Plan includes Goal 8, and related policy 8.3
and implementation program LU-24 to assure that implementation of the Plan will not
adversely impact French Valley airport operations. Implementation of the General Plan
policies and programs will ensure that development pursuant to the General Plan within
the French Valley Airport area of influence does not conflict with the current County ALUCP
for French Valley Airport. Implementation Program LU-24 is required as a mitigation
measure to ensure consistency between the General Plan and ALUCP. Impact will be less
than significant with implementation of this measure.
The SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains policies applicable to
the General Plan. The General Plan is consistent with the applicable SCAG RCPG policies.
Additionally, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes several policies relevant
to Temecula. The proposed General Plan is consistent with and does not conflict with
applicable RTP policies. The General Plan is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide administered by SCAG. Impact is less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
Development pursuant to the General Plan may result in annexations of lands, as well as
additional public service needs in areas located within Temecula’s sphere of influence. In
addition, reorganization of service districts within the sphere of influence may be necessary
to provide the required services efficiently and effectively, in keeping with General Plan
policies expressed the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element. Such activities may
conflict with established Riverside County LAFCO plans and priorities. This represents a
significant impact, and mitigation is required. General Plan FEIR mitigation measures
include: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding areas, and 2) require the
City to cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct growth
outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served
or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and
sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and
emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces. The General Plan FEIR
concluded impacts will be less than significant with implementation of these measures.
In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development
projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are
required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-
dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed
project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project will
be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance with
existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact.
Development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element could be inconsistent with
some of the development standards outlined in currently adopted specific plans, particularly
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-39
those under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside within the City’s sphere of influence.
To avoid conflict, mitigation measures are included that: 1) describe annexation
requirements for surrounding areas, 2) require the City to periodically review and update
the General Plan Land Use Policy Map, and to review and update the Development Code
and Specific Plans to be consistent with the updated General Plan and 3) require the City
to continue to implement the procedures, requirements, and contents of specific plans
contained in the Development Code. Impact will be less than significant with
implementation of these measures.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. Potential development
of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the
adopted land use plan and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater
development than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the Public Safety Element
would not result in any modifications to existing land use designations or modify any General Plan
policies or programs specific to land use and planning. Future housing development, consistent
with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with land use policies and
programs. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts
resulting from new development and intensification of land uses.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new land use
and planning impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with
the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would
be no new significant or significantly different impacts to land use and planning as a result of the
proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
LUP-1 The City shall require preparation of an annexation plan and fiscal analysis prior to
annexation of new areas to the City. Within the annexation plan, applicants must show how
adequate levels of public services and facilities will be provided to serve the new development,
without reducing service levels for currently urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall determine
the impact that additional development will have on current Temecula neighborhoods and on the
community as a whole, including any impact fees necessary to offset public costs caused by the
proposed project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and service impacts of the proposed
project on roads, water, sewer, storm water runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other
community facilities (General Plan Implementation Program LU-15).
LUP-2 The City shall review implementation of the General Plan and Land Use Policy Map to ensure
consistency is maintained between the General Plan and the Development Code (General Plan
Implementation Program LU-1).
LUP-3 The City shall review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the
General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program LU-3).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-40
LUP-4 The City shall implement and update as necessary the Redevelopment Plan to establish
consistency with the General Plan and amended Development Code (General Plan Implementation
Program LU-11).
LUP-5 The City shall ensure consistency with the County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
(ALUCP) for French Valley Airport through the following measures:
a. The City shall review development projects within the French Valley Airport area of
influence, and participate in any future updates to the ALUCP and Master Plan for the
Airport, in conjunction with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.
b. The City shall require project proponents to obtain avigation easements as required by the
ALUCP to ensure that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft.
(General Plan Implementation Program LU-24)
LUP-6 The City shall review and update the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an
annual basis to achieve consistency with improvements identified within the General Plan, and to
meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan Implementation Program
LU-17).
LUP-7 The City shall cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct
growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served
or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer,
local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency
response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation Program LU-16).
LUP-8 The City shall continue to implement the procedures, requirements and contents of specific
plans contained in the Development Code. Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership
which are generally over 100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an
implementation tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or amendment
of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section 65450. Specific plans shall include
the location of land uses; standards to regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for
constructing proposed streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards
for conservation and management of natural resources; and implementation provisions to carry
out the Open Space/Conservation Element (General Plan Implementation Program LU-5).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-41
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in
Temecula. Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a known
mineral resource. The General Plan FEIR concluded no impact will result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the Public Safety Element would not result in any
modifications to existing and use designations or modify any General Plan policies or programs
specific to mineral resources. The City reviews development proposals to ensure that mineral
resources are conserved in compliance with the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element
and CEQA requirements.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new mineral
resources impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts to mineral resources as a result of the proposed
Project.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-42
4.13 NOISE
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Long-term implementation of the General Plan could expose persons to excessive
groundborne vibration and/or noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise-producing
uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses. In addition, construction-related
activities will be short-term sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of
neighboring uses. These are potentially significant impacts at the project level, and the
General Plan FEIR concludes mitigation is required.
• Transportation-related noise is the strongest contributor to ambient noise levels within the
Temecula Planning Area. Nearly all of the roadway segments will carry additional trips in
the future, which will produce additional noise. In some portions of the community, the 60
dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. In addition, new transportation
facilities shown on the City’s Roadway Plan will contribute new sources of noise. The
General Plan EIR determined these increases in permanent ambient noise levels are
considered a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
Long-term implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for additional development
within the Planning Area, which could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases
in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. Although construction-related noise
will be short term for each specific construction project and will cease upon completion of
construction, the cumulative impact over time could be significant at specific locations.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-43
Upon implementation of mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will
be less than significant.
• The Land Use Policy Map and implementing zoning regulations restrict development of
intensive new uses within airport influence areas. Development controls within the City’s
Development Code include limiting development within areas subject to high noise levels
and limiting the intensity and height of development within aircraft hazard zones. These
controls are consistent with the ALUCP for French Valley Airport, adopted by the ALUC,
which designates airport influence areas and zones for every airport in Riverside County,
and provides a series of policies and compatibility criteria to ensure that both aviation uses
and surrounding areas may continue. The General Plan Noise Element includes goals and
policies that direct the City to comply with the French Valley ALUCP. Ongoing compliance
with the ALUCP and implementation of General Plan policy will ensure a less than significant
impact.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element
Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning
Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s
RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes
to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan
FEIR. Future housing development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed
for consistency with policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with noise,
including preparation of site-specific analysis and required compliance with the Temecula Municipal
Code. The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land
use plan or modify General Plan policies or programs specific to noise. The Temecula General Plan
includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to ambient noise levels as a result of
groundborne vibration or exposure to excessive noise levels. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation
Measures N-1 through N-5 ensure review and enforcement of noise standards on new and existing
development, development of noise impact guidelines, and require construction activities to reduce
potential impacts related to noise.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in noise impacts
beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the recommended
General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be no new significant
or significantly different impacts related to noise as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures: Any modifications to the original measures are shown in
strikethrough for deleted text and new, inserted text is underlined.
N-1 The City will review residential and other noise-sensitive development proposals to ensure
that noise standards and compatibility criteria are met, and will require incorporation of noise-
mitigating features identified in acoustical studies prepared for development projects including,
but not limited to, the following measures identified in the Noise Element (General Plan
Implementation Programs N-1, N-3, N-5 and N-7).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-44
• Use of building setbacks to increase distance between noise sources and receivers
• Placing noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility
areas between noise sources and receptors.
• Orienting or clustering buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
• Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, facing away from major roadways.
• Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to shield noise-
sensitive portions of homes.
• Use of additional insulation and double-pane windows when bedrooms cannot be located
on the side of a house away from a major roadway.
• Avoid placement of balconies facing major travel routes.
N-2 Where architectural design treatments described in Mitigation Measure N-1 fail to
adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly increase the costs of land development,
the City will require the combined use of noise barriers and landscaped berms (General Plan
Implementation Program N-7).
N-3 The City will require all non-emergency construction activity to comply with the limits
(maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations
(Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 9.20 of
the Municipal Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near
residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet City noise reduction
requirements (General Plan Implementation Program N-2).
N-4 During review of development applications, the City will consider the noise and vibration
impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned adjacent uses (General Plan
Implementation Program N-4).
N-5 The City will 1) incorporate noise control measures, such as sound walls and berms, into
roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts to adjacent development; 2) provide noise
control for City streets within the Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the
ultimate roadway capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise
impacts; and 4) Coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and the California
Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise standards for cars, trucks, and
motorcycles (General Plan Implementation Program N-8).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-45
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• General Plan land use policy establishes capacity for 25,005 net new housing units and
36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development. To accommodate the
anticipated population increase, the General Plan Land Use Element directs most new
development into the French Valley Future Growth Area. The Land Use Element also
includes policies that encourage development of mixed-use projects within three
established Mixed-Use Overlay Areas to promote infill development and redevelopment of
vacant/underutilized sites and aging commercial developments. In addition, Land Use
Element policies establish a number of strategies designed to preserve rural areas and
protect existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Given historical growth patterns
and growth management policies contained within the General Plan, implementation of the
Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur within
the Planning Area. Further, the General Plan is consistent with SCAG’s growth management
policies. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant.
• The General Plan will allow the development of a variety of uses on currently undeveloped
land. However, this new development will not displace substantial numbers of housing units
or people and no impact will result.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Additionally, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-46
Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater
intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. Future housing
development, consistent with the Temecula General Plan, would be reviewed for consistency with
policies and programs aimed to reduce potential impacts associated with substantial unplanned
population growth and displacement.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in housing and
population impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with
the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would
be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to population and housing as a result
of the proposed Project.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-47
4.15 PUBLIC S ERVICES
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Fire protection?
• Police protection?
• Schools?
• Parks?
• Other public facilities?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in
increased demand for fire and police protection services and facilities, as well as increased
demand for water resources for fire protection and other emergencies. This represents a
significant impact. The Fire Department conducts final construction plan check reviews and
issues certificates of occupancy for all new development projects. Projects within the City
limits are also required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to fund the expansion of
fire protection and emergency services. General Plan FEIR mitigation measures are
required to reduce impact to a level below significance. The specific environmental impacts
of constructing fire and police stations in the City cannot be determined at this level of
analysis because no specific projects are proposed. However, the Riverside County Fire
Department and Riverside County Sheriff’s Department will require project-level analysis
of impacts prior to approving occupancy certificates.
• Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will
result in demand for new or expanded education facilities to adequately accommodate new
students. Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to Temecula
Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) of providing education facilities to future students.
The environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school
facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new schools or
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-48
expansion of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to
the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level.
• Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will
result in demand for library resources beyond provided by the new Temecula Public Library.
Even with the opening of the new library, the new development associated with
implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new or expanded library
facilities. According to the General Plan FEIR, mitigation measures would be required to
reduce the impact to less than significant. The specific impacts of constructing new library
facilities in the Planning Area cannot be determined at this first-tier level of analysis
because no specific project is proposed. However, Riverside County Library District will be
required to conduct project-level analysis of potential impacts.
• Sufficient acreage to meet the needs of existing residents is anticipated by the year 2013
through the acquisition and dedication of parks and school facilities within identified specific
plan areas. However, new development projects pursuant to the General Plan will result in
increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, other recreational facilities, and
trails that may cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. The
General Plan EIR includes mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. Potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate
the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any
changes to existing land uses. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element
would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density
than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies
and programs to reduce potential impacts to public services as a result of new development and
intensification of land uses. Further, General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-1 and PSR-2
ensure acceptable service ratios and response times of police, fire, and emergency medical
services. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-3 and PSR-4 ensure adequate funding and
level of service for community libraries. General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures PSR-5 through PSR-
7 ensures adequate parkland for residents, provides for a funding source for parks, and promotes
recreational and bicycle facilities.
The Public Safety Element update includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and
emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed
policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that
considers natural and human-induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula’s residents,
including the provision of adequate services and facilities.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in public services
impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts related to public services as a result of the
proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-49
PSR-1 The City will periodically evaluate levels of sheriff, fire and emergency medical services,
based on changes in population and development, and will: 1) provide a minimum of one full-time
officer per 1,000 residents for police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, staffing, and
equipment necessary to maintain a five-minute response time for 90 percent of all emergencies;
and 3) implement new programs to meet the changing needs of residents (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-4).
PSR-2 As part of the development review process, the City will require new development projects
to address fire and police protection proactively, through all-weather access street design,
orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security features;
and will require illuminated addresses on new construction (General Plan Implementation Program
GM-5).
PSR-3 The City will identify and solicit funding from additional sources to supplement library
facilities and services. Such funding sources may include: State and federal grants and loans,
public and private donations, sponsorships by local and national corporations, and other private
individuals and groups (General Plan Implementation Program GM-7).
PSR-4 The City will coordinate with the County to determine location, facilities, and services of
new branch libraries needed to serve the community (General Plan Implementation Program GM-
7).
PSR-5 The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land
and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions,
expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with
the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1).
PSR-6 The City shall continue to implement a local code that incorporates standards for parkland
dedication and development. Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or
the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development;
and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on
the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-2).
PSR-7 The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi-
Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards,
implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike
routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-29).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-50
4.16 RECREATION
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
This topical area is addressed in the General Plan FEIR’s Public Services and Recreation section;
refer to Section 4.15, Public Services, above.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element
would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density
than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies
and programs to reduce potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities as a result of new
development and intensification of land uses. Further, the Temecula Municipal Code sets parkland
dedication requirements in accordance with the Quimby Act.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in parks and
recreation facilities impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance
with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there
would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to recreation as a result of
the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-51
PSR-5 The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land
and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions,
expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with
the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1).
PSR-6 The City shall continue to implement a local code that incorporates standards for parkland
dedication and development. Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or
the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development;
and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on
the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-2).
PSR-7 The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi-
Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards,
implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike
routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-29).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-52
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b. Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• The General Plan Circulation Element is comprised of the Roadway Plan, long-range plans
for transit facilities and multi-use trails, and goals, policies, and programs to ensure that
current transportation facilities will be improved and new facilities constructed that provide
adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from future development
pursuant to the Land Use Element. Improvements to current roadways and construction of
future roadways have also been designed to anticipate future development in the County
of Riverside and the City of Murrieta. Long-range implementation of the General Plan will
result in as many as 699,558 additional vehicle trips per day, for a total trip generation of
approximately 1.43 million vehicle trips per day. This represents an increase of 96 percent
over existing (year 2002) conditions. The General Plan FEIR concluded that even with
implementation of mitigation measures, significantly impacted intersections and freeway
ramps (as identified in the General Plan FEIR) cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
level.
• The City of Temecula coordinates with RTA to develop future transit schedules and routes
in Temecula, and provides important transit support facilities, including park-and-ride lots
and bus shelters. These ongoing actions are supported and expanded upon within the
Circulation Element by policies directing the City to coordinate with public and private
transit operators to provide fixed route transit service connecting major activity centers;
to coordinate with WRCOG to identify, protect, and pursue opportunities for light rail or
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-53
high speed regional rail transit serving Temecula; to identify and reserve necessary rights-
of-way for future regional transit facilities; and to encourage development of transit support
facilities, such as park-and-ride lots, near the I-15 Freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay
Areas established in the Land Use Element.
• The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence. Growth pursuant
to the General Plan is not anticipated to change air traffic patterns and the General Plan
EIR concluded potential impacts will be less than significant.
• The Circulation Element addresses the importance of compatibility between design issues
and land use compatibility. However, new development is expected to result in additional
roadways. All new roadways will be built in accordance with all requisite City and County
design requirements and the General Plan FEIR concluded no significant impact will result.
• The City has a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan in place. In addition, the Public Safety Element
calls for regular reviews by the City to assess response times and incorporate newly
developed areas to ensure adequate fire and police protection, impacts will be less than
significant.
• One of the key components of the Circulation Element is to promote the use of alternative
transportation modes, including bicycling and walking. Public bus service is provided by
RTA. The City is committed to ensuring that public transportation becomes a viable
alternative to the automobile for residents. The Circulation Element also emphasizes the
network of Multi-Use Trails planned for in the City's Multi-Use Trails Master Plan. The
General Plan FEIR concluded impacts will be less than significant.
Analysis of Modified Project
The General Plan FEIR did not address potential impacts to VMT because at the time of preparation
of the General Plan FEIR, VMT was not the primary metric used as the basis for determining the
significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. However, the proposed Project does not include
site-specific development or result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater
development than what was considered in the General Plan FEIR. Thus, the proposed Project would
result in similar VMT as would occur under the existing General Plan and would not result in new
impacts or substantially more significant impacts related to VMT.
It should be noted that although Level of Service (LOS) no longer serves as the basis for
determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, the General Plan FEIR included
mitigation to address potentially significant impacts to the LOS of various intersections and to
support multi-modal travel to reduce potential impacts to the City’s transportation system. These
Mitigation Measures are identified below.
As noted above, the Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage
housing production within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and
underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use
policy and would not result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development
than what was analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public
Safety Element would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development at a greater
intensity/density than previously considered in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan
includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to the circulation system, including
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-54
increased hazards and emergency access, as a result of new development and intensification of
land uses.
The Public Safety Element update includes current information regarding fire hazard planning and
emergency preparedness, as well as an evaluation of evacuation routes in hazard areas. Proposed
policies would continue to promote development consistent with the adopted land use policy that
considers natural and human-induced hazards and the overall safety of Temecula’s residents.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in transportation
impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts related to transportation as a result of the
proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
T-1 The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, and build new roadways and complete
roadway improvements using the established Capital Improvement Plan process to implement the
circulation system shown on the proposed Roadway Plan concurrent with land development; and
2) require that new roadways meet roadway classification design specifications and performance
criteria established in the proposed Circulation Element. General Plan FEIR Table 5.13-9
summarizes new roadways and arterial widening projects required to implement the proposed
Roadway Plan2 (General Plan Implementation Program C-1).
T-2 The City will monitor the performance of Principal Intersections on an ongoing basis and
ensure that Principal Intersections approaching Level of Service D are prioritized for improvement
within the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (General Plan Implementation Program
C-3).
T-3 The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital Improvement Plan on an annual basis to
plan for and fund future improvements to the roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle systems; 2) identify
available funding sources and establish a financing plan to guide construction and funding of
transportation system improvements, and 3) require new development projects to construct
and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic improvements associated with the proposed
project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. Such improvements should
address both automotive, as well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan
Implementation Program C-5).
T-4 The City will require additional dedication of right-of-way on all approaches to Principal
Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future intersection improvements that may
be required at these intersections, such as full width auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual-left turn lanes
(General Plan Implementation Program C-4).
T-5 The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize impacts of
proposed development projects on the City’s circulation system, and to encourage increased use
of alternative transportation:
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-55
• Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and
infrastructure system.
• Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant
impacts prior to or concurrent with project development.
• Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and
bicycle facilities.
• Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service and
encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient
trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and
bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision
boundary walls, as appropriate.
• Require new specific plans and other projects to provide an internal system of pathways
and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities in
residential areas.
• Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review
at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and submitted for final
approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan Implementation Program C-6).
T-6 The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may benefit citywide
circulation if the street was re-opened or construction of the street was completed; 2) assess the
feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing construction of local connecting
streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case-by-case basis, providing ample opportunity for
both neighborhood residents and the community at-large to comment on such proposals, and 3)
establish a review process for the future closing of any local street that requires City Council
determination that the closure does not have an adverse affect on citywide circulation (General
Plan Implementation Program C-7).
T-7 The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCOG, SCAG and others to advocate future
commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego;
2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor serving Temecula is located on the west side of
I-15 to reduce noise impacts on residential areas; and 3) require new commercial, industrial, or
mixed use development in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit-oriented design
amenities (General Plan Implementation Program C-12).
T-8 The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and
work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the
City’s Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction
Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation
Program C-13).
T-9 The City will implement the adopted Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to complete
design and construction of a comprehensive alternative transportation network, promote safe use
of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the disabled (General Plan
Implementation Program C-15).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-56
T-10 The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership through the
following actions:
• Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects.
• Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage
serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas.
• Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional transit
services.
The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit
services beyond fixed-route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to:
• Subscription or dial-a-ride service for lower density residential areas
• Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City’s
commercial/employment core
• Shuttle or trolley service between Old Town and other destinations along the I-15
commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries along
Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise
• Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses.
(General Plan Implementation Program C-16).
T-11 The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in Temecula through
the following measures:
• Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City.
• Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan
Implementation Program C-18).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-57
4.18 TRIBAL C ULTURAL RESOURCES
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been
revised to include a new category for Tribal Cultural Resources impacts. This topical area is
addressed in the General Plan FEIR’s Cultural Resources section.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element
would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously
considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula
General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural
resources. Specifically, within the Open Space/Conservation Element, Policy 6.10 requires the City
to work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural
resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process, and Policy 6.11
encourages voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-58
consistent with State requirements. Additionally, the General Plan FEIR includes Mitigation
Measures CR-1 and CR-2 to reduce potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources. The
Housing Element and Public Safety Element policies and programs would not have an impact on
existing General Plan policies protecting tribal cultural resources.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new tribal
cultural resource impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance
with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there
would be no new significant or significantly different impacts to tribal cultural resources as a result
of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to:
a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation
of findings is provided prior to project approval.
b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or
paleontological resources.
c. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in
areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is
identified.
d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and
paleontological sites discovered during construction activities.
e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of
mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS-
26).
CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center
of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological
sensitivity of sites proposed for development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-59
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
• All new development pursuant to the General Plan will discharge wastewater to the EMWD's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The facility operates in compliance
with the applicable State treatment standards. The General Plan will not result in
development of any uses that could result in exceeding the established treatment
standards. All new development will be required to comply with existing wastewater
treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
region and impact will be less than significant.
• Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds
RCWD’s planned future supply. The General Plan FEIR concluded impacts on the RCWD’s
ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by
agriculture and other water users within RCWD’s service area could lead to an impact on
future water supply. Therefore, the General Plan FEIR includes recommended mitigation
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-60
measures that direct the City to assist RCWD in planning for future water supplies, to
promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water.
Similarly, buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that
exceeds EMWD’s planned future supply. Impact on EMWD’s ability to provide water will be
less than significant. However, increased demand by other water users in the district’s
service area could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, mitigation measures
are recommended that direct the City to assist EMWD in planning for future water supplies,
to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water.
• EMWD’s calculates a future treatment capacity of 35 mgd for the Temecula Valley Regional
Water Reclamation Facility service area. Estimated future wastewater treatment demand
required to support General Plan buildout is 1 mgd greater than the projected capacity of
District facilities serving Temecula. Given that future demand is based upon a very long-
term buildout horizon, the General Plan FEIR concluded the 1 mgd difference is not
considered significant; mitigation measures are included in the FEIR to provide for
continued monitoring and potentially an update of EMWD’s master plan to reflect
Temecula’s projections.
• Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will require construction
of additional stormwater drainage facilities throughout the Planning Area. To ensure that
adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed
development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), at the request of the City, prior to
approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County. New development projects are
required to provide on-site drainage connecting to the City’s drainage system and to pay
area drainage fees. Drainage fee revenues from the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan are
used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system. In addition, all
proposed development projects are reviewed by the RCFCWCD. Proposed General Plan
goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact to City storm drain
facilities. Implementation Program GM-9 directs the City to maintain an effective, safe, and
environmentally compatible flood control system. The General Plan FEIR concluded that
compliance with existing regulations and General Plan Implementation Program GM-9 will
ensure a less than significant impact.
• Solid waste generation is anticipated to increase associated with General Plan buildout. The
City currently offers a residential recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the
solid waste generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste Management Department
expects to expand the capacity of both El Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills. The
City will also continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with
Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code. The General Plan FEIR
concluded that although implementation of the General Plan will result in new development
and redevelopment within the Planning Area and related increases in solid waste
generation, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.
• Each development approved pursuant to General Plan policy will be required to comply with
federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste;
thus, the General Plan FEIR concluded no adverse impact will result.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-61
Analysis of Modified Project
The Housing Element Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production
within the Planning Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to
accommodate the City’s RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not
result in any changes to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was
analyzed in the General Plan FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element
would not modify the existing land use plan or allow for development in areas not previously
considered or at a greater intensity/density than identified in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula
General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce potential impacts to utilities and service
systems as a result of new development and intensification of land uses. Additionally, General Plan
FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1 and USS-5 ensures cooperation with regional water providers to
plan for sufficient water and wastewater capacities; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-2
considers services that reduce water demand; General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure USS-3 reviews
development and redevelopment proposals to ensure adequate water service; General Plan FEIR
Mitigation Measure USS-4 reduces irrigation water usage and promotes recycled water, and;
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures USS-10, USS-11, and USS-12 provide measures to reduce
solid waste. The Housing Element policies and programs would not have an impact on existing
General Plan policies addressing utilities and service systems
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new utilities
and service systems impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following
compliance with the recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan
Policies, there would be no new significant or significantly different impacts related to utilities and
service systems as a result of the proposed Project.
General Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:
USS-1 The City shall assist the Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts in the
process of updating their urban water management plans to be responsive to the population and
housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program
GM-8).
USS-2 The City shall review the adopted Uniform Building Code and require new development
projects to include water conservation features to reduce consumption, including, but not limited
to: use of reduced-flow plumbing fixtures, low-flow toilets, drip irrigation systems and xeriscape
landscaping (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4).
USS-3 The City shall ensure that discretionary projects implementing the General Plan (Specific
Plans, land divisions, development plans and conditional use permits) comply with California Water
Code Section 10910, requiring the preparation of a water supply assessment indicating that a long-
term water supply for a 20-year time frame is available. Written acknowledgement that water will
be provided by a community or public water system with an adopted urban water management
plan that includes consideration of the project’s water consumption and supply shall constitute
compliance with this requirement (General Plan Implementation Program OS-38).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-62
USS-4 The City shall: 1) continue to require drought-tolerant landscaping in new development
projects; 2) where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into landscape irrigation plans;
3) continue to implement a recycled water ordinance in accordance with the requirements of
Senate Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping Act; and 4) convert existing City of Temecula
non-domestic water uses to recycled water use in accordance with Sections 13550-13556 of the
State Water Code when feasible (General Plan Implementation Program OS-7).
USS-5 The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of updating its
water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the population and housing
unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8).
USS-10 The City will 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Department to
implement the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan, and when feasible and appropriate, assist
the County in locating cost effective and environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities;
and 2) promote awareness of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation
Program GM-10).
USS-11 The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval for all multi-
family residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the private sector contractor
providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate recycling containers, procedures, and
education are readily available (General Plan Implementation Program GM-14).
USS-12 The City shall continue to compost green waste collected from landscape and park
maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15).
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-63
4.20 WILDFIRE
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
Since certification of the General Plan FEIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist has been
revised to include a new category for Wildfire impacts. This topical area is addressed in the General
Plan FEIR’s Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.
• Undeveloped areas, such as in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the
Planning Area, have greater fire danger due to expansive areas of vegetation to fuel a fire.
Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how limited, will expose additional
people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The City’s Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance
requires every property owner to remove all hazardous or flammable vegetation on the
property constituting a fire hazard that may endanger or damage neighboring property. In
addition, the Temecula Fire Department and the County of Riverside Fire Department
sponsor outreach and awareness programs to educate residents about fire dangers and
whey they can do to protect themselves and their homes. The General Plan Public Safety
Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to reduce the
potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas
where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-64
urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought-resistant,
fire-retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion;
and to work with the City Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. The FEIR
concluded that stringent application of these policies will reduce impact to a less than
significant level.
Analysis of Modified Project
The Project does not propose site-specific development, but is rather an update to a policy
document to comply with new laws and reinforce existing policy direction. The Housing Element
Update proposes housing policies that would encourage housing production within the Planning
Area. However, potential development of vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the City’s
RHNA would be consistent with the adopted land use policy and would not result in any changes
to existing land uses or allow for greater development than what was analyzed in the General Plan
FEIR. Further, the proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing
land use plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered
in the General Plan FEIR. The Temecula General Plan includes policies and programs to reduce
potential impacts due to wildfires. Specifically, Policy 1.8 within the Public Safety Element reduces
wildfire risk through imposition of site-specific development standards during project review and
coordination with the City Fire Department and other organizations, and Implementation Program
PS-8 promotes fire prevention in Temecula, including cooperation with the Fire Department, public
education programs, and vegetation management efforts. Further, building codes outlined in Title
24 and the City’s Municipal Code, the City’s Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance, and regional
cooperation with the County of Riverside Fire Department, would reduce potential impacts due to
wildland fires. These impacts are considered less than significant.
The proposed amendment to the Public Safety Element would not modify the existing land use
plan or allow for development at a greater intensity/density than previously considered in the
General Plan FEIR. Within the Introduction section of the Safety Element, new plans and programs
were referenced, including the County of Riverside Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(MJLHMP), the City of Temecula Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and the Riverside County
Climate Action Plan (CAP). Fire Hazards discussion was comprehensively updated to include
current information regarding the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), CalFire, Fire Hazard
Severity Zones, and major wildland fires in Temecula. Figure PS-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in LRA (as Recommended by CalFIRE) was also added. The City has also included a new
discussion related to emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation and identified new objectives
to address this topic. Additional information related to the MJLHMP, LHMP, and the County’s CAP
are also included by reference. In accordance with SB 99, the City conducted an evaluation of
evacuation routes serving residential developments in hazard areas. This analysis is presented in
a separate background report available on the City’s website and the results of the analysis, which
found that while residential developers may comply with City of Temecula access standards,
several residential areas warrant further study and coordination with RCFD and CalFIRE to ensure
residents with limited emergency routes are well-educated on evacuation procedures during
emergencies.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-65
No goals, policies or programs from the current Public Safety Element were eliminated as part of
this update. Modifications or additions related to natural hazards were made to Polices 1.8 and 1.9
to further support the goal to minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from
structural or wildland fire hazards. More specifically, Policy 1.8 supports programs and plans
consistent with state law and related to new development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) or
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) and Policy 1.9 directs the City to reduce the risk
of wildfire hazards by working with partners and other agencies on projects and programs like
community fire breaks; Policy 4.5 directs the City to locate, when feasible, new essential public
facilities outside of the VHFHSZ; Policy 4.7 requires the City to coordinate with local, state and
federal agency to evaluate and plan for emergency scenarios; Goal 5 states that the City will be a
resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risk resulting from things like climate
change will be minimized; Policy 5.1 requires coordination with outside agencies on climate
resiliency and adaption strategies; and Policy 5.2 requires the City to monitor climate change-
related effects and respond appropriately at the local level.
The revisions to the Housing Element and Public Safety Element would not result in new wildfire
impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan FEIR. Following compliance with the
recommended General Plan FEIR mitigation measures and General Plan Policies, there would be
no new significant or significantly different impacts related to wildfire as a result of the proposed
Project.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-66
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF S IGNIFICANCE
Thresholds:
Substantial
Change in
Project
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Substantial
Change in
Circumstance
Requiring
Major EIR
Revisions
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
effects than
Previous EIR
No
Additional
Significant
Impact/
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Application
of
Mitigation
from FEIR
Less Than
Significant
Impact/No
Changes or
Information
Requiring
Preparation
of an MND
or EIR
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
General Plan FEIR Conclusions
As described above, the General Plan FEIR concluded that full implementation of the General Plan
would result in less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts with the
implementation of mitigation measures for all issue areas analyzed except for Section 5.3 Air
Quality (Violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing air quality
violation; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant; and Expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations) and Section 5.13 Transportation
(Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F [peak hour ICU greater than 0.90] and Causes a
freeway ramp to operate at LOS F [peak hour V/C greater than 1.00]), which were determined to
be significant and unavoidable. The General Plan FEIR’s background and policy information and
environmental impact conclusions are cited throughout this Addendum.
City of Temecula | 2021-2029 Housing Element Update and Public Safety Element Update
2021-01 Addendum to the General Plan FEIR
Environmental Analysis 4-67
Analysis of Modified Project
Future housing could significantly impact, directly or through habitat modifications, sensitive
vegetation communities and/or sensitive plant and wildlife species; refer to Section 4.4 above.
Additionally, ground-disturbing activities associated with future development, such as grading or
excavation, could unearth undocumented archeological or disturb unknown human remains; refer
to Section 4.5 above. Individual project proposals would be subject to review under CEQA, and
site-specific biological and cultural surveys would be conducted, as needed, to evaluate potential
impacts to such resources. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework,
recommended FEIR mitigation measures, and General Plan Policies, no new significant impact to
biological or cultural resources or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant impacts would occur with implementation of the Project.
The General Plan FEIR determined that cumulative impacts would result in the following areas:
short-term and long-term cumulative air quality impacts and cumulative impact on roadways and
intersections. All other cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The anticipated housing development would not result in environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916)263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
Community Development Department
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Luke Watson:
RE: City of Temecula 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Temecula (City) draft housing element received for
review on October 5, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b),
the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting
the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on
November 19, 2021 with Senior Management Analyst, Mr. Brandon Rabidou and
Planning consultant Amanda Tropiano.
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be
necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).
The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing
Element Law.
As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of
today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The
City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD
encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to
HCD to regain housing element compliance.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if
a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the
statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional
housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be
completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local
government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law,
and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government
Code section 65585, subdivision (i).
December 3, 2021
Luke Watson, Deputy City Manager
Page 2
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing
element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element
process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that
represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly
available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing
element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes
the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical
Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element
compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill
(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent
Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing
element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding
sources.
HCD appreciates the diligent work Amanda Tropiano and Brandon Rabidou during our
review. We are committed to assisting the City of Temecula in addressing all statutory
requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need
additional technical assistance, please contact Tristan Lanza, of our staff, at
tristan.lanza@hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Enclosure
Senior Program Manager
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1
December 3, 2021
APPENDIX
CITY OF TEMECULA
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with
Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the
supporting section of the Government Code.
Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.
Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance
tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the
Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.
A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress
in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code,
§ 65588 (a) and (b).)
As part of the review of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an
evaluation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the
housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities,
large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing
homelessness).
B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints
1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with
Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in
the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)
The element includes the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) that was prepared in
2017 and is only pertinent until 2022. The analysis must be for the entire planning
period and additional information is necessary to address the requisite affirmatively
furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis requirement, including local contributing factors
to the fair housing issues and develop strong programs and strategies to address the
identified fair housing issues as follows:
Enforcement and Outreach: The element describes past outreach efforts and fair
housing services from the City’s Analysis of Impediments (AI) completed in 2017.
While the element lists the partnership with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside
County, it must also include recent information on fair housing enforcement as well as
local knowledge. Enforcement should include data and evaluation (e.g., characteristics
of complaints) of any past or current fair housing lawsuits, findings, settlements,
judgements, and complaints as well as confirm that the City complies with fair housing
law. The analysis could also evaluate data and the results from any fair housing
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2
December 3, 2021
testing. In addition, the analysis should also include ongoing outreach throughout the
planning period.
Integration and Segregation: While the element utilized data from the City’s 2017 AI,
the element must be updated to include recent data. The regional analysis of race
should include an analysis of concentrations of race in comparison to the surrounding
area, not just as a percentage of the overall population. In addition, the element must
analyze whether families or non-family households are concentrated in certain areas or
spread throughout the City and also include a regional level analysis (comparing the
City to the region). The element must provide a local and regional analysis for race,
disability, familial status, and income.
Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAP): The element includes
information relative to R/ECAP but the analysis must also provide a regional
comparison. In addition, the City should also address concentrated areas of affluence.
The combination of the R/ECAP and areas of affluence analyses will help guide goals
and actions to address fair housing issues. The analysis should evaluate the patterns
and changes over time at a local and regional level. Furthermore, the element does list
one area of high poverty and segregation therefore the City should analyze this
concentration and consider relevant factors such as past policies, practices, and
investments as well as whether or not there is a concentration of subsidized housing
units in that area.
Access to Opportunity: While the element contains some general information on
access to opportunity from its 2017 AI, it must be updated with more recent data and
must include a local and regional analysis in relation to education, economy,
transportation and environmental factors. The analysis should include maps and
descriptions as appropriate. The element must also include a regional analysis
regarding overall access comparing the City to the surrounding region.
Disproportionate Housing Needs: While the element analyzes displacement, it must
also include an analysis of all factors related to disproportionate housing needs to
include the following:
• Cost Burden: The element has some information on cost burden; however the
element must be revised to expand on the local analysis by including overall cost
burden and include a regional analysis.
• Risk of Displacement: While the element stated that there was no displacement risk
due to investment, it is unclear what data was utilized to reach this conclusion. The
element should include an analysis to support the conclusion. In addition, the
element must analyze the risk of displacement due to disaster (i.e. fire, flood
earthquake).
• Overcrowding, substandard housing and homelessness: The element must be
revised to include a local and regional analysis of overcrowding, substandard
housing and homelessness including looking at trends, patterns, and other local
knowledge, and conclude with a summary of issues.
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3
December 3, 2021
Sites Inventory: The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites
identified to meet the RHNA are distributed throughout the community in a manner that
AFFH. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with
respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that
effects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g.,
segregation and integration, access to opportunity). While the element states that sites
identified for lower income are disbursed throughout the City, that information should
be supported with maps and analysis. Also, the element must describe where the
moderate and above moderate sites are located throughout the City. The element
should also discuss whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates
conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program
actions that will be taken to mitigate this (e.g. anti-displacement strategies).
Contributing Factors: While the element contains information on contributing factors, it
must also identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors to fair housing.
Furthermore, the analysis shall result in strategic approaches to inform and connect
goals and actions to mitigate contributing factors to affordable housing.
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or
modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and
actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized
contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful
enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific
commitment, metrics and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility
enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-
based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement
protection. For more information, please see HCD’s guidance at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml#guidance.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including
vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment
during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income
level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to
these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
The City has a regional housing need allocation (RHNA) of 4,193 housing units, of
which 2,160 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies
on vacant sites, including sites in Specific Plan Areas and within the Affordable
Housing Overlay area. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to
accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element must include complete analyses:
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (p. HBR 52, Table 32) that 159
units are either approved or are in the process of being approved of which 132 are
affordable to lower-income households. The element must include additional
information on the status of these units including any remaining entitlement that are
needed prior to approval, and for projects approved, but not yet built, the jurisdiction
must demonstrate the units are expected to be built in the planning period. The
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4
December 3, 2021
element must also include an analysis to demonstrate the affordability of these units
based on actual or projected sales prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms
establishing affordability in the planning period.
Sites Inventory: The element must clarify whether all sites in Appendix A are vacant
and if the unit count includes realistic capacity assumptions. In addition, the unit count
listed in the sites inventory should be the number of units without a decimal, currently
there are sites listed that do not equal one unit per site. The sites inventory should
include the allowed densities for all sites listed in the inventory. The element must also
include a general map of identified sites.
Realistic Capacity: While the element mentions an assumption of 85 percent of
maximum allowable densities to calculate residential capacity on identified sites
(p. HBR 125), it must also provide support for these assumptions. The capacity
methodology must estimate of the number of units for each site based on the land use
controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential
developments at a similar affordability level, and on the current or planned availability
and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. The element must also
provide support for the assumptions within the three specific plans (Old Town,
Harveston and Uptown) including accounting for the likelihood of development of 100
percent nonresidential uses. For example, the element could analyze all development
activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and
adjust residential capacity calculation, policies and program accordingly. The element
should include analysis based on factors such as development trends, performance
standards or other relevant factors.
Zoning Appropriate for Lower-Income: The element should clarify if the Affordable
Housing Overlay which allows up to 30 units per acre applies to these sites. If not, the
element must include an analysis evaluating the appropriateness of zoning to
accommodate housing affordable to lower-income households. The analysis should be
based on factors such as market demand, development experience within zones, and
specifically address the impacts of density on financial feasibility. For communities with
densities that meet specific standards (at least 30 units per acre for Temecula), this
analysis is not required.
Large Sites: Sites larger than ten acres in size are deemed inadequate to
accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of
equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an
equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless
the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to
accommodate lower-income housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) For
example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains
units affordable to lower-income households would be an appropriate site to
accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd.
(c)(2)(C).) In addition, p. HBR 128 states that two of the large sites are City-owned.
The element must identify which sites are owned by the City and include the potential
schedule for development. The element must also include a description of whether
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5
December 3, 2021
there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the
jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section
54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.
Availability of Infrastructure: While the element describes water and sewer
infrastructure capacity (pg. HBR 106), it must also demonstrate sufficient existing or
planned dry utilities, including the availability and access to distribution facilities to
accommodate the City’s RHNA. The element must also clarify that there is sufficient
current or planned water and sewer capacity to meet the RHNA in all specific plans.
Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes environmental
conditions within the City (pg. HBR 111), it must relate those conditions to identified
sites within the inventory and describe any other known environmental or other
constraints that could impact housing development on identified sites in the planning
period.
Accessory Dwelling Units: The element assumes an ADU build out of 18 ADU and/or junior
accessory dwelling unit (JADU) per year based upon the City’s 2020 production. Given that
the City has only produced an average of 6 units per year since 2018, it is not clear if this
production level will be achievable in the planning period. As a result, the element should
be updated to include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include policies and
programs that incentivize the production of ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the element
must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and
implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing
element. In addition to monitoring production, this program should also monitor affordability.
Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within six
months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the
degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and
affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar
would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated
trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: While the element states emergency shelters are allowed by
right in the Medium and High-Density Residential districts, the element must
describe the development standards and requirements. In addition, the element
must also demonstrate the zones have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
identified housing need and analyze the access to services for zones that allow
emergency shelters without conditions. In addition, the element must ensure the
parking requirements meet AB 139.
• Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: The element describes the definition
of transitional and supportive housing (p. HBR 95) but does not state whether the
City complies. Transitional housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a
residential use in all zones allowing residential uses and only subject to those
restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same
zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The element must describe and analyze
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6
December 3, 2021
the City’s transitional and supportive housing standards and codes and
demonstrate consistency with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(5)
or add or revise programs which comply with the statutory requirements.
• Manufactured Housing: The element identifies manufactured homes as suitable
housing in all of its residential zoning districts. However, the housing element must
demonstrate the jurisdiction's zoning code allows and permits manufactured
housing in the same manner and in the same zone as a conventional or stick-built
structures are permitted pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3.
• Agricultural Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the
Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically,
sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six
or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the
same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section
17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds
to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.
• Single Room Occupancy (SRO): The element must clarify zoning that allows SRO
units or add a program as appropriate.
• ADUs: The element must also clarify that ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow
residential uses.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of
housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities
as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls,
building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall
also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the
locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with
Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons
with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters
identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall
be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those
restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use
controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis
should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use
controls including whether development standards impede the ability to achieve
maximum allowable densities. Page HBR 75 lists target densities that are lower than
the maximum density and states “The target density establishes a ceiling within the
range which cannot be exceeded without Planning Commission/City Council approval.”
The element must clarify whether densities assumed in the sites inventory can be met
without City Council approval and analyze whether this is a constraint and add a
program as appropriate. In addition, Table 48 (HBR 80) lists zones that do not include
minimum/maximum densities or Floor Area Ratios for the zones listed. The element
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7
December 3, 2021
must clarify whether residential development is allowed in these zones. In mixed-use
overlay, the element must also clarify if residential development is allowed without a
commercial component.
Parking: The element must analyze the parking requirements (p. HBR 81) of two
spaces for all residential dwelling units for properties with 12 or fewer units for its
impact as a potential constraint on housing. Should the analysis determine the parking
standards are a constraint on residential development, it must include a program to
address or remove any identified constraints.
Fees and Exactions: The element must describe all required fees for single family and
multifamily housing development, including environmental and impact fees, and
analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. In
addition, the element must clarify if all fees listed in Table 54 (HBR 99) are the same
for single family and multifamily developments. For example, the analysis could identify
the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single
family and multifamily housing.
Density Bonus: The City’s current density bonus ordinance should be reviewed for
compliance with current state density bonus law. (Gov. Code, § 65915.) and programs
should be added as appropriate.
Local Ordinances: The element must specifically analyze locally adopted ordinances
such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the
cost and supply or residential development. The analysis should demonstrate local
efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its
share of the regional housing need and from meeting the need for housing for persons
with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.
Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element (p. HBR 104) includes some
information about processing times, it should also describe the procedures for a typical
single family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval
body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and the element should
describe how the standards of decision-making impact development certainty.
Furthermore, the analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and
approval certainty. For example, the element (Table 57) should identify timeframes for
conditional use permits, zoning changes, general plan amendments, site plan review,
architectural/design review, parcel and tract maps, environmental impact reports and
analyze approval findings for impacts on approval certainty, the presence of processes
or guidelines to promote certainty and add or modify programs as appropriate. In
addition, the element must analyze the difference in length of time to approve a single-
family unit (four to six weeks) versus a multifamily unit (a minimum of a year) as a
constraint on development. The element must also describe whether multifamily
projects are required to have a discretionary hearing by City Council due to the size of
the project (greater than 10,000 square feet) (p. HBR 104). Lastly, the element must
address whether projects that are 100 percent affordable will be approved in the
affordable housing overlay or whether they must be mixed-income projects (HBR 120).
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8
December 3, 2021
Specific Plan: The element must describe any process requirements to develop in the
specific plan as well as the process to subdivide lots into developable parcels.
Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe if there are any local
amendments to the building code and their enforcement for impacts on housing supply
and affordability.
Zoning and Fees Transparency: The element must clarify its compliance with new
transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards for each
parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1,
subdivision (a)(1).
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
• Group Homes: The element must analyze and revise requirements for both
group homes for six or fewer residents as well as group homes for seven or
more residents. Group homes for six or fewer residents must be allowed by-right
in all residential zones. While the element conditionally permits the use for
residential care facilities serving seven or more persons in residential and
commercial zones, the element must include the City’s process for objectively
approving the conditional use permit and the description of the compatibility
findings. The element must include the decisions making criteria as an objective
procedure. The element also states it requires the State Fire Marshal’s approval
for group homes of seven or more residents. The element must be revised to
analyze the process as a potential constraint on housing for persons with
disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate to ensure zoning permits
group homes objectively with approval certainty.
• Reasonable Accommodation Procedure: While the element (p. HBR103)
indicates the City does have a reasonable accommodation procedure, it must
list the specific findings and requirements for requesting and granting a
reasonable accommodation separate from the conditional use permit
procedures. The procedure should not be limited to the installation of
accessibility improvements and must provide reasonable accommodations to
zoning and land-use requirements for housing for persons with disabilities.
4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including
the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to
develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by
subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between
receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for
building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s
share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section
65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental
constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of
housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, §
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9
December 3, 2021
65583, subd. (a)(6).)
The element must contain an analysis of potential nongovernmental constraints
including the following:
• Land Costs: Estimate the average cost per acre for single-family and multifamily
zoned developable parcels.
• Availability of Financing: The element must include an analysis of whether housing
financing, including private financing and government assistance programs, is
generally available in the community.
Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include
analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the
length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of
an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s
share of the regional housing need.
5. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including
a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of
households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Farmworker Housing: The element indicates that there are only 228 farmworkers
employed farming occupations in the City. However, farmworkers from the broader
area and those employed seasonally may have housing needs, including within the
City’s boundaries. As a result, the element should at least acknowledge the housing
needs of permanent and seasonal farmworkers at a county-level (e.g., using USDA
county-level farmworker data) and include programs as appropriate.
6. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to nonlow-
income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts,
mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
While the element identifies 180 units for being at risk, the element lists four properties that
are at-risk of expiring within the next 10 years for a total of 256 units. In addition, the
element should describe any outreach to owners and interest in preserving the units
identified. The element must identify local public agencies, public or private nonprofit
corporations, and for-profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire
and manage at-risk projects pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, subdivision
(a)(8)(C)). In addition, the element must list potential federal, state, and local funding
sources that can be used to preserve the units.
While the element analyzes the cost of replacement for units designated high risk, the
element must analyze replacement costs for all units with expiring restrictions in the
next ten years. Furthermore, the analysis should contain the following:
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10
December 3, 2021
• Estimate the costs of producing new rental housing (comparable in size and rent levels
to existing at-risk units) to replace units converting from affordable to market rate. The
analysis should consider current land costs and either current construction costs
(square footage rates for multifamily development) or the actual cost of recently
completed units.
• Estimate the cost of preserving the identified assisted housing developments including
acquisition and rehabilitation costs long-term affordability controls and project-based
rent subsidies.
A project-by-project replacement/preservation cost estimate is not required (Government
Code Section 65583(a)(8)(B)). The element can make an assessment of the appropriate
strategy (replace vs. preserve) based on sample cost estimates.
C. Housing Programs
1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period,
each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs
are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the
planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element
through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of
regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and
state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an
identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the
various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Gov. Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1-6), and
to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s
specific role in implementation; (2) all programs must be revised with discrete timelines
(i.e. month and year); (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification
of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:
• Program 6 (Density Bonus Ordinance): The program must be revised to include
outreach to developers as well as how often the law will be monitored for
updates and potential revisions.
• Program 7 (Land Assemblage and Affordable Housing Development): The
program should be revised to include specific incentives to developers and
include a how often outreach will occur within the planning period.
• Program 10 (Mortgage Credit Certificate Program): The program must update
when the certification program will be implemented.
• Program 12 (Development Fees): The program should be updated to include
outreach to developers and to revise the timeframe to include how often the
program will be implemented within the planning period.
• Program 13 (Expedite Processing of Affordable Housing Projects): The element
must clarify when the objective criteria will be developed and adopted as well as
include proactive outreach to developers.
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 11
December 3, 2021
• Program 19 (Residential Improvement Program): The program must be revised
to include how often the City will apply for funds throughout the planning period.
2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period
with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need
for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the
inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and
to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be
identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types
of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built
housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-
room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis,
therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise
programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:
Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: While the element includes a policy
regarding sites identified for lower income that were listed in previous elements, this
must be revised as a program with a specific timeframe for implementation. If
nonvacant sites identified in a prior adopted housing element or vacant sites identified
in two or more consecutive planning periods, the sites are inadequate to accommodate
housing for lower-income households unless:
• The site’s current zoning is appropriate for the development of housing affordable to
lower-income households by either including analysis or meeting the appropriate
density. See (Gov.Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3)), and
• The site is subject to a housing element program that requires rezoning within three
years of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use by right for
housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to
lower income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).).
Program 1 (Land Use Policy and Development Capacity): This program mentions
utilizing credits for constructed units towards the RHNA. If the units were constructed
before June 30, 2021 they cannot count toward the 6th cycle RHNA. In addition, the
program must include how often the inventory will be monitored and updated.
Program 3 (Public Property Conversion to Housing Program): This program should
include a schedule of actions to facilitate development on City owned sites during the
planning period. For example, the program could include zoning, outreach with
developers, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing, or financial assistance.
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 12
December 3, 2021
Program 14 (Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing): As noted in
Finding B.3, the element describes transitional housing as allowed in the same manner
as emergency shelters, i.e., with a conditional use permit. However, transitional
housing and supportive housing must be permitted as a residential use in all zones
allowing residential uses and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(a)(5).) The element must demonstrate consistency with Section 65583(a)(5) or add or
revise programs which comply with the statutory requirements. In addition, this
program must be implemented early in the planning period.
Housing for Agricultural Employees: As mentioned in finding B3, if the zoning code is
not consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et
seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, the element must include a program
to revise the zoning code.
3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-
income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
Program 8 (Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households): While Program 8
identifies SRO units and efficiency housing units to assist in meeting the needs of
extremely low-income (ELI) households, it does not address the identified needs of
larger ELI households. The element must also confirm whether the identified program
incentives are currently in place or if they need to be adopted within the planning
period.
4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with
disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable
accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with
supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Finding(s) B.4 and B.5, the element requires a complete analysis of
potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results
of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove
or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, the following must be addressed:
Program 9 (Special Needs Housing Construction): The program should be revised to
specifically list which special needs groups are included and what incentives will be
offered to developers.
Program 16 (Zoning Code Amendments – Housing Constraints): This program must be
revised to include permanent supportive housing by-right (AB 2162) as well as the
residential care findings mentioned above in B.4.
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 13
December 3, 2021
Program to Mitigate Nongovernmental Constraints: The element must be revised to
include a program that mitigates nongovernmental constraints that create a gap in the
jurisdictions ability to meet RHNA by income category (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd.
(c)(3).).
5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing
throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion,
sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and
other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and
any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.
(c)(5).)
While the element includes Program 22 (Equal Housing Opportunity), the program
should be revised to commit to annual outreach, enforcement, and education. In
addition, programs throughout the element should be revised to integrate the fair
housing analysis. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics and milestones as
appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices
and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community
preservation and revitalization and displacement protection.
6. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing
developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for
preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent
necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs
identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other
urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may
include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, §
65583, subd. (c)(6).)
Program 17 (Preserve At-Risk Housing Units): The program must be revised to include
specific and proactive actions to preserve the at-risk units in addition to monitoring. In
addition, the element should revise (c) tenant education, to include current State
Preservation Notice Law (Gov. Code 65863.10, 65863.11, 65863.13) which requires
owners to provide tenants and affected public entities (including the City) notices
regarding expiring rental restrictions starting three years before expiration.
7. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units
that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and
Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this
paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling
unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code,
§ 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
While the element includes Program 5 (ADUs), the City should provide specific
incentives to promote the development. In addition, the timeframe should be revised to
Review of the City of Temecula 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 14
December 3, 2021
include how often the City will monitor ADU production, as well as review and update
the ordinance to comply with state law.
D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the
element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(8).)
While appendix C tabulates general comments and goals from public comments, the
element must also include the missing summary of public participation (p. HBR 6). In
addition, the element must include information on whether the housing survey was
available in multiple languages and how public comments were incorporated.
Notice of Public Hearing
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula
PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below:
CASE NO: LR18-1620 APPLICANT: City of Temecula
PROPOSAL: The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living
environment for every Californian as the State’s major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning
programs in the pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a housing element
as part of their comprehensive General Plans.
Cities and counties are required to update their Housing Elements at least every eight years to reflect the community’s
changing needs. This citywide update covers the 2021-2029 planning period, pursuant to the sixth update cycle for
jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The City’s existing General
Plan can accommodate the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as required by the Southern California
Association of Governments and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Changes
to the Housing Element include updated goals and policies in compliance with State law. The proposed update to the
recently adopted Housing Element provides additional clarity, further compliance with State law, and additional
programs/modifications as required by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD).
ENVIRONMENTAL: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local
CEQA Guidelines, staff has reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the
General Plan certified by the City Council on April 12, 2005 (State Clearinghouse No. 2003061041), including the
impacts and mitigation measures identified therein. Staff has also reviewed the Harveston Specific Plan Amendment
Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019070974), Altair Specific Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014111029) and Uptown Temecula Specific Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013061012). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 an
Addendum to the General Plan FEIR has been prepared which concludes that the proposed updates to the General
Plan Housing Element do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed,
disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present to require the
preparation of a subsequent EIR, and no additional environmental review is required.
CASE PLANNER: Brandon Rabidou, (951) 506-5142
PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590, City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: January 19, 2022 TIME OF HEARING: 6:00 PM
The complete agenda packet (including any supplemental materials) will be available for viewing in the Main
Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the
Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City’s website –
TemeculaCA.gov and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. Any writing distributed to a
majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for
public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. –
5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City’s website – TemeculaCA.gov – and will be
available for public review at the meeting.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the Planning Commission shall be filed within time required by, and
controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding
seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the Planning Commission shall
be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to,
the public hearing described in this notice.
Questions? Please call the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400.